Actress Mayim Bialik feels the wrath of social media for stating basic Orthodox Jewish thought…
…and recants. [Hat tip: Instapundit]:
In [a NY Times] op-ed Friday, written [by Bialik] in response to allegations of sexual assault against Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, the observant Jewish actress said she has long made decisions that she considers “self-protecting and wise.”
“I have decided that my sexual self is best reserved for private situations with those I am most intimate with,” Bialik wrote. “I dress modestly. I don’t act flirtatiously with men as a policy.”
Social media users said that Bialik was insinuating she had not been sexually harassed or assaulted due to her choices and that she was contributing to victim blaming. The op-ed was published as countless women around the world recounted their instances of sexual harassment and abuse using the hashtag #MeToo.
On Monday, Bialik defended her column in a Facebook Live video event with the Times. But on Wednesday she changed course, writing on Twitter that she was “very sorry.”
“What you wear and how you behave does not provide any protection from assault,” Bialik wrote, “nor does the way you dress or act in any way make you responsible for being assaulted…I support…women as we seek out and demand accountability from the only ones responsible for for assault and rape: the people who perpetrate those heinous crimes. I am truly sorry for causing so much pain, and I hope you can all forgive me.”
I doubt that will be sufficient groveling for Bialik to earn forgiveness from the mob.
Unfortunately, I’ve already read my allotted NY Times articles this month and so the full text of Bialik’s op-ed is behind a paywall for me. Therefore I can’t read the whole thing, as I usually like to do if I write about something. But with that caveat (and helpful quotes from various articles about the brouhaha) I’ll soldier on.
Bialik is an actress who has described herself as an “aspiring” Modern Orthodox Jew as well as a feminist. What she has stumbled on here is an old, old issue that has to do with much more than Harvey Weinstein or the conditions faced by Hollywood actresses who were assaulted by him. The issue is whether there is anything women themselves could or should or can or cannot do that would make them less likely to be sexually harassed and/or sexually assaulted.
The answer to that question has changed over time, and is also different in different societies. There are—as even those women who were angry at Bialik must be aware—societies on earth today (mostly Muslim) in which women are supposed to cover themselves in shapeless sacks with only slits for their eyes, in order both to demonstrate their own modesty and to refrain from inflaming the desires of men who might pass them on the street. There are also nudist camps (existing in very different societies), with rather different rules. And there is just about everything in-between, including the mores of my own youth, in which about 50% of the women walking around today would have been considered to be dressed in a very provocative manner.
I suspect that many modern feminists would answer the same question by saying that any woman should be able to walk down the street naked at high noon and run no special risk—with nary a criticism either—and that Hollywood actresses should be able to appear nearly-naked in public and trade frankly on their sexuality in terms of getting roles, without anyone ever getting the wrong idea and hitting on them.
And that would be nice, too, but it’s not the way life works. At least, not 100% of the time.
That said, it’s obvious that any man who rapes or otherwise assaults, or acts as Harvey Weinstein did, bears 100% of the responsibility for his actions. Funny thing, though, Bialik actually stated as much in her original op-ed, the one that caused all the furor:
While she acknowledged that “nothing””absolutely nothing””excuses men for assaulting or abusing women,” she also continued to suggest, “We can’t be naé¯ve about the culture we live in.” And in an especially self-righteous line: “As a proud feminist with little desire to diet, get plastic surgery or hire a personal trainer, I have almost no personal experience with men asking me to meetings in their hotel rooms.”
So Bialik is actually saying two things. The first is that a man (or any person, actually) is responsible for whatever rapes and/or assaults he commits. The second is that if you look like Bialik (who is not your average Hollywood babe, and who dresses modestly as well), you’re not going to get propositioned all that much by the Hollywood executives.
These are actually quite separate thoughts, and both are true. But the second one is apparently unconscionable to modern feminists. I don’t see why. Are they actually suggesting that Weinstein’s attacks were completely random, and had zero to do with age or attractiveness? And do they really think that Bialik was saying that if you dress modestly you’ll never be attacked? Of course not.
A great many feminists wish for a certain a world, a world in which human sexuality and male aggressiveness bends to their will. It lies quiet and remains peaceful when they want it to be quiet and peaceful (that’s what civilization is all about, after all, and I’m all for it, too). But they want it to be activated on their behalf when they summon it up, when it’s desired by them and they give the signal (that sounds like a good idea, too, and I second the motion).
But funny thing, humanity isn’t at our beck and call, and sometimes glitches occur. I wrote about the yetser ha-ra yesterday, and I urge you to read what I wrote if you haven’t already. In just about every society that ever existed, both sexes have standards of behavior that attempt to harness the awesome power of human sexuality so it does the least harm while retaining enough of its driving force so that such a society remains viable. The rules are sometimes very rigid and restrictive and sometimes rather lax, and sometimes they fall more heavily on one sex and sometimes on another. But they always exist, and they exist for both sexes.
Jordan Peterson offered an off-the-cuff definition of a meme in a QA session: “A meme is a parasitical cognitive entity that kind of floats on the surface of the mental landscape.”
memes divide people rather than inform people. a complex “problem” will not be served or solved by a simple solution. “MeToos” leak over into simplistic stances that divide us; the divisions then are magnets for accusation.
Can a woman safely be as sexy as Erin Brockovich as portrayed by Julia Roberts? Yes! It worked in that case. Erin did important work and opened doors with what she said was “they’re called boobs.” Her ability to use her sexy femininity culminated not only in a legal triumph but also in a high level, flirtatious, gender win-win, cute “gotcha” between herself and Albert Finney.
MofHollywood:
On Brockovich.
Brockovich’s message appears to have been a meme of sorts, a “parasitical cognitive entity that kind of floats on the surface of the mental landscape” and divides people rather than informing them.
All this reminds me of pedestrians in a crosswalk. Yes, pedestrians have the right of way. Yes, a pedestrian should feel confident that they will not be run over by a car in a crosswalk. But only a foolish pedestrian enters a crosswalk without looking for on-coming traffic. In other words, just because you have the right of way, does not mean that you should abandon all caution and concern for your safety. Just as there are bad drivers out there, there are also bad men who only need the slightest “provocation” to do harm to women. Smart women know this and act accordingly.
Apologizing doesn’t work with the mob. It just makes them tear the flesh down to the bone and then grind the bones. She’ll learn and now they’ve taught her, no matter how valid and deeply held her beliefs, to shut up. And she will. Or she will never work in TV again. And she knows it.
There is a picture of young Harvey Weinstein on his wiki page, its hard to believe that the old harvey weinstein now is actually better looking than his younger self. Old Harvey Weinstein actually looks kind of like old Jeff Bridges
The thing is, there’s not that many SJWs. But there are many more who will show up for an online mob organized by the few. Because how will people know that you’re a sensitive caring person if you dont click “like?”
Paywalls. Perhaps you are already aware of this, but my experience has been that the article count at a Website is per browser on a given computer. On one computer, you could run up to your max on Chrome, then go to Firefox, then Internet Explorer etc. And then when you run out of browsers, go to the next computer. Also, you could probably fiddle with the cookies, but that might get messy. Hope this helps!
Neo – oh my wow yes. I also read that her boyfriend was arrested shortly after the movie for extorting money from her and her boss. And her husband wanted in on the dough too. It all devolved into sleaze.
Maybe the moral of all this is to be happy one is not rich and (potentially) famous and curvaceous enough for a Harvey to pleasure himself and then make you into a meme. Or something.
Ok, time for more Jordan Peterson lectures. He is a volcano of sanity, erudition, clarity, and valor in the memified sea of sticky greed, cowardice, post modernism, and accusations.
L. Greg:
Thanks! I never thought of the browser angle. I’ll try it.
I suggest feminists carry a SGR (S**t Gets Real) card.
When things get dicey, they haul it out. It’s luminescent.
It says, “I didn’t mean it. Honest. Really”
She shows it to guys when she needs help.
” male aggressiveness”? Yes it exists, but 98% are not sexual predators. The narrative once again does not fit reality.
Despite my dislike for President Trump, I find myself aghast at just how clueless Democrats can be. Take for instance the recent me too campaign. One wonders, where were you when Christopher Hitchens wrote No One Left to Lie To.
As Hitchens says, we should not reduce everything to a question of motive. Motive matters, but the consequence of an action matters more.
An implicit assumption of the me too campaign is that things have always been terrible; we have always lived under the thumb of patriarchy, and backwards elements are to blame.
I think we ought to challenge that assumption. I think we are within our rights to say, Bill Clinton made it a hell of a lot worse for women in this country. He and the Democrats showed utter disdain for women not only alleging they were sexually harassed by the President but raped.
When Gore was asked about the rape allegation, he dodged the question, saying, he didn’t know how to evaluate the claim. Imagine writing that to a female friend on Facebook. They’d be livid.
Thanks, Lurch, for the excellent crosswalk analogy.
Bialik’s original comments express what used to be common sense: If you don’t want to be treated like a whore (or gangster) then don’t dress and act like a whore (or gangster).
The hypocrisy of a popular culture that works overtime to sexualize everything and to promote women’s everyday fashions intended to emphasize their physical sexual appeal … while simultaneously denying responsibility for any easily foreseeable (but aberrant and relatively rare) consequences … is Clintonesque in both scale and clulessness.
The battle of the sexes. First, I don’t agree that ol’ Harvey rationalized his acts by thinking that “she wanted it.” Truly, I think the randy old skunk could not have cared less.
I find it odd that this man, who could have had so many lovely women come to his bed willingly, would find enjoyment in having sex with an unwilling partner. It becomes more about domination rather.
The whole seduction thing is twisted and warped if the lady in question does not become willing and enthusiastically involved. Doesn’t he watch any old black and white movies? In the seduction, the man does appear somewhat aggressive. However, the key is that the lady succumbs to his male animal magnetism … and is, herself, filled with desire. Sheesh, Harvey, you old goat.
And shame on the gals that rode to fame and fortune under him who said nothing then and are hollering for his neck now. They could have protected their sister actresses. They took the play and are now screeching about what they had to pay. I sympathized with their plight up until they said nothing and took the movie role.
Imagine the women whose careers crashed and burned because they didn’t play along.
Your kid is playing with matches, and gets a serious burn. Then some mutt faced stranger — that has no kids of her own — comes up and says she wouldn’t let her kids play with matches. How do you react? What do you think of that person?
“they want it to be activated on their behalf when they summon it up, when it’s desired by them and they give the signal”
Is there a male anywhere who isn’t laughing at that thought? Women respond to self-confident assertiveness. Several hundred thousand years of natural selection by homo sapiens has made women’s #1 priority attaching herself to a male who has the ability and will to offer protection. The guy who sits meekly in the corner waiting to receive a signal is also the guy who would sit meekly in the corner when the tribe from the neighboring valley comes through stealing the goats and the women.
Apologizing doesn’t work with the mob.
“I said what I meant and I meant what I said, and if you don’t like it then f*** off” doesn’t work either, but at least you haven’t sacrificed your dignity.
Pingback:Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove
jvermeer Says:
October 21st, 2017 at 11:56 am
The problem with the hundred thousand year thing, is that humans had better tech 6000 years ago than they did in 19th century US. Or even early 20th century US.
Check how the Great Pyramid of Giza was constructed and various Ooparts.
Other than that, the instinct of natural mankind would go as you described, except for what happened with the pill as birth control for women. That changed the hormones to be so that women are always physically as if they are pregnant. In that case, they can split between bonding with physically strong men (gang bangers), while utilizing the resources of the sugar daddy *high social status males*.
They don’t really want to expend any research grants looking at how the pill affects the behaviors of women, probably because they would find something very weird, on the scale of those prison incidents between female COs and male prisoners.
Bialik is the kind of woman that can mentor and strengthen the virtues of the younger, more vulnerable women. Hollywood doesn’t like that, so they trade her status and authority for the authority of sugar daddies like Harvey or Clinton or whatever.
Hollywood has an “authority” problem, and by that I mean in the Marxist Deconstruction sense of Authority as Power, and Rape as a Power hierarchy problem.
The hierarchy of women doesn’t exist in Hollywood. The rapists are at the top, because directors are at the top. They don’t let women advise other women, because the only thing they want women to advise other women is “shut up, take your payout, and deal with it”. It’s what they were told.
Anybody saying something like that could be empowering of women as individuals and virtue holders? That person is going to get hammered, because Hollywood isn’t making money off of them or their advice. Nor is Planned Profit. No sex, means no abortions… you know how it works.
https://beautyredefined.org/
Of course, there are women who are researching and studying the corrosion of evil in humans. They just aren’t all that popular. Hollywood is popular. Because the sugar daddies pay enough for the girls to shut up.
But even the girls soon grow old, and bitter, and eventually, sooner or later, their “safety mechanism” breaks.
The original 1st century AD Gospel of Jesus of Nazareth, appealed the most to the lower classes. The whores, the tax collectors, and so on. That is because these people have had to obey the powers of Mankind and Authority, all of their lives. They are used to having another person’s boot on their back and on their head, and having to say “I like it, please do more, so I can eat”.
They are used to it. They think that this is the only way to do business.
So when somebody comes along and he says that the culture is all wrong, that it doesn’t need to be that way, that you have individual worth greater than kings in the eyes of a superior entity… the whores, especially the whores and those at the bottom of society, take a liking to it. Especially Jesus doesn’t treat them as cattle or as tainted objects or trashed goods that aren’t worth anything.
If christians had any connection to the god they claim to follow, they would easily be excited at this opportunity to convert the whores. Even though their make up and income is high, that just means they are high class prostitutes of royalty. Converting a Pharisee that is at the top of the social ladder, with the power to condemn and even kill heretics and women who violate the laws, isn’t going to be easy. And it often doesn’t stick. It often requires a Road of Damascus divine intervention for someone like Saul.
We don’t have enough of those slots for everybody just yet.
Hollywood, the evil capital with more whores than even the Social Justice Whores, is a promising location for recruitment. Ironically, Marxism used to recruit from the lower classes too. It’s more like the upper classes recruit the lower classes, and then the lower classes replace the upper classes, while everybody kills off the middle class.
SJWs “graduate” to Hollywood, if they can make it. If they don’t, there’s also porn, which is probably even bigger than Hollywood. Then the ones that can’t cut it at either one, go to either academia and push feminism or they go into game companies to promote feminism.