October 10th, 2017

Further thoughts on the Harvey Weinstein silence

In my earlier post about Harvey Weinstein, I wrote:

I must admit this story fills me with a feeling of exhaustion. I guess I always assumed that Hollywood was rife with the kind of behavior of which Weinstein is accused, and that everyone—I mean everyone—who goes to Hollywood to make movies is aware of it. That doesn’t make it right, of course. It’s wrong.

My sense of exhaustion has only increased, and so I refer you to others if you want to read in-depth treatments of Weinstein’s behavior and of the reactions—and non-reactions—to it.

I reiterate that whether a person (adult person, that is) who went to Hollywood to be an actress was ignorant or not about Weinstein’s reputation as a particularly offensive and bold sexual harasser, anyone who goes into that field has to have heard of the casting couch. And anyone with the slightest sense should have thought about what her response would be in such a situation with a powerful man who could make or break her career, including whether or not to tell the world if and when such propositions were made to her.

Some people will decide to sleep with such a person. Some will decide to refuse and resist. And some will decide the world needs to know.

The latter type are the bravest, I believe (if they are telling the truth; false accusations are another thing entirely). And one thing I learned long long ago is that not everyone is brave, and/or that people are brave to different degrees. In addition, there are different types of bravery. There is physical courage and emotional courage and moral courage, and courage in private life vs. public life, and they’re not all the same thing nor are they possessed to the same degree by the same person.

All of that is a lead-in to the fact that I am not surprised that few if any people spoke up about Weinstein. My own experiences in courageous speaking-up about those in power have mostly been in academia and involved matters other than sexual harassment. I’ve been in the “speaking up” position several times even though I don’t think of myself as a courageous person and I believe I’m correct on that score rather than modest. Why have I spoken up several times in academic settings (to criticize certain professors, particularly when I was in graduate school)? In my case, for whatever reason, the possible repercussions didn’t bother me at all—in part because my record in various schools had given me a certain amount of academic confidence, and in part because I wasn’t at all certain I wanted to go into the field for which I was then training.

So for me, although the stakes may have seemed high—for example, other students would often come up to me after I spoke and say they agreed with me, but they refused to go public, citing fear of bad grades or bad recommendations—I didn’t personally regard the stakes as all that high. That definitely helped me to have courage. I like to think I would have done the same even if I felt I was taking a greater risk, but who knows? And for the actresses who were the recipients of the unwanted advances of Harvey Weinstein, they probably kept their mouths shut about what he’d done because to speak out publicly probably would have meant their careers would have taken a nosedive. At least, that was almost certainly their calculation, whether they admit it or not.

I’m not excusing Weinstein’s behavior. I’m just wondering why anyone is surprised at the previous silence from the actresses. There’s also the political overlay (he was a big Democratic mover and shaker), but for most people I think what usually stops them from speaking out is the fear of negative personal repercussions, in this case career repercussions. For reporters who knew and kept silent, however, the political was probably in the forefront of their motives for keeping quiet. After all, aren’t reporters supposedly intrepid truth-tellers, in the business of “speaking truth to power,” afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted?

[NOTE: This entire post assumes that the charges against Weinstein are true. That does not mean that all his accusers are telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. However, in the case of Weinstein, there’s so much smoke that it’s highly probable that there was a great deal of fire.]

75 Responses to “Further thoughts on the Harvey Weinstein silence”

  1. T Says:

    Neo,

    You write: “Some people will decide to sleep with such a person. Some will decide to refuse and resist. And some will decide the world needs to know. The latter type are the bravest . . . .”

    Let me take issue with (or clarify, perhaps) that statement. Even when the advances are unwanted, IMO a person has only a binary choice: To speak up immediately and stop the advances if possible, (exiting the situation is the ultimate rejection) or to decide to shut up and go along, to acquiesce, even if begrudgingly.

    Those who acquiesce and then speak publicly, IMO, are hardly brave, but prove themselves to be the same kind of opportunist as slugs like Weinstein, himself; i.e., they’ll allow it to happen with no, or token resistance to avoid jeopardizing their career and then later, after achieving some form of credibility or notoriety, i.e. some power for themselves, “fess up” about what it took to achieve that.

    A timely quote was posted by John Tierney @ 12:16 over at Instapundit:

    In the absence of personal risk, haranguing the powerful can be soul-satisfying, and sometimes it forges careers, but it isn’t brave by a long shot. Thomas More spoke truth to Henry VIII, and it cost him his head. Dietrich Bonheoffer spoke truth to Adolf Hitler and was hanged in a concentration camp. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn spoke truth to the Soviet Union and suffered grievously for it. Stephen Colbert piddled on the president’s rug, and he’s been cashing big-bucks checks ever since. See the difference?

    The link to the full article (author is Bob McManus):

    https://www.city-journal.org/html/weinstein-silence-15484.html

  2. neo-neocon Says:

    T:

    As far as I know, none of the women speaking up so far acquiesced. So I’m not aware of the set of Weinstein accusers who said they acquiesced. They all said no. That’s what’ I’m referring to. Of course, perhaps there is someone I haven’t heard about yet.

    Of course, if the situation is that a woman is trapped in a hallway and can’t get past because it’s narrow and Weinstein is blocking the way, and he’s exposing himself and/or masturbating in front of her (as at least one woman has alleged), I suppose someone might call that “acquiescing.” I don’t call it that.

    In addition, when I spoke of deciding the world needs to know, I was not talking about accusers many years after the fact. I was talking about accusers close in time to the offense. I didn’t make that clear, perhaps, but I thought it was clear I was talking about fairly immediate reactions, not much-delayed ones.

  3. Griffin Says:

    To sort of defend some of these Hollywood types I’m not sure what they were supposed to do if they had only ‘heard talk’ about Weinstein. If you have no direct knowledge you can’t be making a bunch of public accusations unless you really like living dangerously career wise. Now if you are a big time star like Clooney or Pitt you could try and make change behind the scenes but that is dangerous also because then a power player like Weinstein can crush in any number of ways without anybody knowing.

    It’s easy to say what people should have done but a lot of times it’s not so clear in the moment especially if these are not actually happening to you. Rumors and gossip and agendas run rampant in industries like this.

  4. miklos000rosza Says:

    So many of the judgments of talent or worth are so arbitrary — and known to be arbitrary, whimsical, capricious — that what may seem to be good luck or bad luck in the course of someone’s career has a behind-the-scenes tawdry element of influence exerted plus or minus which soon becomes buried and more or less forgotten if the one momentarily elevated by this hard-earned good fortune turns out to be “loved” by the public or critics when finally exhibited.

    No one ever wants to see how the tasty sausages are made. For one thing, because there are so many arbitrary yet crucial decisions made Here, Here, and Here.

  5. carl in atlanta Says:

    One of my former partners (now deceased) grew up in an agricultural setting and called what’s happening with Harvey Weinstein “the Barnyard Syndrome”.

    It’s that aspect of human nature that’s always on the lookout for a sign of weakness in, or injury to, a higher-status member of the group: The flock of chickens in the barnyard will sometimes notice an alpha rooster (or hen) in the pecking order out there in the barnyard limping along with some kind of illness or injury. Pretty soon one of the chickens will come up to the weakened bird and give it a vicious peck. A little while later another chicken will do the same. Then two or three will attack together. Eventually, a “pecking frenzy” occurs with the entire flock joining in and the weakened bird is pecked to death.

    The Harvey Weinstein story has been following that pattern to a “T”. A few prior victims give the story to the NYT. Within the last few days he’s been fired by his board of directors (of the company he founded) and now that that has happened the entire ‘barnyard’ has zeroed in on him: Gwyneth Paltrow, Meryl Streep, Glenn Close, John Oliver, Kate Winslet, Angelina Jolie and many more Hollywood types. And just a few minutes ago even Hillary gave him a good strong Peck!

    He’s probably a goner.

  6. neo-neocon Says:

    Griffin:

    Nothing I said is meant to refer to anyone who just had “heard talk” about it. You don’t go forward with gossip. I’m referring to those to whom it happened personally.

  7. Griffin Says:

    Neo,

    Yeah I know you didn’t I was more referring to the story that is going around that ‘everybody knew’ which I call BS on. People can’t just go around making serious accusations without some concrete evidence.

  8. Richard Saunders Says:

    Griffin – As someone who has lived and worked in “Hollywood” for a long time, I can tell you that everybody did know about Weinstein (and Cosby, and others’) actions. Weinstein is more piggish than most, but piggishness at some level is almost universal in the industry — that’s one of the reasons men become producers, directors, agents, and studio executives — to get sex. As Henry Kissinger, Donald Trump, and Henry VIII know well, “power is the best aphrodisiac.”

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the industry should be run this way. It’s legally and morally repugnant. But it is run this way. The expectation of sex for advancement is so well known there are jokes about it.

    If you don’t want to be in combat, don’t join the military; if you don’t want to be hit by a train, don’t drive through a railroad crossing when the lights are flashing, the bells are ringing, and the gates are closing; and if you don’t want to be put in a situation where your career depends on having sex with a pig, don’t go into the entertainment industry.

    And puh-leeze, puh-leeze, don’t go around saying that you’re “Shocked, Shocked!” to hear that this stuff goes on.

  9. Ann Says:

    A quote from Marilyn Monroe’s memoir in “Hollywood’s long ugly history with sexual harassment”:

    “I met them all. Phoniness and failure were all over them. Some were vicious and crooked. But they were as near to the movies as you could get. So you sat with them, listening to their lies and schemes. And you saw Hollywood with their eyes — an overcrowded brothel, a merry-go-round with beds for horses.”

  10. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    So the same people who are ready to crucify a college student sans trial, solely upon the word of an accuser give no weight to serial rumors of sexual harassment and assault? In 2012, Meryl Streep is on record calling Weinstein “a God”.

    On a related note, this article offers the most plausible explanation I’ve yet read for why the NYT stopped protecting a major democrat donor and ratted him out;
    “Why did the New York Times go after Harvey Weinstein, one of its own?”

    “Rabbi Aryeh Spero, a regular AT contributor, has a different perspective and emailed me:

    My opinion: He was no longer truly one of their own. At the annual Algemeiner Dinner in NYC, Weinstein openly praised the Israelis and how they are willing to fight. He said he loves Israel…and admires how the Israelis use weapons to protect themselves. He contrasted the Israelis with the misfortune of the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto who did not, unfortunately, he said, have guns. Indeed, he announced, as he had a few months previously, that he was in the midst of preparing and making a movie about the Warsaw Ghetto. He loved fighting Jews, he said.”

    So Weinstein supported Israel and supported the use of guns?

    As for the NYT, this emerged today: “WATCH: New O’Keefe Video Busts James Comey’s ‘Godson,’ Video Editor at New York Times”

    “Nicholas Dudich, Audience Strategy Editor for the Times’ extensive video library speaks candidly about how his left[ist] political bias influences his editorial judgement and reveals an unusual connection to former FBI Director James Comey, and a strange association with domestic terror group Antifa.”

    The rot goes all the way down to the bottom. At what point does the 1st amendment become an unacceptable cover for sedition?

  11. parker Says:

    Stupid me, I thought everyone knew Hollywood was corrupted by sexual predators and narcissistic millionaire/billionaires.

  12. Griffin Says:

    Richard Saunders,

    Again, I have no doubt that many people had heard about this with Weinstein but they didn’t have any proof. Just hearing about something is just gossip.

  13. Lizzy Says:

    T – Read the Ronan Farrow article. He interviewed several women who were assaulted and/or acquiesced.

    I completely agree that this behavior should not surprise anyone. After reading Farrow’s article one gets a better idea of how Harvey had a system where he would pretend to be meeting for business and then (a lot of times with assistance from others) re-arrange things so that the starlet was lured into a sense of safety, circumstances arose requiring them to go to his hotel room and then -boom!- they were suddenly faced with a naked Harvey, simultaneously negotiating and humiliating them into giving in. One victim even said he got off on the shock, the physical overpowering, the fear he had over them from that point forward, whether they gave in or rebuffed him.

    A lot of these women thought they were savvy enough to outsmart a pervey player; Weinstein got pleasure out of proving them wrong. I can have sympathy for the victims despite knowing that this is common in Hollywood.

  14. steve walsh Says:

    Weinstein had nearly unlimited power to make or break the careers of many of these people. I am unwilling to judge their inability to refuse him (in the case of his victims) and call him out publicly.

    What I am willing to do is call BS on Meryl Streep and Lena Dunham. They are cowards of the worst kind. They speak up and speak out after the facts are revealed – at no risk to themselves and for the sole purpose of propping up and elevating their status. Pathetic.

    The Clintons, Obamas, and political types that knew are also deserving of shame and repudiation – they benefited, and profited from conspiring with Weinstein to keep this quiet. Disgusting.

  15. JackReno Says:

    Well it seems that Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie have come forward saying “harrassment” — but all this harrassment talk may just mask the fact that they did indeed, along with Judi Dench, sleep with the toad.

    I think “harassment” in this case in often code for “Yes, we screwed the reptile to get ahead. Wouldn’t you?”

    Anything else is just a cover-up for the degradation men and women in Hollywood are willing to enact for all the glittering prizes.

    And, oh yes, don’t even get me started on David Geffen and his underaged boys he’s been buffing for decades as head of the Hollywood Gay Mafia.

  16. matthew49 Says:

    He paid off everyone, including the NY DA. The DA was probably the cheapest of all, at $10,000.

  17. JackReno Says:

    Heres a long WaPo article with a bunch of actresses quoted who all CLAIM to have fended him off. So curious that with some many letting themselves be backed into a corner by the naked toad and yet ESCAPED with their virtue intact.

    A long list of LIARS

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2017/10/10/more-than-a-dozen-women-have-publicly-accused-harvey-weinstein-of-sexual-misconduct/?utm_term=.059098be3b22

  18. JackReno Says:

    Heres a long WaPo article with a bunch of actresses quoted who all CLAIM to have fended him off. So curious that with some many letting themselves be backed into a corner by the naked toad and yet ESCAPED with their virtue intact.

    A long list of LIARS

    Harvey Weinstein allegations: Gwyneth Paltrow and Angelina Jolie join the list of accusers – The Washington Post

  19. Molly NH Says:

    Rosanna Arquette says her career took a hit when she refused to co operate. This is a bit of an explanation of how some actors/ actresses whose work we enjoyed yet they manage to fall off the radar screen and are not seen in further roles. Another version of Pay to play, huh? As we all heard today Hillary was disgusted and appalled.

  20. miklos000rosza Says:

    What happened to Jane Greer, who starred so memorably with Robert Mitchum and Kirk Douglas in OUT OF THE PAST (my favorite film noir of all time)? She didn’t want to screw Howard Hughes. He owned her contract, so he put her career in the deepfreeze from then on.

  21. parker Says:

    As in Hollywood same as in DC. Corruption and debauchery same as it ever was. We are fragile, arrogant, and weak. We are altruistic, humble, and strong. Same as it ever was. There is nothing new under the sun.

  22. neo-neocon Says:

    Lizzy:

    The Farrow article is behind a paywall for me (I seem to have already read my allotted number of New Yorker articles for the month). But just now I read a summary of the claims in it, here.

    I wouldn’t say that any of those women who ended up giving in actually voluntarily acquiesced. They were physically and forcefully intimidated by a large and powerful man in a way that I believe could sustain a charge of sexual assault—not necessarily rape, though, although in certain cases depending on the definition of rape in the state involved, that could apply as well.

    Weinstein would actually be going to prison, IMHO—except for the fact that the most egregious, rape-like assault cases all seem to have occurred over 10 years ago (10 years is the statute of limitations for rape in California, where I’m assuming they happened, although that might not be the case). Also there’s the question of proving such charges. That’s always the problem in a case where a woman isn’t beaten; it’s her word versus his.

    If the bulk of these charges are true—and I think they most likely are—this guy was creative and he was clever in his assaults. I think the best chance anyone would have to send him to prison at this point would be to get one of his aides/associates to inform on him.

    One thing that impresses me about these women’s stories as a whole is that they all follow a pattern but they all have quite different details. They aren’t just copying each others’ stories.

  23. CW Says:

    The problem I have with the failure of so many (virtually all) in Hollywood to show some principle with respect to Harvey Weinstein is that these are the very same people who are so vocally self-righteous about everything and everyone else. They gratuitously use the occasions of their abundant awards shows to vent their opinions on everything and to show us commoners at home how superior their consciences are, all while a friendly studio audience wildly applauds and validates their high opinions of themselves. They didn’t just decline to tell on Weinstein. They socialized with him, made movies (and money) with him, smiled for the cameras with him…even after many of them were wealthy and established enough in their careers to write their ticket without him. The Left uses the sexual harassment transgression as a powerful weapon and signature issue, but then fails to hold one of their own to account in any meaningful way because it might cost them something. It shows how carefully selective they are in their sanctimony. That’s why it’s a big deal that they kept quiet.

  24. neo-neocon Says:

    JackReno:

    I have no problem believing some fended him off and some didn’t. The details of each story are different—how much opportunity he had to be alone in a room with them, for example, and how physically forceful he got. Some had an avenue of escape. Some didn’t have an obvious one. He got more forceful physically with some than with others. With some, he may have felt more need to have them do his bidding. With others, maybe he was just doing it out of force of habit, or just because he could, and may not have cared as much whether they cooperated or not. There was always another one he could try his “charms” on.

  25. Dave Says:

    At least Bill Clinton and Trump were handsome, don’t know how would women judge his attractiveness but gee to this man is disgustingly ugly, still slightly better looking than Michael Moore though.

  26. Dave Says:

    Maybe he was handsome though in his younger days before he gained 200 pounds, I tried to search for pictures of him as a young man but couldn’t find any.

