More on Harvey Weinstein

Commenter Stephen K responds well to my previous post on Harvey Weinstein:

Contra our host’s idea that this will be big, I think it will blow over. Nothing will happen. None of Weinstein’s (former) fans and enablers will change their views (at most they will go a bit quiet for a while, until they can change the subject). Hollywood will use this as the opportunity to bravely make films about sexual abuse in which they bravely depict conservative/ traditionalist men as abusers. These films will be highly praised as topical and (of course) brave. It is a matter of days, if not hours, before someone writes an article explaining that “the Weinstein scandal is all the more reason why we must redouble our resistance to the misogynistic regime of Trump” which will get retweeted a million times. We have seen it all before.

I agree with this of course, mainly because it is already happening. Today Newsweek asks:

Who hates women most? Pence, Trump, or Weinstein?

And there was some woman on the BBC this morning whose take on the whole thing was that misogyny is everywhere and needs to be rooted out, presumably to the benefit of women like her who, if her remarks were any guide, would be out of her intellectual depth sweeping floors in the local chippy.

As Stephen says, we’ve been here before, and sleaze in Hollywood is nothing new. There is a reason why actresses are the butt of crude jokes involving bishops and seen as one rung above prostitutes, and why no self-respecting father would let his young daughter anywhere near a film studio let alone the hotel room of a fat, greasy producer. You’ll note that books are filled with stories of women who ran away from home to seek fame and fortune in Hollywood, and didn’t let their parents know where they were going.

However, back then actresses were not pretending to be the conscience of the nation as they now are. Had an actress in a previous era attempted the sort of self-righteous posturing Meryl Streep engaged in at the last Oscars, the laughter of the men in the room would have been heard around the world. Actors like DiCaprio would have fared no better, either. One of the things Friends got spot on was portraying Joey Tribbiani as actors are: nice looking, good at speaking words someone else has written, but otherwise rather dim. The Coen brothers’ Hail, Caesar! made the same point as well.

But actors and actresses spouting political nonsense wouldn’t matter so much had the Democrats not wholeheartedly embraced them and taken their vacuous endorsements seriously. At times it looked as though Democrats with ambitions of high office were taking their leads from air-headed celebrities, seemingly star-struck in their company.

But even that wouldn’t matter so much had the Democrats not made women’s rights, sexual assaults, and misogyny a central issue on which to attack their political enemies. But they have, and now any criticism coming from liberals on the subject can be countered by simply saying “Here’s a pic of you and Weinstein, and you knew full well what he was like.” Sure, they will say that Trump and Pence and everyone else are just as bad, but all that does is put them on the same footing and liberals can’t fight from there. Without a moral high-ground to posture from, liberals can barely muster an argument.

Following Trump’s win, the Democrats have lurched even further towards the loony-left end of the political spectrum, with centrists (assuming there are any left) ceding the floor to nutters like Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris. Worse, Hillary simply won’t shut up and go away and nor will Obama, making it impossible for anyone sensible to rally the handful of sane Democrats left and mount a challenge for the 2020 election. Although it’s tempting to believe that all female Democrat voters are deranged lesbians or single women in Brooklyn who own a lot of cats, there are plenty of normal women who vote that way too. I’m sure a good portion of these will be appalled at the hypocrisy and enablement of sexual abuse that is on display here, and won’t be persuaded by the excuses and whataboutism pouring forth from those compromised. These women will have been put off voting for Trump because he’s a sexist pig, and that portion who don’t put politics above absolutely everything else will be pretty unhappy that their own party is behaving the same way or worse.

What the Democrats need is a proper house-cleaning that gets rid of the Clintons once and for all, puts the Obama era behind them and drags the party back into the realm of electability leaving Warren and her ilk ranting harmlessly from the sidelines. That means tackling some of the issues that drove people to vote for Trump – jobs, immigration, terrorism – but also getting shot of the lunatics that stop these issues being talked about. The Democrats will always need the media but they can be tempered; they don’t need batshit insane Hollywood celebrities with failed marriages, bad tattoos, and cocaine habits.

On this blog it was Bardon (who else?) who asked:

I think the question is why now, and why was it the NYT that took down this Godfather at the top of the power structure?

My guess would be that a faction in the Democrat party looking to move it towards the centre has decided to use Weinstein’s abuse of women to strip the Clinton and Obama factions of credibility, clearing the way for them to take charge. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if the NYT has played their role, having been approached by this new faction well in advance of the interview that started the ball rolling. Let’s see if they run any articles calling for “reforms” or “pages to be turned” and “new eras to be embraced” by the Democrat party in the coming weeks and months.

Share

20 thoughts on “More on Harvey Weinstein

  1. I’m loving all the Captain Renault impersonations:
    “I’m shocked. Shocked to discover………….”
    And yes, I’m looking at you, Clooney, Affleck and the rest of the gang. Hell, if I knew about this ten years ago, and I live in London, they certainly did.

  2. Actresses are exibitionists who exhibit themselves for money. I don’t have much sympathy for them when they complain about getting their kit off, skimpy costumes, casting couches etc. They could have stayed home and baked cakes.

    Yes, I know. I’ll turn myself in for reprogramming.

  3. Actresses are exibitionists who exhibit themselves for money.

    That’s certainly the traditional view. Quite why people gave them the impression they ought to be listened to on social and other matters is beyond me.

  4. Tim,

    Why not consider the simple reason for this mighty fall to be the one that Weinstein has claimed it to be. He was from the extreme left and the right are now in power. Is it not worth considering that he is telling the truth and it was the right that took him down, is this not what political opponents do to each other all of the time and that being the case then well this kind of make sense in explaining his dramatic and sudden take down.

  5. Is it not worth considering that he is telling the truth and it was the right that took him down

    By getting the NYT to interview Ashley Judd about Weinstein abusing her? How the hell would the right do that?!

  6. Like he said, others have paid to get the story done and the NYT has published it and ran with it only because it was going to come out anyway. With the story already having been put together by others there was nothing the NYT could have done to protect him anymore. So they ran it.

  7. Sane democrats (blue dogs) got slaughtered over Obamacare – not sure they can come back. The only argument that the Dems have left is identity politics, and the entire country is sick of that. I have no idea where they go from here.

  8. Jean

    “I have no idea where they go from here.”

    I agree, but have this memory of everyone saying the Labour Party here was f*^ked after electing Corbyn. It doesn’t seem to have worked out that way.

  9. He may well be a very bad lad for all I know, but this has the stench of a lynch mob.

    I can just imagine people thinking “If you don’t have a ‘Harvey Weinstein ate my hamster’ story, you must be a real nobody in Hollywood.”

  10. Roue le Jour,

    “Actresses are exibitionists who exhibit themselves for money. I don’t have much sympathy for them when they complain about getting their kit off, skimpy costumes, casting couches etc. They could have stayed home and baked cakes.”

    Or something else useful.

    Beyond what they were naturally given, how many ever raise their game? How many are capable of stage work, or doing a great character part in a film? Very few. Most are playing an attractive woman a lot like themselves reading lines. How many ever do what people like Ben Affleck and Sylvester Stallone did and write a screenplay for themselves, or move into directing? “We’re treated as sex objects”. Well, what else are you?

  11. He may well be a very bad lad for all I know, but this has the stench of a lynch mob.

    I can just imagine people thinking “If you don’t have a ‘Harvey Weinstein ate my hamster’ story, you must be a real nobody in Hollywood.”

    For sure, everyone is now piling on because that’s the expedient thing to do in terms of their careers and (so they think) reputations.

  12. How many ever do what people like Ben Affleck and Sylvester Stallone did and write a screenplay for themselves, or move into directing?

    Angelina Jolie tried directing, or so we’re told. I didn’t make it past the opening half hour of her first effort.

    Well, what else are you?

    Quite.

  13. I watched First They Killed My Father that she directed with the missus on Netflix last week. It really didn’t do anything at all for me, the missus was a bit weepy and she is also an Angelina fan as well.

  14. It gets worse. TMZ got a hold of Harvey Weinstein’s employment contract in which sexual harassment allegation is not a fireable offense if Weinstein reimburse the company if they have to pay for the settlement. Weinstein also have to have an extra penalty of $500k for the first offense, $750k for the second offense and $1 million for each additional offense. Now why would you put that into the employment contract if you’re not expecting this to happen?

  15. TMZ got a hold of Harvey Weinstein’s employment contract

    Ah yes, I saw that! I checked whether my own contract allowed for such misdemeanours. Apparently not: my ass would get fired on the spot.

  16. I think it will go away, it will go away for the same reason it was hidden. Because its normal in those democrats/media circles.

    Look at Hollary Clinton surronded by Weinsten, Weiner, Lena Dunham and Bill Clinton. All sexual offenders, I don’t know any sex criminals much less 4 in Hillarys inner circle.

  17. @Benaud- I think it will go away, it will go away for the same reason it was hidden.”

    Briebart who didn’t mind putting the boot into him before, are running a live update on the Weinstein scandal. I think that this will do its job and send a clear warning to any others that this is what will happen to you if you step out of line, maybe some more token scalps to come but yes things will revert to the norm at some stage. No doubt his powerful mates may be looking at a retaliation of sorts but chance of this are unlikely in the current political climate.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *