Feminists and Harvey Weinstein

As expected, deranged third-wave feminists are using the Harvey Weinstein revelations to amplify their theory that men as a group are a problem and all of us are potential rapists. Once again the Twitter feed of Laurie Penny provides the best examples of a common sentiment:

This bollocks needs to be put to bed quickly. Firstly, nobody I’ve read or heard is blaming young, unknown women from speaking out about Harvey Weinstein’s behaviour. As Laurie herself implies, who would believe them? Plus, they have a lot to lose if Weinstein decides to take revenge on them. But what none of these so-called feminists want to ask is why didn’t Hollywood’s most powerful women – some of whom had been abused by Weistein themselves – speak out? Angelina Jolie was a UN Ambassador for heaven’s sake, could she really find nobody to talk to about Weinstein? What about Gwyneth Paltrow, or one of the other dozen extremely rich, well-connected women in Hollywood who knew damned well what Weinstein was like. Why didn’t they speak out?

Secondly, there is something else not being acknowledged by feminists here. It is one thing for young women not to speak out against Weinstein. It is another thing for powerful women to not speak out. But it is altogether a different thing for those powerful women (and men) to constantly praise Weinstein, join him on stage at awards ceremonies, pose for photos with him at parties, and invite him to their homes (I understand he went to the White House 13 times under Obama). This is not merely remaining silent, it is actively providing cover for the man and bestowing on him a social acceptability that his behaviour doesn’t warrant. That is the real issue here, and feminists are doing everything they can to ignore it.

This is not a man problem, nor is it a woman problem: it is a problem whereby shitbag men are aided and abetted by other shitbag men and equally shitbag women. In short, it’s a shitbag problem. However, on Friday we had Emma Thompson telling the BBC we have a problem with “extreme masculinity”. Sorry, what? When I think of “extreme masculinity” someone like this comes to mind:

Not this:

Weinstein is a disgusting fat slob, and if you listen to the audio recording here he sounds like the biggest whining, beta male you’re ever likely to come across. The feminist reaction to the Weinstein revelations says more about what sort of men these women hang out with than men in general. Here’s Laurie again:

Well, speak for yourself, Laurie! While she might like to count rapists among her friends and partners (and if her previous writings are any guide, she does), I’d like to think most normal women don’t socialise with rapists. She compounded her idiocy with this:

And this is what it comes down to: feminists like Laurie Penny couldn’t give a shit about women, they only care about advancing their own fucked-up agenda. They have seized on the issue of powerful, shitbag men preying on vulnerable girls with the willing assistance of powerful, shitbag women in order to demonise ordinary decent men. Third-wave feminism is as much a danger to young women as fat slobs like Harvey Weinstein and his phalanx of groupies. It’s time more people realised this.

Share

25 thoughts on “Feminists and Harvey Weinstein

  1. “However, on Friday we had Emma Thompson telling the BBC we have a problem with “extreme masculinity”

    Folk like her never fail to under exploit an opportunity to advance their war on gender. They take one dudes depravity and suggest that it generally includes all men and heterosexual men for that matter.

    And Oliver Stone honked some porno models clad tit at a party twenty years ago as if it was some kind of horn.

  2. “But what none of these so-called feminists want to ask is why didn’t Hollywood’s most powerful women – some of whom had been abused by Weistein themselves – speak out? Angelina Jolie was a UN Ambassador for heaven’s sake, could she really find nobody to talk to about Weinstein? What about Gwyneth Paltrow, or one of the other dozen extremely rich, well-connected women in Hollywood who knew damned well what Weinstein was like. Why didn’t they speak out?”

    It’s really not been a good look for “the sisterhood”. All these women coming out who knew about what Harvey got up to, but said nothing.

    And what were they risking? Hollywood will make things like Band of Brothers showing civilians being forced to walk through the camp at Belsen, like how shameful of them not to do anything. But you know, they faced death for doing something. I have some sympathy for those people. What was Gwyneth risking by speaking up? Losing a few parts? Which means what? Losing one of her expensive houses, maybe?

    I wasn’t sure about your earlier post, but I agree, I think this is huge for Hollywood. As each actress reveals she knew, it has the same cumulative effect on me as Tour De France riders getting caught using drugs. After a while you realise the whole sport is rotten. You can’t go around being moral policemen when you stood by while women were raped.

  3. @Ljh

    I actually think Steyn is wrong on that one. It was one of those stories that couldn’t stay bottled up forever, someone very determined to break the story was after it, and I don’t think that a Clinton in the White House would have been able to stop it from coming out.

    Nevertheless, I second your recommendation to people to give it a read. Agree with it or not, it’s a very powerful piece of writing. The segment of the population who think like Steyn is not terribly large, particularly in the UK, but it is an important one and I think he articulates that perspective better than anyone else I can think of.

  4. One thing that makes me chuckle is Rose McGowan lecturing everyone on the evils of sexual harassment. This bitch was in a position to do something about “Harvey” and she sold out for a measly $100K. Now she’s all over Twitter denouncing people. Can it, sister. You had your chance to do something useful and gave it up for a few bucks.

  5. @Bloke on M4

    The appointment of Hollywood and its near circles as Western society’s morality police has always struck me as bizarre. Who thought it was a good idea? Who agreed to it? What is the basis of their authority and how might it be removed? (Ought to wheel out Tony Benn on this one, he’d have some good questions for them.)

    I’m not sure what condemns them more: that Jeepers Creepers 3 came out in time for Halloween this year (for those that don’t know, check out its writer-director), or this kind of rallying-round:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/harvey-weinstein-polanski-has-served-his-time-and-must-be-freed-1794699.html

    Few op-eds have aged worse!

  6. “This bitch was in a position to do something about “Harvey” and she sold out for a measly $100K”

    That’s interesting as that means Harvey can now sue her if she breached the non disclosure terms of her settlement agreement, including damages, which are growing in size by the millisecond!

    Plus don’t be too hard on her as $100k was probably fair consideration for having to remain in the same room as him whilst he did his thing in his open bath robe.

    I am sure she was involved in a lot weirder stuff with Marilyn Manson.

  7. MyBurningEars: “…someone very determined to break the story was after it…”

    Indeed. I wonder just who that was. Whose toes did Harvey finally step on?

  8. May I recommend Mark Steyn’s take on this and how it relates to selfregarding elites:

    You may: I’m a fan of Mark Steyn, and that one is very good. Thanks!

  9. The appointment of Hollywood and its near circles as Western society’s morality police has always struck me as bizarre.

    Hollywood and the media which promotes and covers it is the most cynical and corrupt organisation in human history. Narcissists and sociopaths fighting each other for money, fame and power.

  10. That Tablet apology:

    Yesterday I published a piece on Harvey Weinstein that many found offensive. The analysis I offered was hasty and ill-considered, especially in light of the even graver accusations that were published by the New Yorker this morning. I take this as a lesson in the importance of knowing as much as one can about a given story, and in taking the time to think and feel things completely through before opining.

    A more accurate version would be:

    Yesterday I published a piece on Harvey Weinstein that many suddenly started finding offensive. The analysis I offered was orthodox and perfectly acceptable yesterday, but looks a bit dodgy in light of the even graver accusations that were published by the New Yorker this morning. I take this as a lesson in the importance of knowing exactly when the corrupt Herd is going to suddenly volte face on a subject or person and start denouncing him, and in taking the time to check that what I think is still orthodoxy before opining. I now look a bit of a fool and I apologize.

  11. Cringe and giggle.

    Nauseating stuff, isn’t it? But then again, I never did like Judi Dench. I thought she wrecked the James Bond films, while everyone else was swooning over how brilliant she was.

  12. A more accurate version would be:

    Yes. I think the world will be a much better place the day people stop issuing insincere, grovelling apologies on demand (especially while others who really ought to apologise refuse to do so).

  13. I liked Judi Dench in the Bond movies, but she is batshit in the way that only an elderly actress can be.

    Another article worth reading:
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/10/15/nolte-enabling-harvey-weinstein-celebrating-child-rapist-roman-polanski-hollywood-evil/

    “Liberal” Hollywood is a cesspit and I suspect we might see a dozen Jimmy Saviles unearthed as this story develops.

    More importantly, I hope people finally get that 90% of Hollywood types are scum, and many of them don’t have the excuse of being abused. Although many have the excuse of being stupid.

    The opinions of an actor are worth slightly less than those of a cheese sandwich. (I confess I don’t know if cheese sandwiches have opinions, but it’s nice not to hear them)

  14. I hope people finally get that 90% of Hollywood types are scum

    They do smile a lot in glossy photographs, so that is enough to fool 98% of the population.

  15. Another article worth reading:

    Alas, I do like Polanski’s films. And not to excuse his behaviour, but I do wonder what effect the murder of his wife had on him. Total hypocrisy on the part of Hollywood celebrities, though.

  16. Alas, I do like Polanski’s films.

    Me too, but the guy’s a sewer and ought to have been banged up.

  17. A more accurate version would be:

    It’s a really high level greaseball Kosher Nostra thing, Globalist Left versus Globalist Right and Weinstein must be sacrificed and take the fall. Sorry Harvey its nothing personal, its strictly business, what we will do for you to soften the blow is let your mates in the NYT control the leaks.

  18. I take it as given that the Clintons and other senior Democrats must have known how Weinstein conducted himself with women.

    How and why, then, did the Obamas allow their daughter to do an internship with Weinstein’s company?

    Even if the Obamas were unaware of what Weinstein was like, would some senior Democrat or someone in the Justice Department not have tipped them off? Even if she was never in any danger from Weinstein, was Weinstein deemed absolutely untouchable?

  19. An excellent analysis which I can’t find a single thing I disagree with. Keep up the good work Tim.

    BTW, what are your thoughts on this latest ‘me too’ Facebook circular jerk. My guess is about 90% of those posting are unwanted advances not actual harrassment/abuse.

Leave a Reply

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