  27. neo-neocon Says:

    Dave:

    Maybe he never was young. Maybe Weinstein is kind of the opposite of The Picture of Dorian Gray.

  28. Dave Says:

    Neo:

    can you please delete my previous two messages? I feel ashamed for making fun of someone’s appearance, feels adolescent and amateurish, like those hysterical left making fun of Trump’s hair or orange spray tan.

  29. CapnRusty Says:

    I think we will see the same reaction to Hollywood as the reaction we are seeing to the NFL. People now have many choices as to where they can spend their entertainment dollars, and a lot of us won’t spend the money if it benefits people with such low character.

  30. Artfldgr Says:

    reiterate that whether a person (adult person, that is) who went to Hollywood to be an actress was ignorant or not about Weinstein’s reputation as a particularly offensive and bold sexual harasser, anyone who goes into that field has to have heard of the casting couch. And anyone with the slightest sense should have thought about what her response would be in such a situation with a powerful man who could make or break her career………………………..

    ====================================

    yeah, but that means women would be responsible for themselves, and not be victims… being victims is a lot more profitable and powerful, allowing you to crush everything, some things fast (who would risk an accusation was a lie?), or slow over time slicing the salami

    You can say the same thing about a marriage contract
    You can say the same thing about their choices in relationships
    Similar on taking courses for a lot of state money and being unemployable…
    Or on how having sex with 200 men before your 24 changes you
    or or or or..

    Whats the point? its just a bunch of crabs and pigs pissing in a circle to see what gold they can make the machine spit out. With the difference in the times being mostly about responsibility, and the kind of programming the public has that you can exploit that has changed since the revolution

    for the most part this revolution has been built on the back of promising women that if they abandon their family, the state will be the new husband and provide (Julia), and one of these provisions i the superpower of victim hood whose reach is timeless (you know men oppressed women before we were human? no? read about it)… can accept hearsay as fact and admissible… and even if you win, you lose – just so long as you pick the right target… oh, and reality doesn’t matter IF you can get enough others to join you – cause mass lying has never happened ever.

    ====================================

    beyond that crap, no one knows much of anything… because to say what some say, and i wont point who, requires certain assumptions. and the whole reality of it is a mash up mix of all of them and none of them (talking as someone on the inside)..

    and all these men and women are finding out why in the past, we required seconds and others to be with us to watch over us and make sure we didnt stray… on dates… elsewhere…

    Chaperones.. duh..
    they existed because our past people were smarter than the modern people who due to the problem not being evident cause chaperones were effective among the people with the most to lose, that they thought it was just oppressive and had no good reason.

    well.. ask Harvey, ask Cosby, ask any lady who no one believes nothing happened too.
    from honest people wronged to dishonest people rewarded

    what do you expect happens when you dismantle these things that evolved in our cultures to mediate these things, to remove them as oppressive because you either dont want to understand why, or couldn’t understand, or just refused to so that you could get what was wanted… regardless…

    the post modern feminist revolution which is the dominant changer, declared they were doing away with these things, and explained that what they were was a plot by men against women to keep them down and not let them be and do and so on.

    really? from what i see here we all live in a minefield in which the outcomes of our lives sometimes rest on the honesty and lack of greed in other people from taking advantage due to our abandoning the common sense things that in the past prevented it.

    this is exhausting because its a war of beliefs, not a war over any facts
    there arent any… there is ONLY hearsay and then what?

    without evidence and all that, nothing will be real except for what the most average dominant biology listening all will agree the same way.. with the 2nd less large group of other believers arguing behind them and so on… till someone is arguing something that is not even wrong, or included Austrians with small mustaches and apply another arbitrary self serving rule.

    ====================================

    but here is the WORST of it that these dunderheads dont get… what are they doing to their own business and their own lives and reputations across the board in reality? oh, now, are we really saying that only a girl who has sex with a producer gets the job? how depressing… really really depressing for the hundreds who work their arses off trying really hard to perfect their craft to find out that you have to be a deviate or a sociopath to get ahead… nice. but would you believe it depends on who you end up with and what path you take and there are wholly other paths that have none of that and do none of that, and are now very upset that no one will believe that?

    sad all around… nothing good comes of it
    not one good thing will come from it
    Though they will claim the same old liturgical list of womens benefits and reasons for it on top of the point of some odd search for justice denied and almost forgotten till the bandwagon stopped by and a crowd gathered.

    the liturgical mass of the victim revenge will start soon

    pull up a chair.. because nothing will mean anything, people will be pulled around like taffy, and everything that will be said and done will follow a formula for such things that cant be proven but cant be ignored either. (and hopefully one side will get more social type laws passed that wont work, but help agendas)

  31. Artfldgr Says:

    From the slightest burp (social ruin if it was heard) to how a gentleman spoke to a young lady, Victorian society was greatly concerned with every aspect of daily life. From the moment the upper class left their beds, their days were governed by do’s and don’ts

    The horror of social ostracism was paramount. To be caught in the wrong fashion at the wrong time of day was as greatly to be feared as addressing a member of society by the wrong title.

    It was important to know whom you could speak with – especially if you hadn’t been properly introduced. For a woman, being asked to dance by a complete stranger could pose an etiquette problem which might have repercussions for days.

    Young ladies were constantly chaperoned. To be found alone with a gentleman who was other than family was tantamount to social death. Her reputation would be ruined and her gentleman companion would find himself the object of gossip, and most usually derision.

    its like watching victorians thrust forward in time to modern women who are victorian…but dont get they are
    however, the social meliue has lost its protections, so the victorians are going nutters with all the behaviors that are wrong
    not like victorianism is pc, is it? (funny when it repeats like a burp)

    if Harvy and Cosby just followed those outdated rules nothing could happen
    (you know, many people still follow them in some ways)

    but just look
    Gentlemen had to keep track of when it was proper to either smoke or have a glass of sherry in front of ladies.
    [no mansplaining, no manspreading… you think the above rules were made by men?)

