October 7, 2017

"I have been having conversations about Harvey Weinstein’s history of sexual harassment for more than 17 years."

Admits Rebecca Traister in "Why the Harvey Weinstein Sexual-Harassment Allegations Didn’t Come Out Until Now."

Back in 2000, in NYC, Weinstein called Traister "a cunt and declared that he was glad he was the 'fucking sheriff of this fucking lawless piece-of-shit town'" and knocked her boyfriend/colleague down "a set of stairs."

So why didn't she out him? And why didn't any of the other journalists who were there report anything? Photos were taken, but never published. Why did all you people shield him, and why should I listen to you now?
Back then, Harvey could spin — or suppress — anything; there were so many journalists on his payroll, working as consultants on movie projects, or as screenwriters, or for his magazine.
He could only do it because you were complicit. Were you all paid off?
I never really thought of trying to write the story myself. Back then, I didn’t write about feminism; there wasn’t a lot of journalism about feminism. 
There's been plenty of journalism about feminism for the last 50 years, but why did you need a foundation of plenteous journalism about feminism to write about such beastly behavior?
His behavior toward women was obviously understood to be a bad thing—this was a decade after Anita Hill’s accusations against Clarence Thomas had helped the country to understand that sexual harassment was not just a quirk of the modern workplace, but a professional and economic crime committed against women as a class. But...
The "but" should be, but we the liberal journalists helped everyone forget what we'd learned because it was so important to help Bill Clinton. But Traister's "but" is:
...  the story felt fuzzier, harder to tell about Harvey: the notion of the “casting couch” still had an almost romantic reverberation...
Oh, bullshit. Harvey was another liberal, like Bill Clinton, so you pushed the obvious principles to the side and protected him. The only fuzziness is the blur imposed by politics, and once you let that in, you have no principle.
But another reason that I never considered trying to report the story myself... I remembered what it was like to have the full force of Harvey Weinstein — back then a mountainous man — screaming vulgarities at me, his spit hitting my face. I had watched him haul my friend into the street and try to hurt him. That kind of force, that kind of power? I could not have won against that.
Ridiculous. You were afraid of him because of his physical size and strength in an in-person encounter? What the hell is writing for?! You got your distance. He wasn't around. From a distance, in writing, his "mountainous" physicality is one more thing that makes it easier to portray him as a brute — an ugly brute. The photographs of this man that accompany any article about him stir up only revulsion, not sympathy. Why would you not have won with words?
But Weinstein didn’t just exert physical power. He also employed legal and professional and economic power. He supposedly had every employee sign elaborate, binding nondisclosure agreements. He gave jobs to people who might otherwise work to bring him down, and gave gobs of money to other powerful people, who knows how much, but perhaps just enough to keep them from listening to ugly rumors that might circulate among young people, among less powerful people. For decades, the reporters who tried to tell the story of Harvey Weinstein butted up against the same wall of sheer force and immovable power that was leveraged against those ambitious actors, the vulnerable assistants, the executives whose careers, salaries, and reputations were in his hands.
That was even more material to use against him, and it's material that goes against all you reporters now. If you don't know how to get a story where a corrupt miscreant is using legal maneuverings and payoffs to suppress it, how are you a journalist?!
Something has changed. Sources have gone on the record. It’s worth it to wonder why. Perhaps because of shifts in how we understand these kinds of abuses. Recent years have seen scores of women, finding strength and some kind of power in numbers, come forward and tell their stories about Bill Cosby, Roger Ailes, Bill O’Reilly, Donald Trump. 
So! Now, we get to the meat of it. When the targets were right wing (or perceived as right wing), like Clarence Thomas all those years ago in the pre-Clinton era, the journalists knew how to get at the story. But they did it so aggressively and brought down such big targets that the protection of Harvey Weinstein was too obvious. The wall of silence broke.
But now our consciousness has been raised. 
Oh, please. You had consciousness before. Take responsibility for the politically skewed reporting that has infected sexual harassment stories since the Clarence Thomas/Bill Clinton combination that shamed political liberals in the 1990s.

There's one more thing, according to Traister:
I saw Harvey Weinstein earlier this year, at a Planned Parenthood celebration. I was struck... by his physical diminishment; he seemed small and frail, and, when I caught sight of him in May, he appeared to be walking with a cane.
So what are you saying? You feel better about kicking a weak little guy? You really were holding back because of his erstwhile mountainousness?
He has also lost power in the movie industry....
This is a confession of the absence of courage in journalism. You should be going after the most powerful people and go after them when they are doing their damage, not tell us about it after age and bad fortune have done half the work of laying him low.

ADDED: "I saw Harvey Weinstein earlier this year, at a Planned Parenthood celebration. I was struck... by his physical diminishment; he seemed small and frail...." How awful to see the words "Planned Parenthood" come up when the subject is the author's comfort in going after someone who is weak and small! This is one more effect of the liberal cocoon. Traister must not have noticed the grisly irony. 

161 comments:

AllenS said...

This story will be forgotten about in a very short period of time.

Tank said...

Ouch. That's gonna sting a bit.

Dennis Prager often talks about how many good people don't have the courage to stand up for what is right. Courage is difficult. Lately he has talked about conservatives and Trump supporters acting like Maranos (the Jews who pretended to be Christians while privately practicing their real religion [so as not to be killed]). It takes courage to be "not leftist" when your job or career is at stake.

Ralph L said...

You should include a warning about the awful photo.

So why didn't she out him?

Why didn't she call the police?

BarrySanders20 said...

Speaking troof to power. Courage!

tim in vermont said...

Remember when WJC's victims claimed they didn't come forward out of fear of a powerful man? That's cuz they wuz all liars! Specially that bitch Broaddrick.

Hope the Clintons were worth it!

tim in vermont said...

I will shut up about them when you guys stop fetting them.

Martha said...

I saw Harvey Weinstein earlier this year, at a Planned Parenthood celebration. I was struck... by his physical diminishment; he seemed small and frail, and, when I caught sight of him in May, he appeared to be walking with a cane.

I saw a photo of Harvey taken yesterday and he is definitely not small or frail.
Word is his brother outed Harvey in an internecine battle for control of the Weinstein Company.
Journalists were fed the damaging information—force fed one might say.

Ralph L said...

There's a long list of liberal politicians the press covered for, going back to JFK and LBJ at least, and Hollywood reporters were traditionally in thrall to the studios.

All this during the single era the press touted their objectivity.
The more he spoke of his honor, the faster we counted the spoons.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

T I V -

never. Stop. F*ing. The Clintons.

SDaly said...

Would love to see the gov't investigative files on Weinstein, and they exist given how close he has been in proximity to Democratic presidents and presidential candidates.

Laslo Spatula said...

"Traister must not have noticed the grisly irony."

I first read that as 'girly irony.'

Planned Parenthood and the Irony of Grisly Girly-Girls.

I am Laslo.

Hagar said...

So, what is the time period "The Godfather" was written about?

rhhardin said...

Calling her a cunt was good.

Maybe Weinstein is modelling himself after As Good as It Gets (1997). Great rants.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Jour-o-listers do squirm when they are forced to report on a fellow D.

Molly said...

Althouse's comments are exactly right, and this is high on my list of reasons why I'm so glad that Hillary Clinton was not elected President.

rhhardin said...

It's coming out now because it's the feminist thing now.

Feminism isn't some sort of suppressed truth. It's a way of nagging. Women live it instead of something it replaces.

Ralph L said...

Combined with the shower stories, it appears that HW is an exhibitionist.

It doesn't speak well for modern feminism that educated non-media women also let him get away with this.

David Begley said...

A liberal journalist is corrupt and a hypocrite? Not news.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

speaking of male nags....

Humperdink said...

Pictures of the fat pig with Obama, Hillary and the Clinton make my day.

rhhardin said...

I remember a boss in a group meeting bloviating ignorance and berating us for our naivete, which he pronounced "knave-ette."

Who could pass up that opportunity for correction. Not me.

Humperdink said...

It's a shame Obama is no longer president, he could have given the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Weinstein for having the courage to go into rehab.

Fernandinande said...

the recording has alas been lost to time

dozens of camera flashes...I have never once seen a photo.


Somebody Up There loves Weinstein.

Bob Ellison said...

If one assumes that journalists seek power through self-marketing, and that journalists are wary of publishing stories that could hurt their self-marketing, and that journalists pounce on a widely known inside story when the timing seems just right and the fruit is over-ripe, then one would get the performance we are seeing now.

rhhardin said...

I'm just saying that the evil isn't where everybody is looking.

Weinstein is a scapegoat. The evil elsewhere is loaded on his back and he's banished.

The result is a repurified feminism. How wrong you ladies are who are not feminists. You imagined there was something a little wrong about feminism and now you see where the evil actually was.

Humperdink said...

Waiting for the Weinstein connection with Bill Clinton/Jeffrey Epstein and the Lolita Express to surface.

But with the Clinton(s) remaining in the journo protected class, that may never come to light.

Quayle said...

"For decades, the reporters who tried to tell the story of Harvey Weinstein butted up against the same wall of sheer force and immovable power that was leveraged against those ambitious actors, the vulnerable assistants, the executives whose careers, salaries, and reputations were in his hands."

If you think about it, Mitt Romney butted up against the other side of that same wall.

Fernandinande said...

rhhardin said...
our naivete, which he pronounced "knave-ette."


I know an Indian named Yvette (about half the Navajos are named after actors or their characters) and they all pronounce it "Why-vette".

Laslo Spatula said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rhhardin said...

Feminism isn't into hypocristy but delusion. It's a way of getting through life.

I mean what are you going to do. There are men all over the place.

Laslo Spatula said...

Weinstein at a Planned Parenthood "celebration".

From the Internet:

New York Magazine reports (Ashley) Judd told the NARAL “Men for Choice” crowd about how she became pregnant after she was raped. She said she made the “excruciating decision” to have an abortion, and now she is glad she did.

Rose McGowan on Twitter: This is important, please share. 'I had an abortion': Shunning politics, finding a voice @CNN

Abortion makes strange bedfellows.

I am Laslo.

Matthew Sablan said...

If Clinton were president, would this have happened?

rhhardin said...

Another way of getting through life is shut up and take the nondisclosure agreement money. It works out too. It doesn't really take priority over feminism but is just another way.

So many ways of getting through life.

Tommy Duncan said...

I remember being lectured that "silence is consent".

Quayle said...

Ann has nailed it.

What is "principal" and "morality" which is perpetually subservient to money?

Nothing. Zip. Pretense.

rhhardin said...

Every now and then in life you may accomplish something. It's usually seen retrospectively. Not something you can plan.

That's not the feminist line.

Fernandinande said...

AA: Ridiculous. You were afraid of him because of his physical size and strength in an in-person encounter?

Do you believe her stories but not her excuses?

rhhardin said...
Weinstein is a scapegoat.


There's definitely a witch-hunt/Eye-of-Sauron vibe in these posts and articles, and although all the evidence supporting that idea has magically disappeared, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Curious George said...

Bill Cosby, Roger Ailes, Bill O’Reilly, Donald Trump.

Her list speaks volumes. No lefties.

No Clinton.
No Letterman.

traditionalguy said...

Let the filthy become more filthy. Today's revelations of the abuse of power seem like a Blue glow in a dark room after a luminal spray. There is so much blood everywhere. And life goes on picking out scapegoats to bear our guilt. The mystery is why Weinstein was sacrificed now. Best guess is the Media he used has a new master and is sacrificing Weinstein as the substitute for their guilt.

I blame Trump for restoration of realty to the zeitgeist.

rhhardin said...

Stephen Paddock seems like a worse guy, at least in some ways. He was thoughtful towards his girlfriend.

Feminism lacks a good hook for him. His male initiative probably could be swung as a negative. STEM subjects need to be made more feminine.

Matthew Sablan said...

I don't understand returning tainted money.

If I ever run for politics, I'd say flat out: "No, I'm not giving it back to some asshole so that they can do more asshole things with their money. I'm going to use it to further the causes I've told people we were going to further. Frankly, I'd like it if every asshole gave me their money, because I'm not going to change for them, so I'd rather have their money than them."

Of course, I'd be a terrible politician because even though I know I'd do those things, no one else would trust me.

Michael K said...

Peggy Noonan seems to be getting it at last this weekend.

The establishments and elites that create our political and entertainment culture have no idea how fragile it all is—how fragile it seems to people living normal, less privileged lives. That is because nothing is fragile for them. They’re barricaded behind the things the influential have, from good neighborhoods to security alarms, doormen and gates. They’re not dark in their imagining of the future because history has never been dark for them; it’s been sunshine, which they expect to continue. They sail on, oblivious to the legitimate anxieties of their countrymen who live near the edge.

Ugly creatures like Weinstein and Michael Moore think they will always be able to lord it over fellow Americans.

Why do you think we have guns ?

Assrat said...

I'm pretty much convinced at this point that when deciding to run a story, pretty much the only consideration for the MSM is whether or not it helps the Democrats.

Right now, I'm wondering how the Weinstein story helps the Democrats, even though I agree it's newsworthy.

Humperdink said...

"Bill Cosby, Roger Ailes, Bill O’Reilly, Donald Trump."

Other than pure hatred, why Trump included in this group? It must be reflex on the keyboard to add Trump to anything negative.

rhhardin said...

I'd say the trouble with Weinstein is that nobody domesticated him, not that nobody turned him in to whatever the social authorities would be.

rhhardin said...

See As Good as It Gets, for domestication of the hero.

Bob Ellison said...

Curious George, yeah, no lefties in the list. But that's not because journalists are in some kind of club that permits no criticism of lefties.

Witness the current tidal wave against Weinstein.

Righties often proclaim that lefties are only interested in power and money. That's correct, for the lefties on top. The peasant lefties they command think it's a moral thing, a way to bring good to the world.

This is a main problem in politics: differentiating between the people on top and the people they command. It's an old topic, but Americans today seem unaware of it.

Fighting Clinton, Letterman, and the rest presents no money or power opportunities for the people on top. Why do it? Righties would say, "because it's the correct thing to do!" Lefties say, "meh".

CWJ said...

"Take responsibility for the politically skewed reporting that has infected sexual harassment stories since the Clarence Thomas/Bill Clinton combination that [should have] shamed political liberals in the 1990s."

Laslo Spatula said...

Meryl Streep does not have to consent to the Casting Couch unless she wants to.

I am Laslo.

rhhardin said...

Anita Hill was lying, not that the story wasn't great.

Her friend Judge Susan Hoerchner testified that she talked to Anita about the incident on the phone and no amount of sympathy seemed to make her feel better, so bad was the incident.

Hoerchner had it backwards. Sympathy always works except in one case : when the sympathized-with is lying.

Original Mike said...

"Right now, I'm wondering how the Weinstein story helps the Democrats, ..."

I'm thinking it doesn't help per se, but this is the most innocuous time to get it out. You can be damn sure it has nothing to do with ethics.

Temujin said...

"he seemed small and frail...."

The irony in this statement describing Harvey at Planned Parenthood- where their motto is 'no parts too small to sell'. The lack of self-awareness on the left is gargantuan.

Ralph L said...

Where's the National Enquirer been on this story?

Bob Ellison said...

Broken record says: this was never about ethics or politics. It's about power and money. Learn it, breathe it, say it out loud. Nobody cares about HW. Probably even his Yorkie hates him. The bubble broke.

Seeing Red said...

This is why the press isn't trusted. They gave Trump another dagger to use against them. I don't want to hear any bull about him and his attitude.

rhhardin said...

All the Weinstein stuff seems very one-sided. Goodness has fallen by the wayside.

Surely there must be quips.

Speaking power to truth or something.

Quayle said...

A very small excerpt from one chapter of the Book of Mormon, in which the narrator is decrying the decadence of the once free society at that time:

"4 And seeing the people in a state of such awful wickedness, and [mafia-like people] filling the judgment-seats—having usurped the power and authority of the land; laying aside the commandments of God, and not in the least aright before him; doing no justice unto the children of men;

5 Condemning the righteous because of their righteousness; letting the guilty and the wicked go unpunished because of their money; and moreover to be held in office at the head of government, to rule and do according to their wills, that they might get gain and glory of the world, and, moreover, that they might the more easily commit adultery, and steal, and kill, and do according to their own wills—"

Mormons have been reading this since the mid 1800s, so this all comes as no surprise.

rhhardin said...

It could be that boorishness is a small price to pay for something else that's good, or good besides, as the case may be.

rhhardin said...

The narrative motive at the moment is to get feminism to occupy all the terrain.

But why, and it can't hold it for long.

Ray said...

Another consideration is competition with being scooped. The person that leaked this was very smart to do it to two places, causing competition. Drudge has also changed or breached the wall of silence.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Oh, bullshit. Harvey was another liberal, like Bill Clinton, so you pushed the obvious principles to the side and protected him. The only fuzziness is the blur imposed by politics, and once you let that in, you have no principle.


-AA

worth a repeat.

buwaya said...

Follow the money.
Weinstein may have been high profile, but it wasnt really his money he was handling, and there are much bigger players.

iqvoice said...

Takedowns like this are why I read Althouse. Also, why I don't trust the liberal media.

Anonymous said...

They could make a pretty good movie de-glamorizing these non-intrepid anti-journalists who non-bravely spoke silence to power. Call it 'All the Pervert's Men'.

cronus titan said...

Althouse throws a great bullshit flag.

THe media circling the wagons around a predator who supports the correct politics through generous donations and awesome parties is unsurprising.

For every woman now coming forward with tales of lewdness, there are multiple who went along with it to advance their careers. Once established, they had an interest in concealing how they got their start and/or career-making break. It may not have been their talent.

A perfect recipe for keeping it concealed.

rhhardin said...

The bullshit Althouse is noticing is about claims to be good feminists.

Feminism itself isn't in doubt.

Yet that's a moving part in the dynamics.

rhhardin said...

Things to watch for in man/woman stories : grudges, suspicions, fears, needs, desires and nacrissistic postures.

(Kerrigan)

Laslo Spatula said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
themightypuck said...

Nicely said Ann.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

the nagging male know-it-all. please - make it stop.

James Graham said...

Kudos to the New York Times for exposing this creep.

Shame on the New York Times for continuing to suppress the highly credible Juanita Broaddrick's claim that she was forcibly raped by a young Bill Clinton, and for their efforts to again place him in the White House for four years.

Laslo Spatula said...

From Harvey Weinstein's Diary....

Met with Brie Larson to discuss an upcoming role about a filthy whore. I was in the shower, so I asked her to hand me a towel. I then dropped the towel. Oops...

Met with Jessica Alba today to talk about a part in a movie about a filthy whore. My pants fell off...

Met with Amy Adams. Told her about a movie I wanted to make, asked her if she was okay playing a filthy whore. Told her I needed to see her butthole...

Met with Jennifer Lawrence. Told her I saw her nude pictures on the Internet, nice stuff. Asked her is she wanted to play a filthy whore...

Met with Charlize Theron. Told her about the role as a filthy whore. I was in the shower; not sure if she saw me washing my butthole...

Met with Natalie Portman. I was on the toilet. Had too much rich food. Who the fuck forgot to put air freshener in the bathroom? Never got the chance to bring up the role of filthy whore...

Met with Jessica Biel. She said she was interested in the role as filthy whore but would not show her butthole to me. I guess she doesn't want the role bad enough...

Met with Gwyneth Paltrow. Told her I read her essay on anal sex, and that I liked it very much. Thought about offering her the role as a filthy whore, but she's to old now: kind of sad, really..

I am Laslo.

rhhardin said...

Polymath is hard.

EDH said...

This includes jocular depictions of profane, belligerent yet liberal-friendly Hollywood types like Ari Emanuel and Harvey Weinstein, leaving out the sexual harassment of course.

From Wiki.... Depictions in media
Harvey Weingard, a character portrayed by Maury Chaykin on the HBO TV series Entourage, is based on Weinstein. Although the character is portrayed as an intimidating and aggressive producer, Weinstein has reportedly responded positively to the character. The foul-mouthed character Malcolm Tucker in the BBC series The Thick of It is based on Hollywood agents and producers, notably Harvey Weinstein and the team at Miramax that has been "long celebrated for Malcolm-like behavior," according to actor Peter Capaldi.


Harvey Weingard/Weinstein scenes from Entourage.

Unknown said...

Weinstein should have just masterbated in the safety of his own room.

That is what all wise men should do, once relationships are fully regulated and publicised.

"how the female feels" is paramount at all times.

The workplace was just the beachhead, the bedroom is the destination.

Look at the groupthink of employers on "HR issues" these days.

Or look at how "due process" for college sex incidents is portrayed as favoring the accuser.

What irony the sexual revolution ended up "here".

Harvey might try "affirmative consent contracts".

William said...

There's an article in today's NY Post about a television journalist who claims that Weinstein exposed himself and started masturbating in front of her during the course of an interview. Clearly, Weinstein meant this as off the record, background information, and the reporter has violated his confidence. If reporters can't adhere to professional standards, we all suffer.

Sydney said...

They are all so.....deplorable.

Bob Boyd said...

"This is a confession of the absence of courage in journalism."

She chose clubbable over courageous.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Hillarywood is filled with jerks who ignore the pedophilia and actual misogynist underbelly of Hillaryood. All for the glory of the progressive faux-go-gooder Meryl Streep progressive church.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Oh come ye George Clooney and Jimmy Kimmel, and preach to us the good news of the church of progressive lies. The walled ivory tower socialist knows best.

William said...

I wonder if the floodgates will open. He certainly harassed more than eight women over the course of his life. . He has lawyered up in an impressive way, so maybe he can minimize the damage. In any event, the people in Hollywood and the media are going to look bad. They're not revealing Weinstein's sins but their own hypocrisy and/or cowardice.

Virgil Hilts said...

What a great week coming to this blog.
HW makes me think about JFK and Camelot (or per George Carlin "well, it really should’ve been called “Come-a-lot” cause that’s what he did, he came a lot!").
HW is/was probably worse, but JFK telling 19 year old intern Mimi Alford to give Dave Powers a blow job in the WH pool in JFK's presence, etc. has to rank pretty high on the list of disgusting abuses of power against young woman. All these people knew about JFK, press members (hell be was banging the sister of Ben Bradlee - she was later shot to death on the towpath), but game him a pass. I think Bob Ellison is right - its mainly about power. Would anyone have advanced their career going after JFK, or trying to publish stories about his abuse of young women? A few people considered it. Maybe some of them even died because they considered it.

Angel-Dyne said...

James Graham: Kudos to the New York Times for exposing this creep.

Shame on the New York Times for continuing to suppress the highly credible Juanita Broaddrick's claim.


The second sentence here gives the lie to the first - whatever the reason for "bigger players" wanting to shiv this dirtbag, it has nothing to do with decency, or feminism (hahahahaha), so no kudos for some little demons roasting another little demon. Let 'em enjoy their intra-hell gang wars.

rhhardin said...

misogynist underbelly

Men's Achilles' heel.

Angel-Dyne said...

Dickin'Bims: speaking of male nags....

Lol. He has been being quite the peevish old woman lately, hasn't he?

cronus titan said...

Has any journalist demanded any Democrat to denounce Weinstein? Media routinely demands Republicans denounce dumb comments from obscure figures, yet curiously never demands Democrats denounce sexually predatory behavior by one of their own. Telling.

EDH said...

Ashley Judd being the prime example, you have to wonder how much suppressed rage against liberal Hollywood Weinstein types has been projected onto Trump.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Angel-Dyne

yes. *Must skip reading.* Why endure the torture? lol.

rhhardin said...

The good side of Harvey Weinstein is being left out.

He's the starting position in a romantic comedy.

William said...

There's no percentage in coming forward and denouncing a liberal icon. On the other hand, a woman who reports a transgression by Ailes or Donald Trump can reliably expect to be celebrated for her courage and feminist principles. No reporter will dig deeper to see if she ever cheats on her husband or whatever.....,,There was that disturbing story about how JFK told his intern to give one of his other underlings a blow job. Munchausen rape. A new frontier in sexual perversion. When the story broke, I remember Chris Matthews explaining how great men often had great flaws. The story is no longer repeated and is not considered a relevant part of JFK's biography.......I would recommend to all men with eccentric libidinal urges to become prominent in liberal politics. It's your one chance of survival in this harsh world.

rhhardin said...

If Weinstein just put his wealth in Treasuries and took up blogging none of this would be happening.

rhhardin said...

If you have needy women traipsing through your office all day you can expect trouble.

Angel-Dyne said...

EDH: Ashley Judd being the prime example, you have to wonder how much suppressed rage against liberal Hollywood Weinstein types has been projected onto Trump.

Interesting point. A lot of feminist rage (Hollywood and non-Hollywood) does seem to be displaced from personal experience to some "out there" abstraction ("the patriarchy", "Trump"), so that the real problem doesn't have to be dealt with. That would entail risk, and might also lead to a lot of uncomfortable questioning of the rest of liberal fantasy web.

Angel-Dyne said...

Dickin'Bims: yes. *Must skip reading.* Why endure the torture? lol.

Only when he gets stuck in a loop. He's a good poster, otherwise.

Chris N said...

Well said, Ann. Politics often gets in the way of principle, and making politics a righteous cause and feminism your highest moral light can more easily facilitate the kind of moral bankruptcy on display here (Clinton inc, Weinstein etc)

After all the talk about 'ethics,' groups, identities, oppression etc. (which flow from her principles), Traister, like all of us, is left with her own choices and circumstances.

Caving in to career and fear is VERY common in human affairs. So, too, is the powerful man exercising his power for personal pleasure. I'm sure it's tempting, though the man is by all accounts a cretin.

Doubling down on whatever principles you have after a personal failure (Weinstein did what little of that he could too) is VERY common in human affairs. Thus the 'expert' Traister lecturing us and hanging herself with her own rope comes as little surprise. Thanks for the lesson.

My problem with these principles is that they don't promote enough wisdom and understanding of human nature, nor ultimately the possibility of objective and real knowledge (a thornier problem) to sustain liberty. They confuse moral, social and political goods and are a tornado of post-Enlightenment ideas which tear-down everything in their path.

A lot of people truly don't want the responsibility that comes with freedom, and in their crusade, erode the freedom of others.

Chris N said...

Also, would anyone mind if I took a shower right here in the comments?

We're all pals, right?

Guildofcannonballs said...

Brilliant Althouse, as per amazingly enough usual. Splendid.

I am glad I do not know how to trigger this exceptional-for-normals writing because I think I would over do it.

It has taken me over a decade, but I finally understand what Limbaugh was talking about when he said if he could think exactly as another person for a day, he would like to be able to think like Dr. Charley Krauthammer thinks, only with me it's Althouse after Buckley.

Steve M. Galbraith said...

For all of the faults of modern feminism I think even the most severe critic has to recognize that feminism was - still is - needed. Not THIS feminism, the one we have; but the one that emerged from abuses like this that women - many women or at least too many women - had to put up with.

Think of your sister or daughter having to go through this? You'd be outraged, you'd want to punch the creeps out.

rcocean said...

Great analysis. But we've seen this movie before.

The Liberals were "outraged" over Thomas but strangely reluctant to criticize Bill. Its the Conservatives who were upset at Kennedy killing a women, the liberals seemed strangely silent. Look at the liberals/Leftists on this site. Fully of OUTRAGE at Bill O' Reilly and "Grab them by the Pussy" but strangely silent on Harvey Weinstein.

How many other Weinstein's are out there preying on women while being protected by the liberal MSM. And why did the NYT go after him NOW, after being silent for 15 years?

Ann Althouse said...

"It has taken me over a decade, but I finally understand what Limbaugh was talking about when he said if he could think exactly as another person for a day, he would like to be able to think like Dr. Charley Krauthammer thinks, only with me it's Althouse after Buckley."

Thanks.

Big Mike said...

Put my name on the list of people who never did believe Anita Hill. But I see no reason not to believe Rose McGowen or Ashley Judd when talking about being harassed by Weinstein.

rcocean said...

Its hard to care about the "Freedom of the Press" when the Reporters don't.

TwilightofLiberty.com said...

Not sure why but I'm suddenly curious how many ladies cast in 'strong/powerful female roles' got them by being the opposite.

n.n said...

Economic liberalism reduces personal liability. Social liberalism reduces personal accountability.

Planned Parenthood celebration... where a once human clump of cells, organs, and matter, features prominently as lord of the maggots.

Throw a baby on the barbie, social liberalism is done... never, but momentarily moderated.

tcrosse said...

Mortgage payments doth make cowards of us all.

n.n said...

Traister: I saw Harvey Weinstein earlier this year, at a Planned Parenthood celebration. I was struck... by his physical diminishment

So, Weinstein is no longer viable, and in the spirit of Planned Parenthood, the social liberals are holding a baby trial. It's a kind of comic justice.

Big Mike said...

@Althouse, what a lovely takedown. I like the way you call bullshit on the bullshit.

FullMoon said...

Bill Cosby, Roger Ailes, Bill O’Reilly, Donald Trump.

Only one accused of physical contact is Cosby.

rhhardin said...

It's being cast as a psychological thriller instead of a romantic comedy. There's the trouble.

Earnest Prole said...

Delightful as it is to prick the bubbles of liberal hypocrisy, I don’t believe liberal politics was the primary reason people covered for Harvey Weinstein, as you imply here. His story is remarkably similar to Roger Ailes’, and people covered for Ailes for years as well.

PWS said...

Ann, it seems like you're leveling very confident judgment from afar. Have you ever had to struggle with a decision about speaking truth to power where your job or reputation or money would be on the line? Is there any chance you don't know the whole story? Seems a bit glib to reduce it to "bullshit."

Original Mike said...

"Blogger PWS said...Ann, it seems like you're leveling very confident judgment from afar. Have you ever had to struggle with a decision about speaking truth to power where your job or reputation or money would be on the line? Is there any chance you don't know the whole story? Seems a bit glib to reduce it to "bullshit.""

Traister's job/reputation were on the line? That says a lot right there.

Mark said...

This is a big reason why Trump won the election.

When the Access Hollywood stuff came out, normally that would have torpedoed anyone's campaign. But when the left -- and some here -- went on and on and on about how horrified and horrifying it was for someone to use "the p word" and grabbing crotches, the whole country knew that their feigned shock was complete and total BS.

And so people not only gave Trump a pass, they recognized who the real enemy is and Trump even gained support from it all. That was certainly the time when I felt that we could NEVER allow these people to have power ever again, after months of planning to not vote at all.

Bob Boyd said...

I wonder what basket Hillary put Weinstein in?

Original Mike said...

We haven't heard from Hillary yet, have we?

Jupiter said...

Steve M. Galbraith said...

"Think of your sister or daughter having to go through this? You'd be outraged, you'd want to punch the creeps out."

Think of your own sister or daughter cozying up to some creep for a chance to pose naked. We don't act like that in my family.

Bay Area Guy said...

"Oh, bullshit. Harvey was another liberal, like Bill Clinton, so you pushed the obvious principles to the side and protected him. The only fuzziness is the blur imposed by politics, and once you let that in, you have no principle."

Bravo, AA. It also explains why Harvey started yapping up the NRA in his ridiculous statement. In Hollywood, powerful men who sexually harass women, get a pass as long as they fervently sing from the Democrat playbook.





Zach said...

That's the danger of turning a social movement into a political movement. A social movement can prosper by doing the right thing, but a political movement has to be on the winning team.

... the story felt fuzzier, harder to tell about Harvey: the notion of the “casting couch” still had an almost romantic reverberation...

It wasn't really harder to tell. Re-read the New York Times article. They reference some legal settlements, and quote a couple of people telling their stories. No harder to write than a story about a shoddy sewer main.

It's only harder to tell when you've internalized that you're on one team, and that you need to be a team player. I.E., when you've become a political movement rather than a social movement.

Birches said...

I now understand why these Hollywood "feminists" and newspeople think that all accusations of sexual assault are to be believed. They live in a culture where powerful people do get away with anything, and yet, they project their distorted view of men onto the rest of America, which is nothing like it.

Fix your own house first. The rest of us do not live in such an awful world.

Meade said...

Martha said...

"Word is his brother outed Harvey in an internecine battle for control of the Weinstein Company."

And the Lord said to Bob Weinstein, "Where is Harvey your brother? And Bob said, "I do not know: am I my brother's keeper of secrets?"

Achilles said...

This goes to how the leftists treat poeple in general. If Weinstein was on the right he would be sued and pilloried. But he is on the left so the leftists feed him virgins.

There are animals and degenerates on the right. We don't defend and cover for them. We respect the people who become victims and at least try.

The left just looks at poor people as serfs who serve in whatever capacity the masters require.

mandrewa said...

If Anita Hill was telling the truth about Clarence Thomas, why did she follow him from one job to another?

I don't understand why people believe Anita Hill.

There is quite the contrast between the alleged sexual misdeeds of a Clarence Thomas and a Bill Clinton. I'll skip describing the very long list of the alleged sexual misdeeds of Bill Clinton, but unless I missed something wasn't the heart of Anita Hill's complaint about Clarence Thomas that he expressed a sexual interest in her. And not even directly!

I mean it is not hard to believe that such a thing could happen. It's only one of the more common interactions between men and women.

Anita Hill claims she was disturbed by this alleged behavior. But then she goes out of her way to keep the presence of Clarence Thomas in her environment. Is this believable? Only if we allow for the complexity of human behavior, where what she says may have been true except that she wasn't really all that disturbed and has edited from her memory that she was attracted to Clarence Thomas.

The other possibility is the whole story was invented out of thin air.

So what are we to make of the fact that so many women believe Anita Hill?

tcrosse said...

I wonder what basket Hillary put Weinstein in?

The collection basket, by all accounts.
More importantly, how does this effect H>er book tour ?

bgates said...

If a woman's writing includes not only known falsehoods like the idea that Anita Hill was sexually harassed but the ludicrous whopper that nobody in journalism was interested in feminism in the 1990s (!), why should I believe her evidence-free vignette about the time the villain of the moment committed felony assault in front of a crowd of people with cameras, none of whom have mentioned the episode in public in the subsequent fifteen years?

Unknown said...

The lack of pursuit of liberals proves just about every damn thing republicans have been saying about the democrat media.

n.n said...

Trump never actually admitted to being a social liberal, but that he was aware of their lifestyle. This line of reasoning a la Kiev-manufactured "Russian dossier", would have been enough to destroy someone's credibility, but the long train of the left's abuses, and the fact that he stood his ground, partially inoculated him to the real and invented machinations of social and economic liberals, progressives, and leviathan, too.

rhhardin said...

Lots of conservatives are social liberals, but they also see comedy.

Unknown said...

Ann, that's a really great takedown. The cognitive dissonance on the Left will persist for some time yet however.




vanderleun said...

Bravo. That's one of the best fiskings I have seen in years. Bravo.

Freeman Hunt said...

This is why you can't vote for people the press likes.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"I don't understand why people believe Anita Hill."

Nor do I. I remember women who believed Hill predicting that of course Thomas would continue to harass women after his appointment to SCOTUS and he would be able to do so without fear of losing his job. Except he hasn't. Sexual harassers in positions of power don't just harass one woman; they're like Bill Clinton and Weinstein and Ted Kennedy. It's ridiculous to think that Thomas was somehow so smitten with the charms of Anita Hill that she alone induced him to act inappropriately.

Ralph L said...

Was it the thrill of exhibition or of intimidating a young female that got him up and off so quickly?
I'm sort of impressed with his 55 yo plumbing (it was allegedly 10 years ago), but I've never tried boner pills or testosterone supplements.

She could so easily have ridiculed him and escaped--or kicked him in the nuts.

James Graham said...

I am not Laslo.

Sad.

rhhardin said...

What Althouse assumes, and slightly puts the take-down off-center, is that feminism is itself part of the war of men and women.

Suppressing the story fits easily into the gap where feminism becomes comedy in its own context.

So suppressing the story is slightly on the side of truth rather than hypocrisy or failure.

If you're of the female HR employee mindset you can't see this.

Bill said...

the notion of the “casting couch” still had an almost romantic reverberation...

Traister has a way with a shovel. The notion of the 'casting couch' has NEVER had an 'almost' romantic reverberation.

Bill said...

How awful to see the words "Planned Parenthood" come up when the subject is the author's comfort in going after someone who is weak and small!

THANK YOU for pointing this out.

Krumhorn said...

I wish I were Laslo.

- Krumhorn

CStanley said...

How awful to see the words "Planned Parenthood" come up when the subject is the author's comfort in going after someone who is weak and small!

THANK YOU for pointing this out.


Seconded, And as we speak, the Democrats are trying to figure out the least "crunchy technique" for extracting Harvey Weinstein and his millions.

robother said...

Can we finally stop pretending that "Feminism" is anything more than another Democrat identity group, people primed to take offense at the slightest alleged harassment if and only if the offender is not a member of the Democrat power structure or another Leftist identity group. Its just a leftist GOTV and fundraising listserve.

Assrat said...

We're I not Assrat, I would be Laslo.

Krumhorn said...

Hillarywood is filled with jerks who ignore the pedophilia and actual misogynist underbelly of Hillaryood. All for the glory of the progressive faux-go-gooder Meryl Streep progressive church.

I'm afraid it's even worse than that. I've been in the business for a long time working at two networks and two studios. The librul thing, for the most part, is a charade. They talk privately about the Schvartzes, the schvoo-boogies, and the chukkers and beaners. Even more appalling is the frank admission that lib politics and paying higher taxes are the buy-off to keep the peace so that their gated communities and Rollers are safe from harm. And I'm not just talking about the older, fat, rich guys.

They think that this social compact gives them immunity since there are plenty of deplorables out there to draw fire. So far, they've been absolutely correct.

- Krumhorn

Krumhorn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Krumhorn said...

Our hostess has a remarkable mind, and this post is Class A exemplar of the point.

But if I could have one day to think in the mind of another person, it wouldn't be Althouse; it would be Oscar Peterson Jr.

- Krumhorn

Ralph L said...

Who he? As my old college newspaper editor would say.

Mattman26 said...

Putting aside whether Anita Hill lied, weren't her "worst" allegations that he made some off-color remarks about porn films, and something about a pubic hair on a Coke can?

Pretty mild stuff (at least by comparison to HW), even if true.

Bill Crawford said...

I'm sure I should have realized this a long time ago....

If they knew about this and hid it for 17+ years, what are they still hiding?

Democracy does indeed die in darkness

maryhopes said...

Thank you Ann, for this so insightful response. The added catch of the irony of the Planned Parenthood comment, "...he seemed small and frail...." is heart wrenching and spot on.

wildswan said...

Weinstein is so gross. I would have thought that every woman's nightmare is somehow falling into the power of someone who acts like Weinstein AND is gross like him. But apparently in Hollywood it's just the price of admission and there are plenty willing to pay the price. And there are, or were, plenty of reporters willing to make lame excuses for him, as Althouse points out. But why is the news-media so lame? Surely, it's different from Hollywood and, oh, for sure, women reporters aren't being subjected this kind of outrageous exploitation.

mandrewa said...

Exiledonmainstreet, I'm worried that we are denying human nature. I'm not defending Weinstein, whose misdeeds are extraordinary. I'm talking about defending the normal male who is almost compulsively attracted to at least some women. Sexual harassment laws put men at a great disadvantage because you've passed a law against what is basically male nature.

Sure there are some men who have successfully mastered the art of suppressing the expression of their sexual attraction to women at work. Note that I didn't say they suppressed their sexual desires. But there's plenty of men that can't do this, not always anyway.

The thing about Anita Hill isn't that I think that it's all that improbable that Clarence Thomas expressed a sexual attraction to Anita Hill. The problem is that Anita Hill is almost certainly lying and that this is an abuse of power on Anita Hill's part. I imagine that there are two narratives that stand a good chance of being true.

First, something like what she recounted happened except it wasn't that a big deal to her and her use of it was purely motivated as a tool to block Thomas from getting on to the Supreme Court.

Or two, something like what she recounted happened and it was a big deal to her because she was sexually frustrated and really wanted something to happen and it didn't. I find that plausible because it's consistent with what she did and the fact that women are sexual beings and that's a pretty strong thing for women too although expressed differently from men. Then she takes that experience which she has no trouble remembering except for her own motivations which she has trouble acknowledging, which I believe is true for most people. And then from there it is driven by her politics.

Now a feminist might look at this and say either way you're believing that Thomas 'sexually harassed' Anita Hill. But that's a problem with feminism because you've a made a law against males. You've found a standard that men are going to fail at, not always, but way too often.

If we are going to allow this ideology where we stack the odds so much against men, then we better allow companies to legally discriminate against women and not hire women if they don't want this dynamic. If it's otherwise you're doing the reverse and discriminating against men, which is where I think the actual law has put us.

Rabel said...

"If they knew about this and hid it for 17+ years, what are they still hiding?"

Perhaps what Harvey knows about them is worse that what they know about Harvey.

Anonymous said...

Feminism requires absolute support of partial birth abortion on demand. If you are for that, you can get away with sexual harassment, rape, misogyny, and even murder.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00402

Jim at said...

"Right now, I'm wondering how the Weinstein story helps the Democrats..."

Simple.

It didn't come out in October, 2016.
It won't come out in October, 2018.

... even though it's been widely known for years, if not decades.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

I guess these dipshit reporters are taking a moment or two off from giving each other awards for bravery and talking about how courageous they are, how without their noble daring our very democracy would die (in the dark!) to now whine "oooh, we couldn't break this story, it was just too scarrrrry--feel sorry for us!"
Which is it?

Hell, it'd be more dignified to just come out and admit you're all Leftists and you have a strong bias about publishing anything that you know might hurt the Left. Smart Life Long Republicans tell me there's "no such thing as the Media" but things like this happening certainly argue that there is, and that as expected it's Leftist to its rotten core.

Night Owl said...

"... Bill Cosby, Roger Ailes, Bill O’Reilly, Donald Trump."

It's interesting how every article I've seen, so far, about Weinstein includes a select list of "hideous men" that always ends with "Donald Trump". I guess if the odious Weinstein is no longer useful to the left as a Dem donor or career builder, they may as well make his downfall useful as a tool for smearing Trump. As they say, "Never let a good crisis go to waste!"

Freeman Hunt said...

It's so much easier to go left. I think that's why you see so many high profile people being leftists. If you go right, the press will love negative stories about you. If you go left, that press doesn't care about your sins unless forced.

Leigh said...

How does this Harvey Weinstein story help the Democrats? Here's Douthat's meandering column, hot of the presses. See, in particular, most of the comments. I'd say it's not worth denting your monthly NYT article ration, but what is worth reading at the NYT anymore? Can't remember the last time I hit their paywall.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/07/opinion/sunday/harvey-weinstein-harassment-liberals.html

Anonymous said...

"That kind of force, that kind of power? I could not have won against that."

BS. The power belongs with the people who buy ink by the barrel.

Aggie - said...

The early bird may get the worm, but it's the second mouse that gets the cheese. Most people are herd animals, and will only dare to make themselves conspicuous if it's to be seen by others in the herd. That's not being brave, it's just being ambitious.

Narayanan Subramanian said...

What is the difference between conspiracy and NDA? As far as enforcement or prosecution is concerned? Is it legal blackmail ?

Narayanan Subramanian said...

I am not brave enough to be a coward I see the consequences clearly

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/432

Wayne Dupree said...

When I read what this British actress had to say about Harvey Weinstein and how he raped her, then I made up my mind it's time for some serious, major, jailtime.

https://www.waynedupree.com/british-actress-alleges-harvey-weinstein-rape-kept-eyes-shut-held-breath/