    Keeping track of what other people in your social class were doing was also a full-time occupation.
    (as it is today)

    Victorian society did not recognize that there was a lower class.
    [and neither do we now they are all oppressed]

    Being just too busy trying to survive, etiquette played little part in the poor’s daily existence.
    the revolution was returning us to that state or did we not realize most of society was gentlemanly and lady like till….

    A single woman never addressed a gentleman without an introduction.
    A single woman never walked out alone. Her chaperone had to be older and preferably married.

    Proper women never rode alone in a closed carriage with a man who wasn’t a relative.
    [sounds like Islam, no? the feminists are not against Islam, no?)

    She couldn’t receive a man at home if she was alone. Another family member had to be present in the room

    No impure conversations were held in front of single women

    No sexual contact was allowed before marriage. Innocence was demanded by men from girls in his class, and most especially from his future wife. (the same in reverse too, but the new books dont mention that, like Zinn in hisotry dont mention a lot)

    Etiquette manuals instructed gentlemen that they should attend to the ladies present, at all cost, putting aside their own needs, and acting as servants, guides, or even waiters, if necessary (now what?)

    It is the duty of the gentlemen to be ever attentive to the ladies. If it be a picnic, the gentlemen will carry the luncheon, erect the swings, construct the tables, bring the water, and provide the fuel for boiling tea.” (cause she is oppressed!!!!)

    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

    yes i picked and such, but the point was showing that modern feminist pc is just the same old female authoritarianism of the victorian and other eras… and the changing of these rules and such, not only leave us vulnerable, but not just the first way you think. rich honest men are vulnerable… as are rich honest women… dirty men are able to act easy now… as are dirty women.. so its a mish mosh of misery without any way to avoid the dance in the minefeild…

    Did Harvey do it? who knows
    did the women lie? who knows
    did some tell the truth? who knows
    what truth did some tell? who knows
    is there a casting couch? who knows
    who used it? who knows? who knows
    who would never use it on either side? who knows

    heck… you cant even tape your life and save the meetings forever because that might violate certain laws against recording others
    so all you can do is go tap dancing in a minefield with other people tap dancing in a minefield, with some of them ok, some of them explosive, and some of them ok till they become explosive when opportunity knocks. and the public that is watching, is ignorant, biggoted, knows what they dont experience, listens to contradictions, and mostly care about this kabuki play about others they never met and cant meet if they wanted to, cause why?

    all i know is its a living with a lot of $$$ to be the crazies the public think are normal and want to copy!!!
    cue up the Amy Winehouse reprisal career move (post death)…

  32. Matt_SE Says:

    I would guess that nobody on the right is surprised by the Weinstein situation, but we’ve been the targets of so much leftist moral preening and bullying over the years, the opportunity to beat them into submission with this scandal is too good to pass up.

    Just think of how many months of peace and quiet from Hollywood sanctimony this will buy us. This is what culture war looks like.

  33. Molly NH Says:

    Ya Matt hoping they spare us the gun preaching, all their movies are rife with gratuitous gun violence. It s meant as entertainment. Not to be emulated by the unwashed masses. No No No , we will glorify gun murd3rs for you, you must not do this on your own, especially if you have a tendency to mental instability, and you know who you are…. Stephen Paddock, Adam Lanza, Ft Hood shooter, Virginia Tech Shooter.
    And now grade school kids want to take a knee. But no one ever imitates what they see just dosen t happen.

  34. Molly NH Says:

    Miklos must check that movie out, Hughes he was a special kind of creep, I read that in his waning days he refused hair cuts and finger nail clipping, must have been a lovely sight,

  35. Richard Saunders Says:

    Griffin — it’s not necessary to have proof that would be admissible in court to base your actions on. Do you need to see an accident to know not to cross the street against the light? A starlet doesn’t need to see Harvey’s sexual proclivities in flagrante delicto to know what she may have to do to get ahead.

  36. Griffin Says:

    Hughes was never the same after several bad plane crashes. Suffered some pretty severe concussions that apparently greatly changed his personality and led to his sad, pathetic death. Was a brilliant, charismatic man by most accounts in his youth.

  37. Griffin Says:

    Richard Saunders,

    Yes, absolutely for personal interactions but I was more referring to public comments. If ‘everybody’ knew then the ethical thing to do would be to refuse to work with Weinstein and make it clear why and live with the consequences.

    Now that would have been courageous.

  38. Richard Saunders Says:

    Griffin — ethics? Hollywood? Surely, you jest!

  39. Stephen Ippolito Says:

    It’s not often that I disagree with you, but I do on one point here, Neo.

    My experience is that physical and moral courage almost always go together in that a physical coward is usually a moral coward, and vice versa; whilst the physically brave are almost always morally courageous as well, and vice versa.

    Your point that we should find these revelations all a bit tiring and to be expected is well taken, though.

    My suspicion is that we on the right aren’t really surprised or even interested that a sleazy member of a sleazy industry embraced one of the oldest, best known and sleaziest traditions of Hollywood in the form of the casting couch method of “auditioning” young actresses.

    No. A large part of the reason we are conservatives is that we possess something called “perspective”. Perspective allows us conservatives to see that Weinstein’s actions are not sui generis at all but were just to be expected.

    What does sustain the interest of we on the right in all this is the sheer poetic justice of it all as progressive movement is hoist on its own petard.

    The spectacle of all this is just so delicious it has to be fattening.

    We are not tired as we should be because we enjoy what this spectacle is all about. The same people by and large who wrote, screened and applauded as brave and ever-so-important the SNL skit attacking Ivanka as “complicit” in her father’s un-particularised but Hitlerian evils by dint of refraining from denouncing him publicly after his election – must now justify their own failures to denounce an actual life and career-ruining sleaze or else stand condemned by their silence as….yes, you guessed it: complicit in what they purport to condemn;

    We on the right stand enthralled as we watch the same moral preeners and virtue-signalling poseurs who so loudly condemn Trump’s vulgar locker room “boys talk” as such an existential threat to the welfare of women that it required all woke women to march against “sexism” in cities across the US as early as the president’s inauguration day now forced to justify not just their silence in the face of Weinstein’s far more pernicious behavior, but in many cases their personal praise of this wretch over many years as a god-like moral exemplar: (I’m looking at you Meryl Streep), or else stand condemned as….yes: complicit in what they purport to condemn.

    If these leftists just had enough personal integrity and empathy for others to be inclined to weep at their foolishness and the costs in careers and dreams ruined that Weinstein inflicted on his victims I would indeed enjoy supping on their tears but since they do not I will have to be content enjoying their attempts to justify, or hide, their hypocrisies.

  40. neo-neocon Says:

    Stephen Ippolitoz;

    It may be that physical and moral courage go together more often in men than in women. Although I suppose it depends what you mean by physical courage. In women, their lack of muscular and upper body strength means for the most part that they are at a huge disadvantage in physical battles. And even for men, the two traits do not necessarily go together. For example, I will never voluntarily go sky-diving. I don’t like amusement park rides. Even the idea of downhill skiing makes me nervous. These are all acts of physical courage, to my way of thinking. And yet the people who like them and dive into them (speaking of which, there’s diving: I will never do it!) are not exemplars of moral courage, and in fact are no more likely to be morally courageous than someone who shies away from them.

  41. Stephen Ippolito Says:

    Neo,

    All good points and well made. As usual.

    I think those people are right who say that courage consists not in the absence of fear but in going ahead anyway – despite the fear.

    There is nothing at all brave in doing something that one does not actually fear, regardless of how others might feel about the action.

    A qualifying point to the definition of fear as forging ahead despite one’s fear, that is usually left unstated but is essential, is that there must be some greater end to be achieved in going ahead.

    If there is not, then there is no point or sense or shame or cowardice in not proceeding.

    Snakes and heights terrify me. I once saw a snake in the wild and felt fear and revulsion and turned away without feeling ashamed or cowardly as I had absolutely no reason to walk towards it.

    However, had the snake been attacking someone when I saw it then I really ought to have been ready to move towards it to intervene to help someone but fortunately for me I was not so tested.

    I have, on the other hand, forced myself to jump from planes as part of my long-ago army service. I did so only because it was necessary in order to serve a greater good – being to obtain a new skill set and make myself a better and more useful officer. My innate fear of falling did not of itself mark me or anyone else as a coward – but letting it stop me, given that I had a good reason to proceed ahead, would certainly have done so.

    So, unless someone else was counting on you to ski to their rescue or was counting on you to master the art of ferris-wheel riding then you need not feel guilty, Neo.

    This subject of bravery is currently to the fore here in Australia as part of the continuing fallout from the long ago Lindt cafe siege in Sydney.

    Well-meaning officials, including our last Prime Minister, have ventured that the hostages deserve bravery awards but other, wiser people, dissent, pointing out that simply being taken hostage and/or escaping from captivity are not of themselves acts of bravery. Bravery surely requires self-sacrifice (of body or career) in furtherance of another’s safety or of some principle – or it is not bravery at all, no?.

  42. Stephen Ippolito Says:

    I’ve been wondering for years at what ever happened to Rose McGowan’s career and why it went off the rails.

    I guess the question has now been answered.

    Am I alone in thinking her quite a brave and principled young woman? I may even join “twitter” just to follow her.

    As for the rest of Hollywood’s actresses, the young and not so much, who would have guessed that so many graduated from the Claud Rains-Inspector Renault Academy of Dramatic Arts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME

  43. AesopFan Says:

    Richard Saunders Says:
    October 10th, 2017 at 4:45 pm

    And puh-leeze, puh-leeze, don’t go around saying that you’re “Shocked, Shocked!” to hear that this stuff goes on.
    * *
    Hollywood doesn’t have a monopoly on the practice.

    We hiss at the ‘Wood’s casting couch;
    but Broadway, as well, is no slouch.
    If one must get ahead
    in the trade: get in bed
    with whoever you can, and don’t grouch.

    As a side note, my drama director in college spent some time on the stage and tv (a soap, IIRC, he was a good-lookin’ dude even in his 50s when I knew him) before moving to the saner (ahem) realm of academia.
    He told the story of being in a play that was so bad, the lead actress was heard to inquire who she had to sleep with to get out of the show.

  44. J.J. Says:

    Sleeping with producers to advance one’s career has long been a staple of the Hollywood narrative. In the last thirty years or so, it has not been mentioned much. Probably because of the burgeoning of the women’s rights movement. Some, (like me) may have even assumed it was a thing of the past. Apparently not.

    Who else in Hollywood is demanding sex for promised success? Is Harvey a one-off or are there others? Is he a sacrificial lamb? Is the left going after one of its own to detract attention from others? Or will this be the beginning of a campaign to find and help women to come after Trump? Are they establishing a narrative that powerful men are sexual harassers, but can be called to account? Just musing as to what might really be going on. Maybe I’m too conspiracy minded.

  45. Frog Says:

    This is all about the Left in full uniform, on full display: Pile On.
    But the preening is good for the rest of us. Hollywood AND the NFL can go down the financial tubes together. Turn ’em off, leave ’em off.

  46. Dave Says:

    What if this is trap set up by the left to get trump? You now have all the conservatives fiercely condemning Weinstein’s behaviors in public, what if they have evidence of trump committing the same crimes? they are just sacrificing one of their own to lurk all conservatives into this trap that once the left releases this evidence of trump mistreating women they will be cornered in a situation that either they condemn the president of face the consequences of being a hypocrite. tbh given the president’s colourful history with women, it’s hard for me to imagine that out of the millions encounters he had with all sorts of women the left can’t artificially find a few that can be call into question to try to nail the president with sexual harassment or even worse. The billy bush comment doesn’t help

  47. Caedmon Says:

    Wow, a crowded and interesting thread.

    I’d just like to add that it is easy to forget that speaking up requires two parties: one to speak, and one to listen.

    So it’s not so much a question why didn’t anyone speak up before, and more, why are we all listening now?

  48. Lizzy Says:

    “”I wouldn’t say that any of those women who ended up giving in actually voluntarily acquiesced.”

    Neo, I completely agree. My point was that this was *not* what people think of as transnational sex. This was rape and emotional abuse.

    If you get a chance, do read the detailed accounts from Farrow’s article. Weinstein had his dance down pat, not unlike a man who physically abuses his wife/girlfriend yet convinces her it’s her fault. He was pushing emotional buttons, making these women feel guilty and somehow responsible as well as ashamed. He also got off on the fear, making sure they all knew he could crush them with all of his connections if he wanted to.

    Asia Argento’s account is so devastating because after the initial rape she was so “broken” that she slept with Weinstein occasionally for years after. Even the women who rebuffed him were so ashamed of themselves for being tricked and manipulated by Harvey, and so fearful of retribution, that they just shut out the experience and moved on, whether in Hollywood or by leaving it.

  49. Lizzy Says:

    Ugh – “transactional” not transnational.

  50. steve walsh Says:

    Dave: I suspect that if the anti-Trump crowd had evidence Trump behaved at all like Weinstein they would have shared it by now. I mean, they’ve gone so far as to manufacture stuff (the Dossier, Russian collusion) they certainly would have published real evidence if they had it.

  51. Lizzy Says:

    If this was set up to get Trump, then they are failing miserably. All of the Hollywood people equating Weinstein to Trump, after a year plus of demonizing Trump as a sexual predator, are rightfully being interpreted as admittingHollywood is no better than that monster, Trump! We had a Trump in our midst and did nothing about it for decades..

  52. Dave Says:

    one of the biggest knocks on Trump among Conservatives was his history of being a notorious playboy and womanizer, it was the reason many conservatives refused to vote for him and calling him not a conservative. Basically for the last 2 years the progressives have been criticizing Trump for acting like a typical NY liberal, for being just like them.

    I remember hearing on TV that some pundit described some a certain very good soccer player by saying “He scored more goals for England than Russell Brand in a club” Everyone knows hollywood is full of people like Weinstein and his behavior was pretty much acceptable, it was only funny when Hollywood started to act all holier than thou with late night hosts lecturing us on morality every night like those moral lessons at the end of cartoons in the 80s.

  53. Dave Says:

    Hollywood also is prejudiced against ugly people. If Weinstein and Bill Corsby were handsome like John Mayer or Russell Brand not only that they wouldn’t be accused of anything in fact their behaviors would have been praised as cool and awesome.

  54. Sharon W Says:

    As though I needed more reasons to not support Hollywood with my time and hard-earned money. These “revelations” only confirm that our decision to sever ourselves from this community was the right one. One month ago we cut the tie with cable as well. I found it surprising that we don’t miss it at all.

  55. miklos000rosza Says:

    What’s funny here is that I may have a personal interest in this story remaining in the news — having “legs” as they say. It’s already lasted longer than I expected.

    You see, I have a novel optioned by a television writer/producer which has as its most immediate plot hook — my heroine has slept with a producer for the sake of her career in Hollywood, and he at the last second didn’t come through, choosing instead to favor a famous person’s daughter.

    And so my heroine seeks revenge.

    The book got great reviews, and was reprinted a few years ago, and the young producer who has it has loved it for years.

    So… hmm. I guess we’ll see.

  56. kevino Says:

    RE: “I’m not excusing Weinstein’s behavior. I’m just wondering why anyone is surprised at the previous silence from the actresses.”
    Very true, but what most people are missing is the failure of the MSM. Yes, Weinstein was powerful in his ability to make or break careers, but he cannot escape anonymous sources tipping off journalists.

    RE: “And some will decide the world needs to know.”
    The MSM covers stories about sexual harassment by Democrats with a pillow … until they stop moving. [IowaHawk] Examples: Sen Inouye and Rep. Reynolds. In particular, this is done to protect the Clintons.

    And yet the word didn’t get out until now. Why?
    1. The Clintons are basically done, so there is no reason to protect them. In fact, trashing the Clintons adds an excuse for Sec. Hillary Clinton’s loss.
    2. The allegations and the relationship between the Clintons and Weinstein help ensure that Hillary’s political career stays dead. (Even Hollywood, it seems, has had enough of the Clintons.)
    3. There was a symbiotic relationship. Weinstein was friends with the Clintons and the Obamas. He helped them, and the relationship protected him. Both families are out, and they cannot protect him.

  57. neo-neocon Says:

    kevino:

    Did you read the last two sentences of my post?:

    For reporters who knew and kept silent, however, the political was probably in the forefront of their motives for keeping quiet. After all, aren’t reporters supposedly intrepid truth-tellers, in the business of “speaking truth to power,” afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted?

  58. neo-neocon Says:

    miklos:

    That’s certainly interesting.

  59. Dave Says:

    miklos:
    may I have the name of the book, I am very interested in reading it, the premise is fascinating. You should pitch that story to some Chinese film producers, that story if made into a chinese film would be blockbuster for sure. Stories like that happen everyday in China

  60. Paul in Boston Says:

    The performing arts are notorious for being full of homosexual men. There plenty of comedies where the chorus girls complain that they can’t get a date because the men don’t look at them, only at the pretty boys. There must be a lot of pedophiles in Hollywood and an undercover scandal as bad as the Catholic priests there too. I’d be stunned if the actresses are the only ones preyed upon.

  61. Cap'n Rusty Says:

    One of my favorite classes in law school was Evidence. It was emphasized that statements must be taken “in context.” Regarding the Access Hollywood tape, I would note that Donald Trump and Bill Bush were arriving at some form of media studio and, being male, noticed that a lot of the young women were physically attractive. Their conversation segued into braggadocio, and both suggested that many young women like those they were admiring, were easy sexual conquests. E.g., “they” will let you do anything if you could advance their career.

    Candy get the transcript, and you can see with your own eyes that Donald Trum never said that he groped any of them — only that men in power positions could.

    This whole Harvey Weinstein story backs Trump up on that point. Many of those young women who seek stardom, as the repulsiveness of Mr Weinstein confirms, will do “anything” to achieve it.

    Those women who knew, or participated in, what was going on and said nothing to warn other young women, preferring to keep their Oscars instead of their honor, deserve the ridicule they are receiving.

  62. kevino Says:

    Neo:

    RE: Did you read the last two sentences of my post?
    Yes, indeed. I simply point to the specific reasons behind it.

    IMHO this would never have come out if it weren’t for Sec. Clinton losing the election. Part of it is fear of retribution by the Clintons, but part of it is the MSM’s deep love for the Clintons.

    [Evergreen: “May you find a someone who loves you as deeply as the press loves Hillary.”]

  63. miklos000rosza Says:

    neo —

    I sent you a couple of reviews of the book. I don’t think it will sound terribly appealing to you. Not everyone likes it, by any means.

  64. miklos000rosza Says:

    Dave —

    I feel uncomfortable advertising the title here. If you don’t mind displaying your email, I’ll email you.

  65. neo-neocon Says:

    miklos:

    I noticed, but I apologize for not having gotten around yet to reading them. I actually mean to do so; just been so busy!

  66. neo-neocon Says:

    Paul in Boston:

    See this.

  67. arfldgrs Says:

    Jimmy Savile

  68. Richard Saunders Says:

    Lizzie, Cap’n Rusty— There is no morality or honor in Hollywood, therefore there is nothing to lose. In my experience, people who want to become actors and actresses are so emotionally needy that they will do anything, literally anything, to get onto the screen. The question of “Should I” almost never enters into their minds.

    Of course, this is just one industry’s variation of the age-old behavior of many mammals: females are attracted to alpha males and alpha males will take advantage of them. Which came first? Somebody a lot smarter than I am will have to answer that.

  69. miklos000rosza Says:

    Richard Saunders —

    If alpha male = leader of the pack, and we’re pack animals by nature, like wolves, what the dominant leader “looks like” (for instance) becomes a minuscule factor in evaluation of his power and what this power seems to offer.

  70. Dave Says:

    Neo:
    Can you see my email? If you can do you mind emailing me the title of Miklos’ book?

  71. neo-neocon Says:

    Dave:

    Okay.

  72. AesopFan Says:

    Dave Says:
    October 11th, 2017 at 9:36 pm
    Neo:
    Can you see my email? If you can do you mind emailing me the title of Miklos’ book?
    * * *
    Book club time — give us a review later!

  73. AesopFan Says:

    Caedmon Says:
    October 11th, 2017 at 2:42 am
    Wow, a crowded and interesting thread.

    I’d just like to add that it is easy to forget that speaking up requires two parties: one to speak, and one to listen.

    So it’s not so much a question why didn’t anyone speak up before, and more, why are we all listening now?
    * * *
    You don’t drop the goods on someone unless there is something to be gained (NBC saw no upside for them in publishing the Weinstein story; I’m not sure what the Times and New Yorker are angling for). Judging by the Cosby capers, people are protected only while they are useful, and the shield is withdrawn when they become an “enemy” to the cause.

    The motivations in re Weinstein are opaque and probably multifaceted, but I’m inclined to the “Israeli booster” take-down theory as much as anything, since nothing else in his life seems to have changed.
    Some people also see it as a strike at the Clintons, to cut off one of their major supporters (driving a stake through the vampire’s heart, as it were).

    Democrats holding “exposes” until they needed them was standard practice during the last three elections.

    Lots of “breaking news” about McCain that “revealed” events some years in the past (one allegation turned out to be an actual made-up story in the Times, but we weren’t using the term “fake news” back then); the MSM had to go back to Romney’s high school years to get any “dirt” on him (in addition to the made-up horror of things like, say, “binders of women”).*

    Even the Trump Tape had sat in a vault for decades.

    The MSM has dossiers on everyone, just waiting until they are needed; and what they can’t document, they make up.

    * https://www.steynonline.com/8169/contradictions-and-condescension

    “When a decent old stiff such as Mitt Romney talks earnestly about looking for suitable female job candidates and clumsily distills the effort into the phrase “binders full of women”, all the smart sophisticated types jump on it and make it a punchline for an antiquated condescension that only confirms how irredeemably misogynist the GOP is.

    By contrast, when Harvey Weinstein corners a TV reporter in the corridor of his restaurant and forces her to watch as he …”
    (you already know the rest of that story, but Steyn is at the top of his form in this one)

    Here’s an interesting post by a Hollywood insider, Terry Teachout. It’s a replay of a post about Polanski, but Weinstein figures heavily in it, and it’s spot-on.

    http://www.artsjournal.com/aboutlastnight/2017/10/you-read-it-here-first.html
    “On Thursday [Weinstein] gave an interview to the Los Angeles Times that will live long in the annals of arrogance. Not only does Mr. Weinstein believe that Mr. Polanski should be set free at once, ss, because it has compassion. We were the people who did the fundraising telethon for the victims of 9/11. We were there for the victims of Katrina and any world catastrophe.” That’s the voice of a man who spends his days listening to toadies—and who knows nothing of the deeply felt beliefs of the ordinary people who pay their hard-earned money to see his pictures. I wonder how many of them will henceforth be inclined to steer by the compass of anyone who thinks that rape is a “so-called crime.”

    Mr. Weinstein is, of course, a moral idiot. But why did so many of Mr. Polanski’s artistic peers rush to defend him? Is it really because “Chinatown” is so good? Perhaps, though I suspect it’s at least as likely that certain of the people who signed the “Free Polanski” petition are also thinking of the skeletons in their own well-filled closets. Rich and famous people, after all, are accustomed to having their own way, no matter what it is or whom it hurts.”

  74. Dave Says:

    Neo:

    got it, thank you

    got myself a copy on Amazon

  75. Ymar Sakar Says:

    So Hollywood is corrupt and evil… what else is new. Did people in America expect there to be an Exception?

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge