That makes Michaels look like he's overly familiar with sexual harassment or that he thinks it's sophisticated to condone it. Why would he want to look like that?
Meanwhile, at The Wrap, Sharon Waxman tells about her work at the NYT, back in 2004, preparing an exposé about Weinstein...
I traveled to Rome and tracked down the man who held the plum position of running Miramax Italy. According to multiple accounts, he had no film experience and his real job was to take care of Weinstein’s women needs, among other things.... I had people on the record telling me Lombardo knew nothing about film, and others citing evenings he organized with Russian escorts....Was that "a New York thing"?
The story I reported never ran. After intense pressure from Weinstein, which included having Matt Damon and Russell Crowe call me directly to vouch for Lombardo and unknown discussions well above my head at the Times, the story... was stripped of any reference to sexual favors or coercion and buried on the inside of the Culture section, an obscure story about Miramax firing an Italian executive. Who cared?
Is Harvey Weinstein a freakish outlier, or was he doing what many other powerful men are doing?
I've been doing a lot of posts on Weinstein, and one type of comment I've been seeing minimizes the importance of what he's doing because it's just business as usual — the way it's always been. Like I'm unsophisticated to care. Like I just don't get a New York thing.
But it's more important if it's systemic and widespread. It's not enough to kick out Weinstein because he went too far and his story finally made it into print. Let's get the whole story out in the open, the story that includes all the covering for Weinstein, including all the bias injected by men who were keen on preserving male privilege and the subordination of women — in the entertainment business, in journalism, and in politics.
পোস্টগুলি
২৩৫টি মন্তব্য:
235 এর 1 – থেকে 200 আরও নতুন» সবচেয়ে নতুন»'you think I'm fat'
The human resources rules are not ethical rules, no matter how much of a hot button it is. They're feminist moves in a war against men.
The ethical rules are no fraud, no force. They've always applied.
It's gains from trade. The man and the woman both come out ahead.
In casting films it's particularly valid. Actresses are indistinguishable, so it's not even costing the company anything.
Whether Weinstein did anything falling afoul of ethics we don't know. It's all human resources rules, which are not ethical rules at all. Just what the leftist interest group got passed.
Yeah. Now you pile on.
Predfictable.
What Lorne Michaels meant to say that it is pure tribalism. And tribalism is the central organizing principle of today's Democrat party. A member of the tribe must be protected. Tribe members can do no wrong.
The widespread problem of men wanting to fuck women, and women seeing an advantage in it.
SNL is so locker room. Ask any woman who worked there.
It is a New York thing! Those folks on the Upper West Side, are stressed out, Man! Rats on the west side, bed bugs uptown.
Sometimes you just gotta go the Cafe Socialista and let it all hang out!
From the Hollywood Reporter:
"Later that evening, after the board announced the leave of absence, TV news reporter Lauren Sivan told HuffPost about an incident a decade ago in which Weinstein masturbated in front of her in a hallway at the Cafe Socialista restaurant in New York, ejaculating into a potted plant. On Sunday, writer and artist Liza Campbell recounted, in the Sunday Times, that Weinstein once asked her to "jump in the bath" with him after summoning her to his hotel room in the Savoy for what she believed was a business meeting."
And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.
Grab 'em by the Italian Executive. You can do anything.
That pic of Rose McGowan in the red strapless dress pressing into Harvey Weinstein says a lot. Her expression is I've got this guy where I want him. What is the complete exegesis of that feeling and the complaint and the $100,000 settlement? Something like: I want to use my sexual power, then I want to forget I used it and blame Harvey, then I want to show the world my power, then I want to erase my guilt and become a crusader against the thing and the corruption I was a part of until one second ago?
You can tell that Harvey Weinstein is a media professional because he never gets caught on camera.
A New York thing is the New York equivalent to A Harvard thing
Ted Kennedy went to Harvard.
I feel bad. Who to blame?
- Any woman
"In casting films it's particularly valid. Actresses are indistinguishable, so it's not even costing the company anything."
1. Were the legal bills and settlements paid out of HW's private funds?
2. The Waxman article has a guy in Italy paid $400,000 in corporate funds to do a job that consisted of procuring women.
3. If "indistinguishable" actresses are what they are putting into the product, what does that say about the people who want to gaze at such faces?
4. I find all the plastic surgery repellent. And I mean plastic surgery of the soul.
I find Bob Corker's views a little more germane to our general well being than those Lorne Michaels.
"That pic of Rose McGowan in the red strapless dress pressing into Harvey Weinstein says a lot. Her expression is I've got this guy where I want him. What is the complete exegesis of that feeling and the complaint and the $100,000 settlement? Something like: I want to use my sexual power, then I want to forget I used it and blame Harvey, then I want to show the world my power, then I want to erase my guilt and become a crusader against the thing and the corruption I was a part of until one second ago?"
You need to look at the problem from the perspective of the women who didn't make the same choice, who lost out. Even if you want to say RM was an adult and she made her choice, that doesn't neutralize the problem. That only makes RM part of the problem — complicit. Other women were hurt. The whole system becomes rotten, and we the movie-consuming public suffer too, as entertainment and art become impoverished as self-regarding men make the business operate for their private interests.
I thought the only affect the Weinstein story would have on me would be curiosity as to who would continue to cover for him and for how long. But, over the weekend I was watching a TV show and I realized, in the back of my mind, there was a small nagging thought wondering whether the actress got the role through up-front auditions of her acting talent or because of some other talent.
1. The legal bills are human resources rules, which I'm arguing against. They're not moral rules but feminist impositions. I don't say it's not expensive, but that it's just a reason to repeal them.
2. Right, corporate funds is stealing, or ought to count as income as the arrangement was apparently sanctioned. It's a business expense either way.
3. I can't tell actresses apart, but they all look fine, and are competent at acting. I can distinguish Anne Hathaway usually.
4. Is this a claim that human resources rules are the gold standard? The ordinary mechanisms of human warmth have worked for a long time and souls fared well or badly according to no fraud, no force rules.
"I find Bob Corker's views a little more germane to our general well being than those Lorne Michaels."
If the project is understanding systems of male power, the fact that one type of power is more dangerous than another doesn't dictate that we must turn our attention immediately to the more dangerous one. What we learn studying one may help us understand another.
Meryl Streep's comment:
“The disgraceful news about Harvey Weinstein has appalled those of us whose work he championed, and those whose good and worthy causes he supported. The intrepid women who raised their voices to expose this abuse are our heroes.
One thing can be clarified. Not everybody knew. Harvey supported the work fiercely, was exasperating but respectful with me in our working relationship, and with many others with whom he worked professionally. I didn’t know about these other offenses: I did not know about his financial settlements with actresses and colleagues; I did not know about his having meetings in his hotel room, his bathroom, or other inappropriate, coercive acts. And If everybody knew, I don’t believe that all the investigative reporters in the entertainment and the hard news media would have neglected for decades to write about it.
The behavior is inexcusable, but the abuse of power familiar. Each brave voice that is raised, heard and credited by our watchdog media will ultimately change the game.”
So, basically, she would have known if only the media had reported it.
Probably doesn't get out much. Just award shows, really.
I am Laslo.
"the movie-consuming public suffer too, as entertainment and art become impoverished"
Not sure I view this as a major concern given the financially driven aesthetics of Hollywood. I wonder what Bob Corker thinks?
You need to look at the problem from the perspective of the women who didn't make the same choice, who lost out.
Society would be worse off is she got chosen. It's math.
Both Weinstein and the bedmate wound up better off, the one from fucking and the other from a resulting gain to her minus the cost of fucking, if that's a cost to her.
That mutual benefit is greater than if the other lady is chosen.
The reason for the difference is that people don't all have the same preferences. All gains from trade depend on that. The coffee is worth more to you than to the grocer, so you trade money for coffee. Both of you win.
I agree with Mary Beth. This is making me question whether any prominent woman in movies, on TV, having success in music, was subjugated to the same type of pressure in order to have a shot. I have slightly more confidence traditional business is less infected systemically.
Laslo Spatula said...
Probably doesn't get out much.
I stand second to no man in finding Meryl Streep's 'acting' painful to watch but this rang fairly true for me. Clearly the Obama's didn't know or they would not have sent their daughter to work in his firm. Famous people are not magically privy to all the information in the world, often they know no more than the the average reader of the Daily Mail.
"That only makes RM part of the problem — complicit. Other women were hurt. The whole system becomes rotten, and we the movie-consuming public suffer too, as entertainment and art become impoverished as self-regarding men make the business operate for their private interests."
This is noble, but naive. The "casting couch" is an integrated part of Hollywood, and has been so for nearly 100 years. Unattractive girls don't get the roles; attractive girls compete for the roles; and the aggressive ones offer themselves to the director/producer to win the roles.
Hefner dies the same week Harvey's career dies.
Reform Hollywood!
Probably doesn't get out much. Just award shows, really.
Snark I assume but in Streep's case also true.
She's the high bidder. Look at it as an auction. The winner costs everybody else their choice, albeit a choice at a lower price.
Auctions are rotten.
Winners in auctions are complicit in the whole widespread rotten auction system.
Bill Crawford said...
I have slightly more confidence traditional business is less infected systemically.
You may need to get out more. Owner run businesses of any kind are particularly prone to abuse of women.
Don Jr.'s twitter reaction to Michaels' comment was something like: Anyone know what city Donald Trump is from?
Weinstein isn't from NYC, he's from The Left, a place that looks out for its own.
Limbaugh likes to say that feminist rules are there to give ugly women a chance.
It's not considered what effect that has on relations between men and women when human resources becomes involved.
It certainly results in mobs of angry women.
This is a powerful vs. everyone else thing.
No fraud, no force.
Maybe it's an evny thing. The mob instincts here are really weird.
David Begley is right. New Yorkers protecting New Yorkers.
How can anybody internalize human resources rules. I mean as ethics standards.
Meryl Streep's words are hollow. Of course, Harvey's not gonna coax her into the shower for a massage - she's too high up on the food chain, duh.
It's the low hanging fruit in glitter town (attravtive young non-starlets) that the predators like Harvey seek out.
Blogger hugh42 said...
That pic of Rose McGowan in the red strapless dress pressing into Harvey Weinstein says a lot. Her expression is I've got this guy where I want him. What is the complete exegesis of that feeling and the complaint and the $100,000 settlement? Something like: I want to use my sexual power, then I want to forget I used it and blame Harvey, then I want to show the world my power, then I want to erase my guilt and become a crusader against the thing and the corruption I was a part of until one second ago?
I thought it said "tits! just look at these tits!"
If you use the casting couch in ordinary business you go out of business. Competitors beat you.
Actresses interchangeability makes that not apply in films.
hhardin - do you say the same thing about the abuse of kids?
That would call under no fraud. The kid doesn't know what deal he's making.
I'll trade this shiny new nickel for that dime, is forbidden.
"It's a New York thing"
It's from the same file drawer from which was taken the joke* about swimming lawyers and sharks.
*Though it's truthful, not comical.
rhhardin said...
If you use the casting couch in ordinary business you go out of business.
This is complete bullshit.
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
3. If "indistinguishable" actresses are what they are putting into the product, what does that say about the people who want to gaze at such faces?
I have enjoyed going to the movies since I was a boy walking to the Gillioz Theatre to see a double feature James Bond and Godzilla on Saturday morning back in the 1960s. I am not a sophisticated consumer of cinema, and intend to never be one. I don't go to see monumental works of art, I go to be entertained. Yes, I noticed that along the way, the actresses all starting sporting puff tits and were made up to look like pieces of delicious candy. I suppose a man of higher principal would have drawn the line back in the 1980s and refused to participate. I saw the new Blade Runner last night. It was swell. 'In the Know" says it is pulling in older guys, but few others. Guilty as charged.
Starbucks no longer practices sexual harassment.
This is why the baristas aren't as pretty anymore.
I am Laslo.
one type of comment I've been seeing minimizes the importance of what he's doing because it's just business as usual — the way it's always been. Like I'm unsophisticated to care. Like I just don't get a New York thing.
Unfortunately, it (powerful people using their position to sexually harass and do worse to their underlings) IS business as usual. That doesn't make it right and certainly doesn't mean that there should be nothing done to stop it. There should be consequences for the perpetrators.
However, human nature being what it is, the less powerful will either walk away from the situation because they will not bend, or they will go along with it in order to make their own situation better. The really unusual person will fight against the abuse of power. Unfortunately (again) that person is usually a voice lost in the wind and is pummeled into nothing by being the lone entity fighting against the force of power.
The idea that there is a Sisterhood of women who should be fighting this or that there is a Brotherhood to fight a similar battle in other areas, is aspiriational and ideal. However, it is not so.
Were there a "Sisterhood" feminist would be en masse fighting for the protection and rights of women who are castrated in the name of Islam, kept as literal slaves and other abuses that occur to women world wide, as well as in the United States. Worse abuses than having to "put out sex" to get a movie career. There IS no Sisterhood. This is reality.
It doesn't mean that something should not be done to punish the wicked, that we should accept it or that there shouldn't be attempts to change the "way it is". It doesn't mean that nothing CAN be done. It just means that those who want change need to realize they are fighting a powerful dynamic: human nature.
Famous people are not magically privy to all the information in the world, often they know no more than the the average reader of the Daily Mail.
I support ARM on this. Certainly ignorance is true in the case of the Obamas, as it always is. Barack learns about things by hearing about them in television...
The problem is with those who know and are complicit.
Matt Damon runs interference for the big lie?
AReasonableMan said...
Clearly the Obama's didn't know or they would not have sent their daughter to work in his firm.
So far, it doesn't appear that Weinstein was into black chicks, so why would they worry. Tiger Woods is famous for banging women. He isn't into black chicks either.
Of course it's a common thing. There have been jokes about the casting couch for six or seven decades.
DBQ - all that is true. The little voice will be trampled by the powerful.
The sisterhood and the brotherhood are leftwing first, leftwing second, and leftwing to the end. Their allegiance to leftwing power, trumps everything. If Harvey wants girls to abuse, Harvey gets girls to abuse. Leftwing looks the other way. Harvey writes big checks to pay for the leftwing.
Lie back and think of Oscar.
I am Laslo.
Don't forget the photo of McGowan was leaked upon the advice of sooper liberal, fightin' for feminist lawyer Bloom. It was part of her strategy to discredit the women accusers.
Lots of hypocrisy here.
Waiting for a reporter to ask Malia Obama if Weinstein jacked off in front of her. Or asked her Dad if he knew Harv liked milking the snake in front of less powerful women.
"Clearly the Obama's didn't know or they would not have sent their daughter to work in his firm."
Clearly? And you know this how?
Behind every double standard is an unconfessed single standard.
Leftwing - they stick together. That's why Hillarywood went full Hillary. They don't give a crap about lies, money grubbing, abuse of power. That's what they celebrate.
btw - I watched "Manchester by the Sea" over the weekend. What a CRAP movie. Total CRAP. Did I say CRAP? oh yeah - CRAP. Depressing, poorly acted, I felt no connection to the characters. I was hovering watching yet another Hillarywood depressive flick. Three little kids die in flames - boy that's entertainment, Hillarywood. Was that movie a Weinstein Miramax production? Pure garbage.
*A* joke. As in one joke, that was one too many. Only one to start with.
You think Harvey didn't take films?
You think that Harvey didn't take pictures?
There is a whole subset of Hollywood actresses praying that his smartphone doesn't get hacked.
I am Laslo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkphsYRRJ_0
Did somebody murder RHardin and take over their online identity?
The Wrap claims the NYT also nixed a Harvey Weinstein is a creep story back in 04.
In a strange sort of way, I suppose I'm comforted by the notion that some things never change.
Some things are still predictable that way.
The powerful is protected when the weak is not.
An entertaining idea for a movie?
You get every A-list leftwing Hillarywood "actor" who play dress up and depressive for the camera for millions, in one giant auditorium and you hand them golden statues while they self-congratulate each other and emote over how fabulous they all are, and boom - the whole place goes up in flames. Make sure Loren Michaels is in there, too.
Now that's entertainment.
I am going to predict that if the New York Times uncovers a similar story about Trump six months from now Ann will have a very different reaction.
Don't forget the photo of McGowan was leaked upon the advice of sooper liberal, fightin' for feminist lawyer Bloom. It was part of her strategy to discredit the women accusers.
Which was horrible advice. Once the narrative is set that he abused his position of power, then pictures of woman interacting with him in a friendly manner can only be interpreted as those woman pretending because they fear him.
Casting couch is one thing, and it's between consenting adults. If it was just that, Harv would still have a job. I don't know if he was married at the time - i.e. Was he cheating on his wife.
What I find wrong, was his aggression both physically and sexual harassment, where it's not voluntary. What he did to the reporter in a hallway with a potted plant, that psycho territory. And sounds criminal.
I am going to predict that if the New York Times uncovers a similar story about Trump six months from now
They already did that. A big expose on the fact that while single the multi-millionaire celebrity liked to date hot women and brag about it. That's why he lost the election.
DBQ has it right. The "casting couch" notion is an old one. It gets normalized. Folks decide it's not important because it's nothing new.
The only interesting question in the Weinstein story is: how the hell did so many people sit on this story for so many years?
Clearly the Obama's didn't know or they would not have sent their daughter to work in his firm.
Weasel words intended to protect Obama and the Democrats from the obvious conclusion.
First, rhhardin, we get that you are a free market proponent. But markets with hidden information are not free. If it isn't known that you have to sleep with directors to raise your chances of being cast, then the decision to go into acting in the first place, was made on incomplete information which was purposely hidden. In regular business this is called fraud.
Second, I agree that this is not about men versus women, this is about power, the power of money, and the abuses of that power. Therefore, above all, this is about the elite versus the rest of us. Harvey gets different "justice" than that poor slob middle manager who clumsily, wrongly, made a pass at a subordinate at a convention. Harvey gets suppression. Harvey gets to bully people into silence to cover his crimes. Harvey gets alignment of the opinion makers and "news reporters." The poor slob middle manager gets fired, loses his house, often his family, and can't afford to hire Clinton's fixers to help restore his life.
You want a just society? This story has to be told in the light, and Harvey needs to be treated just as would some other unfortunate impetuous nobody who like Harvey also has no self-control.
I still say this is all part of a power play over who gets to control the Democrat party.
Great phrase AA! Lots to meditate upon. Very meaningful.
>plastic surgery of the soul.
The only interesting question in the Weinstein story is: how the hell did so many people sit on this story for so many years?
Because it was in their best self interest.
A time-out to feed my OCD:
ARM: "...the Obama's didn't know..."
I hope, I pray that is an auto-correct or a typo. If the ARMs of this world believe that a plural is formed with an apostrophe and an s, we are truly lost. He is not only reasonable (or so he says), he is usually precise.
"how the hell did so many people sit on this story for so many years?"
Easy. The application of a non-western, non-Judaeo-Christian philosophy: namely, me and my brother against my cousin, and me and my cousin against the world.
Or in this case it is: me and the funds-contributing fellow Democrat against the non-contributing fellow Democrat, and me and the non-contributing fellow Democrat against the world.
AA - Let's get the whole story out in the open, the story that includes all the covering for Weinstein, including all the bias injected by men who were keen on preserving male privilege and the subordination of women — in the entertainment business, in journalism, and in politics.
Yes - sunlight.
Don't forget Meryl Streep. She brings balance and to male privilege power structure in Hillaryood. She's a real feminist.
the story that includes all the covering for Weinstein, including all the bias injected by men who were keen on preserving male privilege and the subordination of women — in the entertainment business, in journalism, and in politics.
Of course all of the women involved in covering up his behavior are entirely blameless.
"It's a New York thing" is pure bullshit. If Loren Michaels had an ounce of decency he'd either shut up and roast Weinstein over a slow fire (though one must admit that kind of understatedness is typically outside SNL's comedic competence) or speak the plain truth that as a member of the Democratic elite HW is untouchable by his fellows.
Hasn't there always been a casting couch in Hollywood? Not sure why this is so shocking.
Ann, if details come out about how Trump abused his power in the work place and engaged in sexual harassment will you strike the same pose as you are now about this Weinstein guy who most people never heard of?
"Is Harvey Weinstein a freakish outlier, or was he doing what many other powerful men are doing?" Questions, questions.
"But it's more important if it's systemic and widespread." If? You mean, after JFK and LBJ and WJC and Ted K and Chris Dodd and . . . -- you are still wondering if prog men get a pass?
"the story that includes all the covering for Weinstein" As the saying goes, progs do cover inconvenient facts--with a pillow.
"including all the bias injected by men who were keen on preserving male privilege and the subordination of women" You mean, the blatant sexist bias inherent in preferential treatment of pretty women, giving them jobs and rewards beyond their merits, to the disadvantage of beta males who cannot trade on their male assets?
What if most women like the arrangement--the chance to trade up, to outbid a sister, to seduce or be seduced, to gain big with minimal putting out? It's a real question--what is the distribution of preferences? Is it the same among all subgroups, in all industries? The actions of the presumed "victims" accentuate the question: the silence required the cooperation of many, many women, including the losers. Weinstein was pretty powerful, but not so powerful he could block everyone's career. Of course, he had the right politics, so that was worth a few blow jobs right there.
Besides silence, female inaction speaks loudly: we do not see a massive movement of creative entrepreneurial women building their own studios, their own investment funds, their own productions teams, just so they can avoid dealing with sexist pigs like Weinstein.
First, rhhardin, we get that you are a free market proponent. But markets with hidden information are not free. If it isn't known that you have to sleep with directors to raise your chances of being cast, then the decision to go into acting in the first place, was made on incomplete information which was purposely hidden. In regular business this is called fraud.
Some hiding is fine. You have to be able to judge correctly when you come out ahead and when you don't, because it's coming out ahead that's vital to an honest deal.
You're still in acting, with lots of people ready to take your place if you don't want it. If you don't like the field, get out. Like any other profession.
Who'd believe that you have to kiss the boss's ass to get ahead when you start.
What is the corporate structure around Weinstein?
Miramax: "Independent era (1979–1993) The company was founded by the brothers Harvey and Bob Weinstein in Buffalo, New York in 1979... It was created to distribute independent films deemed commercially unfeasible by the major studios.... The company became one of the leaders of the independent film boom of the 1990s.... In 1992, Miramax began a deal with Paramount Pictures for VHS and TV distribution of certain Miramax releases. Paramount would also distribute theatrically certain releases that might have commercial appeal... "Disney era (1993–2010)... On June 30, 1993, Miramax was purchased for $60 million by The Walt Disney Company...."
"2005–2017: The Weinstein Company. On March 29, 2005, it was announced that the Weinstein brothers would leave Miramax on September 30 to form their own production company, named The Weinstein Company, with several other media executives, directors Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez, and Colin Vaines, who had successfully run the production department at Miramax for ten years and moved with the brothers to head development in The Weinstein Company. The board of The Weinstein Company fired him on October 8, 2017 following allegations of Weinstein's sexual misconduct."
This is shocking because the casting couch has been thrown into the fire in most of American business. If it hasn't in Hollywood (which is not surprising), it's past time that they got the message.
Some leftist stooge KNOWS that Trump peed somewhere, and grabbed some pussy. The same leftwing thugs who tried to railroad Scott Walker in Wisconsin, will make sure of it. + Russia!
"It's a New York thing"
Translation: I don't want things to be uncomfortable for me at the very exclusive restaurant, or at the very private party on Park Avenue or Central Park West. Everyone is having such a good time lately. Why spoil it for just this?
Dust Bunny Queen quoted me: The only interesting question in the Weinstein story is: how the hell did so many people sit on this story for so many years?
And then said: "Because it was in their best self interest."
Yes, but there was a big story here, a hugely money- and power-making story. Some jerk like Ashley Judd could've run with it years ago, and made a movie and a lot of news and a lot of money. She didn't. None of them did. The New York Times ran with it the other day, for reasons still unknown to most of us.
Hi! I'm Meryl Streep. Everyone knows I got all my fabulous parts strictly because of my incredible talent and Versatile good looks--not like all the other Hollywood actresses that sucked cocks and licked assholes to cheat me out of roles I so richly deserved! When I tell you that a dingo ate my baby you can almost hear the bones crunching, can't you? That's why I can play Margaret Thatcher as a woman offgassing evil even as the dementia starts to take hold. I could have done the same for Sarah Palin if some bimbo had not stolen the role. So the next time you go to a movie and see that I am not in the lead role, write the producer and say "I know what you slimy fucks are doing, and I;m not going to stand for it! Cast Meryl Streep in every role--she is versatile enough to do that. Her talent and unique visual appeal can make every movie special." Leave out the quotes, though. It'll look staged.
Great blogging.
For hundreds of years there has been a widespread view that old-fashioned attempts to suppress the natural desire to make money, and achieve economic security, were mis-guided. The underlying selfishness, let us say, would come out in some other way, possibly nastier (like war-loving); and society would miss out on wealth creation that could benefit many, not only a few. Obviously a similar argument could be made for sex: let the desire express itself in well-known actions, let the chips fall where they may, people may achieve some kind of happiness and even justice, use laws to mitigate the worst effects. Locke somewhat hilariously presents arguments that sex should be more free than it was traditionally, but he doesn't exactly present it as fun. There might be less rape, and more masturbation.
The 60s became known for "free love" and a suspicion of capitalism, but by now the progressive billionaire has become a well-known figure. Do successful people, still generally male, believe that both their money-making desires and their sexual desires should be more or less free, even if others get hurt?
Are progressive people getting close to the belief that if they define deviancy downward, partly to be more "realistic," then they can realistically expect a kind of utopia, less harshly demanding than the old utopias?
Quaestor said...
Weasel words
On what planet? It was a direct statement, refutable only if you believe that the Obamas had no other options for finding an internship for their daughter - an unlikely premise for further argument.
I wonder if Bob Corker has any thoughts on this issue?
I am all for the roasting of this pig Weinstein. I just find it highly hypocritical on the part of Ann that she holds Trump to a different standard.
Maybe the NYTs has more details coming about Trump? Does anyone doubt that Trump's dealings with women will make this Weinstein guy look like a piker?
AReasonableMan said...
"Clearly the Obama's didn't know or they would not have sent their daughter to work in his firm."
"Famous people are not magically privy to all the information in the world, often they know no more than the the average reader of the Daily Mail."
"Owner run businesses of any kind are particularly prone to abuse of women."
I'd ask if you have any proof to back but you don't. Just three steaming turds.
Nice said: Hasn't there always been a casting couch in Hollywood? Not sure why this is so shocking.
True. The powerful preying on the less powerful is the way of not just Hollywood, but the world.
The shocking (actually not really shocking) thing is the hypocrisy it is exposing in the media and Hollywood. We have all these puffed up actresses and actors and media talking heads who have been preaching at us (the deplorables) for decades about everything under the sun. Preening and assuming a moral high ground that we knew they didn't deserve.
The recent relentless attacks on Trump while being eerily silent about the prevalent, persistent, pervasive sexual harassment and actual sexual attacks in their own industry has exposed them for what they are. Venial, self serving, hypocrites who deserve our disdain.
It isn't shocking that it exists. It is the rank hypocrisy that being exposed has given us a schadenfreude boner :-D
I checked Amazon for a "Casting Couch", and there are none for sale. I feel so, so, so, late to the party.
Now I Know! has the same obsessive, hectoring tone and habits of mind as the long time commenter Once Written, Twice..., who accused Althouse of racism, and when asked by her to apologize or cite evidence, refused to do either. Best of all, he loosed his thunderbolts from Argentina, a model of 20th and 21st century enlightened governance.
Separated at birth or same bore in new clothes?
, if details come out about how Trump abused his power in the work place and engaged in sexual harassment
Cause you just know that CBS, NBC, ABC, NYT, WP, CNN, MSNBC, etc are just sitting on that story. Have been for years. Thankfully, it came out before the election. So Hillary is president. Can you imagine if Trump had won!
It's out in the open now that Hollywood giant Harvey Weinstein has a rancid history of behaving inappropriately with women, confirming what many people suspected but the national media never admitted: Hillary Clinton isn't a feminist icon.
For someone so heralded by the media as an example of female empowerment, Clinton is close with a lot of abusers.
An extensive report published Thursday by the New York Times cited several women by name, including actress Ashley Judd, who claim to have been sexually harassed by Weinstein.
Judd said that during the late 1990s, Weinstein invited her to breakfast in his hotel room in Beverly Hills, which she believed would be a work-related meeting. But he asked her for a massage, which she declined, then, demonstrating his sexual prowess, asked if she wanted to watch him shower.
Several other women shared similar encounters and in a statement to the New York Times, Weinstein admitted to his behavior.
"I appreciate the way I've behaved with colleagues in the past has caused a lot of pain, and I sincerely apologize for it," he said. "Though I'm trying to do better, I know I have a long way to go."
Harvey Weinstein should force media to admit Hillary Clinton is not a feminist icon
**
SNL passed on the shower jokes - because its' a NY thing. no - It's a leftwing thing.
Yikes! Enough Weinstein, already!
@ Now I Know
Does anyone doubt that Trump's dealings with women will make this Weinstein guy look like a piker?
Yes, I doubt that will happen. The best you had was the "grab them by the pussy" locker room talk - you guys shot your wad on that one. Now you are impotent.
Now I Know! said...
Ann, if details come out about how Trump abused his power in the work place and engaged in sexual harassment will you strike the same pose as you are now about this Weinstein guy who most people never heard of?
If it hasn't been released yet about Trump, there probably isn't anything. You don't think that people didn't look? If you do, then you Now Don't Know and Never Will Know!
The liberated women have ended at the same conclusion as Puritan Morality. Unless a covenant of mutual commitment for life is exchanged, then it is always a woman acting like she wants sex with a bully or creep for her short time financial benefit. We get it. Feeling sorry for the victim is an add on bonus.
NB: Marriages in the film/TV industry normally last 18 months. They are casting calls too.
"since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must"
Now I Know! said...
I am all for the roasting of this pig Weinstein. I just find it highly hypocritical on the part of Ann that she holds Trump to a different standard.
All the posts on Weinstein are part of a strategy of distraction from the Trump dumpster fire, a topic for which Althouse apparently has no original thoughts that she feels comfortable sharing.
Per DBQ: True. The powerful preying on the less powerful is the way of not just Hollywood, but the world.
I don't see it as the powerful preying on the less powerful at all. I see it as men and women perfectly willing to prostitute themselves for fame and fortune. Nothing new about that. It's a Faustian arrangement.
Weinstein should write a book on his life so far.
Cash in on the mob mentality.
Famous people are not magically privy to all the information in the world
Oprah doesn't know what North Korea's long term plan is and David Beckham doesn't have an encyclopedic knowledge of the Sassanid Empire so it's impossible to think someone who had been a big star in Hollywood for 40 years could have heard salacious gossip about another important figure in the same business.
All the posts on Weinstein are part of a strategy
ARM isn't even famous, and look at all the information he's magically privy to.
You need to look at the problem from the perspective of the women who didn't make the same choice, who lost out.
And how many was that ?
A few women with wealthy families who might have turned him down or who were already stars before he became powerful.
Streep has been around for many year. She probably did something with the previous version of Weinstein.
I don't go to movies much anymore because they are all cartoons but I have noticed that the women in movies all look pretty much the same and few have outstanding talent.
The era of great female actors was in the 40s and maybe they did what they had to do then. The difference is that maybe those producers like Harry Cohn had better taste in women.
ARM has condescended to inform all of us how an owner run business is conducted from his extensive experience in business.
Clearly? And you know this how?
Magically privy!
I ventured to ask last night, in another platform, if it was possible the falling out at Miramax came about as a result of the now exposed behaviors, hushed up by an non-disclosure agreement.
I got zero feedback...
I'm thinking maybe a proper legally binding non-disclosure agreement to hush up tawdry behavior is not possible?
The reason why I bring this up is that... and maybe this is fodder for another post... is that the legal profession (to my mind) bears much of the blame here; if laying blame still a thing.
3. I can't tell actresses apart, but they all look fine, and are competent at acting. I can distinguish Anne Hathaway usually.
Practice, practice, practice.
They talk about Harvey Weinstein like he's an exception among Hollywood power Brokers. Unfortunately history has shown he's not unique in extorting sexual favors from less powerful people. To assume he is unique today is likely very wrong.
Harvey Weinstein:
"Want to give me a massage....?
No? OK..
Watch me take a shower."
If that isn't a set-up for a joke on SNL, what is?
oh right - the dignified left must protect the innocent. Poor Hillary. Poor Harvey.
... but I have noticed that the women in movies all look pretty much the same and few have outstanding talent.
Pretty sure that's why they have casting couches.
All the posts on Weinstein are part of a strategy of distraction from the Trump dumpster fire
Yes, that would explain why the NY Times, well known for its enthusiasm for Trump, has made Weinstein a headline story for several days.
"AReasonableMan said...
All the posts on Weinstein are part of a strategy of distraction from the Trump dumpster fire, a topic for which Althouse apparently has no original thoughts that she feels comfortable sharing."
I bet Bob Corker thinks you're a fucking idiot.
Was Harvey Weinstein talking about golden showers? Maybe he was and that it's a popular thing among the Hollywood and liberal Elite and that's why they used it to cast aspersion on Donald Trump. Progressives and liberals have a long history of taking their own sins and crimes and accusing their opponents of those very same things in an effort to shift attention away from themselves
shorter leftwing stooge:
'Hillarywood is not a dumpster fire... Stop talking about the hypocritical left. Stop talking about the abuse of power by the hypocritical left. Stop talking about all the BIG money Harvey Weinstein poured into Democrat coffers.'
because Trump!
Power isn't a thing.
It divides into auctoritas, imperium, officium and potestas.
None seem to fit the case.
Curious George said...
I bet Bob Corker thinks
the White House is now an adult day care center.
I can't imagine a woman can't come up with a tactful refusal. They're known for tactful responses.
Leave Harvey feeling good about himself but not get what he asked.
A guy asked to kiss his boss's ass usually submits and goes the sotto voce remark route.
It's the women who have the talent in this situation.
Curious George said...
I bet Bob Corker thinks
Trump’s Volatility Could Spark ‘World War III’
Make Harvey feel good about himself and recommend a friend.
All the posts on Weinstein are part of a strategy of distraction from the Trump dumpster fire
Translation: The faction I support is losing control of the Democrat party! Which means Hillary will not be running for prez in 2020.
Curious George said...
I bet Bob Corker thinks
[Trump] would have to concern anyone who cares about our nation.
"I find Bob Corker's views a little more germane to our general well being than those Lorne Michaels"
In other words, I'm desperate to change the subject.
I want to use my sexual power, then I want to forget I used it and blame Harvey
Or: Now that it's out, everyone will realize I got my roles via the casting couch, and not my own merits. So I may as well feign anger at my alleged abuser, cash in, and get my name in headlines with a dash of self-righteousness.
Curious George said...
I bet Bob Corker thinks
I know for a fact that every single day at the White House, it’s a situation of trying to contain him.
Curious George said...
I bet Bob Corker thinks
A lot of people think that there is some kind of ‘good cop, bad cop’ act underway, but that’s just not true.
Curious George said...
I bet Bob Corker thinks
I know [Trump] has hurt, in several instances, he’s hurt us as it relates to negotiations that were underway by tweeting things out.
Trump’s Volatility Could Spark ‘World War III
Translation: An economic revival! And standing up to NK and Iran! This guy was supposed to be a clown! How could we know that a guy who ran a multi-billion dollar globe spanning business empire and was a master of marketing who had a successful TV show for years could succeed in his stated objectives? Its unpossible!
Curious George said...
I bet Bob Corker thinks
"except for a few people, the vast majority of our caucus understands what we’re dealing with here, of course they understand the volatility that we’re dealing with and the tremendous amount of work that it takes by people around him to keep him in the middle of the road."
Sounds like an adult day care center to me.
Hey, ARM has a source in the WH! Who knew?
Ann writes: "But it's more important if it's systemic and widespread. It's not enough to kick out Weinstein because he went too far and his story finally made it into print. Let's get the whole story out in the open . . ."
Who knows, it might lead to better quality films coming out of Hollywood. Careers open to the most talented actresses and nobody else.
Louise Brooks, for instance, refused to lie down and spread her legs back in the 1930's and was consequently blacklisted from Hollywood. She ended up living in a cheap hotel in NYC, which was a high price to pay for defending her integrity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Brooks
Bob Corker, who compromised us into the Iran deal, is sending himself to the showers, having failed to strike out either Obama or Trump. He better hope Harvey Weinstein isn't in there.
On his way to the locker room he got off a wisecrack about Trump that put him where he has always wanted to be, on the front page. I expect to see him next as the head of some global foundation dedicated to understanding among nations, where he can continue to hector us about the need to make the first concession in dealing with our adversaries.
The Soviets used to have guys like Corker for breakfast.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/sen-bob-corker-failed-to-properly-disclose-millions-of-dollars-in-income-1450051046
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/republican-senator-from-tennessee-announces-his-retirement/2017/09/26/df106d96-a2f3-11e7-b14f-f41773cd5a14_story.html?utm_term=.474994d35281
"What if most women like the arrangement--the chance to trade up, to outbid a sister, to seduce or be seduced, to gain big with minimal putting out? It's a real question--what is the distribution of preferences? Is it the same among all subgroups, in all industries? The actions of the presumed "victims" accentuate the question: the silence required the cooperation of many, many women, including the losers. Weinstein was pretty powerful, but not so powerful he could block everyone's career. Of course, he had the right politics, so that was worth a few blow jobs right there."
The women who are trading up are betraying their sisters, and the great majority of women — women who don't get where they can choose to grab personal advantage and women who resist submission for the sake of personal advantage — rightly see those other women as complicit in a system of male privilege and the subordination of women. But the women who don't get the advantage might nevertheless talk about those women — the ones who took advantage — as victims. That might be a good tactic or good rhetoric. But it's important to see that the harm extends WAY beyond the individuals who were offered a choice and took advantage.
One of the mechanisms of the system of male privilege and the subordination of women is divide and conquer. Some women will see it as worth their while to subordinate themselves, and these women may defend their men and even taunt the women who didn't get as good of an offer and don't have a powerful male ally.
That's the story of Hillary Clinton.
I think ARM got the Inga job today. Or maybe the blank profile account.
How does it pay ? Do they pay by the comment ? Is that why you seem to be having a seizure ?
Does anyone fall for people yelling 'squirrel'? Did it ever work?
But how pathetically they try.
Assrat said...
Does anyone fall for people yelling 'squirrel'?
Pretty much everyone on this blog since the election.
The women who are trading up are betraying their sisters, and the great majority of women — women who don't get where they can choose to grab personal advantage and women who resist submission for the sake of personal advantage — rightly see those other women as complicit in a system of male privilege and the subordination of women. But the women who don't get the advantage might nevertheless talk about those women — the ones who took advantage — as victims. That might be a good tactic or good rhetoric. But it's important to see that the harm extends WAY beyond the individuals who were offered a choice and took advantage.
The market makes women competitors. Some align against men, there being important differences between men and women, and some don't.
Both are after advantage, which is to say coming out ahead. Every system works that way.
What should be suggested is a talent in tact. There's your role model.
>Pretty much everyone on this blog since the election.
It's not your blog, Sunshine.
One of the mechanisms of the system of male privilege and the subordination of women is divide and conquer.
Halt and catch fire is always an option in response.
The IBM 7090 had two halt instructions, Halt and Proceed (HPR) and Halt and Transfer (HTR), the difference being what happened when the start key was pressed.
Halt and Catch Fire was suggested as a third humorous alternative.
Mansplaining.
An Althousian world would be better (really), but --
"The women who are trading up are betraying their sisters" How many women view other women as "sisters"?
"women who resist submission for the sake of personal advantage" This appears to assume that all women with whom HW interacted sexually "submitted"--did they?
"rightly see those other women as complicit in a system of male privilege and the subordination of women" Why does this only hurt women? The "system of male privilege" "subordinates" beta males at least as much.
"But it's important to see that the harm extends WAY beyond the individuals who were offered a choice and took advantage." If they were offered a choice, they did not "submit." The level of harm depends on the exact nature of the choices made and the interactions that resulted. If consenting adults engaged in a mutually beneficial transaction, that is their business, even if it blocked opportunities for others.
Any free exchange has such potentially "harmful" externalities. A strictly meritocratic system of job allocation, assuming it were possible in Hollywood, would also have drastically unequal consequences--and entrench them more deeply. That was the main point of Young's Rise of the Meritocracy. The harm that results to those who can't keep up doesn't bother us much, because, you see, we are fairly applying general rules. Tough luck for the weak sisters.
By a "New York Thing," I'm taking it to mean a "Liberal Democrat Thing," unless I get a better explanation.
I made the observation during the Ailes scandal that my bet is that he's not the only media or news executive who ever used his position to gain sexual favors. The way the news was covered back then was that Ailes, O'Reilly and Fox News were unique and uniquely evil in the way they abused their power. Such excesses didn't exist elsewhere.......Along came Harvey. I don't think we've quite exhausted all the men in Hollywood who have indulged in this behavior. However, there's always one person who deserves notice as being the absolute worst, the nadir, the deepest pit in an expanse of holes. Harvey stands worthy of such recognition.......Every day there's another two or three stories. He bullied Nathan Lane. He aske some script reader to join him in a bath. More stories tomorrow. Beyond the ordinary bonds of horndoggedness, the guy was a low life.......... His wretchedness is an enduring gift to humanity. Maybe award recipients will pause in their denunciations of Trump to take a moment to reflect on their own foibles and the corrupt bargains that brought them to the awards stage.
The market makes women competitors.
..because men never compete.
One of the mechanisms of the system of male privilege and the subordination of women is divide and conquer.
So when the fuck does my privilege arrive?
What fields do you need to go into to abuse your power. Math doesn't seem to be one.
That's the story of Hillary Clinton.
Yes it is. And it is why many women rejected her candidacy as being a strike FOR women and and advancement that would be a credit to 'woman kind'. The hypocrisy of her preening about being a champion for 'women' was transparently obvious.
However, as much as the current sex/power/complicity/coverup about Weinstein is a male on female event, the same dynamic exists in male on male....or female on male...power plays.
It may be more prevalent as a male on female thing because in some industries...Hollywood in particular, men ARE the power brokers.
The women who are trading up are betraying their sisters, and the great majority of women — women who don't get where they can choose to grab personal advantage and women who resist submission for the sake of personal advantage — rightly see those other women as complicit in a system of male privilege and the subordination of women.
While I don't disagree with the harm that is being done by following this corrupt system, you can substitute "men" for "women" and get the same meaning. It isn't just women who follow this dynamic. Men do it too. Human nature. There doesn't seem to be a huge angst about the men who are being 'betrayed'.
"If the project is understanding systems of male power, the fact that one type of power is more dangerous than another doesn't dictate that we must turn our attention immediately to the more dangerous one."
-- Yes, but paying attention to one and not the other is more politically appealing to the people trying to ignore the fact Weinstein's a PR disaster.
One of the mechanisms of the system of male privilege and the subordination of women is divide and conquer.
I agree with you that Weinstein's behavior is egregious. But then I'm a Christian. One of those people who believe in the antiquated idea of objective morality. But the above quote, really?
Your assumption seems to be that women owe each other loyalty just because they are women. But why should that be? Men compete for women, women compete for men. Absent an objective morality, why shouldn't it be a free for all? With the best looking and most powerful coming out on top? Which is what we actually have among the younger cohort.
" This is a powerful vs. everyone else thing. Both men and women have conspired to hide this reality, and aspiring actors are also subject to the casting couch. Children of both sexes are abused."
I agree. I have ;lost a great deal of respect for a lot of people, though to be fair this feeling has been building for a long time. For example: my contempt for Meryl Streep would not be nearly so deep/complete if she hadn't been so eager to honor Roman Polansky.
Plenty of gay men [and a few straight ones] got ahead by sleeping with an older, more powerful man [or men]. A friend of mine did just that. What they didn't do is cry 'victim'.
It just male and female chauvinists subordinating other [human] lives in the pursuit of wealth, pleasure, leisure, narcissistic indulgence, and democratic leverage. Yeah, it's systemic and socially acceptable.
Which is what we actually have among the younger cohort.
I don't know why I limited to the younger cohort. Except they seem to be so much more efficient at it what with the smartphones and apps and all.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely, the Borgias and all that. And its curious that Harvey has good taste in art, just like Pope Alexander VI did. Miramax made a lot of good movies.
AllenS laments: I checked Amazon for a "Casting Couch", and there are none for sale. I feel so, so, so, late to the party.
You might find a used one on Ebay. Heavily stained, though...
I agree with Althouse overall, but this isn't a woman/ man thing. It's a sex/power thing. If everything awful about Hollywood came out today, I think we'd see the worst abused would be underage girls and boys.
Let me get this straight, Michael's excuse for not ridiculing Weinstein's deeds is that he is a New York guy who deserves discretion for his playboy days spent sewing his wild oats for 30 years.
Michaels would do a good job as Press Secretary for Trump.
In any event, this interrupts the lefts moral preening about supporting women's'equality and the whole "feminism is the proposition that women should have equal rights" thing. And having spent several years and God knows how many pixels promoting the "rape culture" meme, it turns out one of the centers of that culture would appear to be on the left.
So, once again, why is this story no longer being suppressed? Perhaps its just that it can't be any longer. The media is no longer centralized.
It suddenly occurred to me, why hasn't the National Enquirer ever exposed this?
https://variety.com/2015/tv/news/weinstein-national-enquirer-jupiter-entertainment-unscripted-tv-1201666066/
It's the Church scandal all over again. However, this time, it's the Pro-Choice Church, with its male and female chauvinists, that are on trial.
Baby Lives Matter. With social progress, perhaps now more than ever.
Moral, natural, and personal imperatives. Go forth and reconcile.
Isn't there a.concept of accepting the risk. Every football player at this point must be aware that he's at risk of CTE by playing football. At the Playboy Mansion, didn't the women who donned the bunny outfit accept some of the risk of being sexually harassed. It's not so clear cut with an aspiring actress, but it's certainly part of he game....... What isn't part of the game, however, is the blunt and grotesque way Harvey pursued his goals. He's made life difficult for every horny producer and director in Hollywood. If they wish to maintain their privileges, it is imperative that they speak out against Harvey's crass behavior and send flowers to all their past conquests.
Ron Winkleheimer asks: Absent an objective morality, why shouldn't it be a free for all?
Exactly, Ron! Dog eat dog! Like you, I believe there IS an objective morality but since most [at least, in Hollywood] do not, what prevents them from indulging in any and all forms of perversion, self-indulgence, betrayal, back-stabbing, prostitution, Scientology, whatever it takes? Answer: Nothing.
Moral, natural, and personal imperatives. Go forth and reconcile.
Excellent, n.n.!
Hollywood has a casting couch culture and Hollywood execs and other powerful players are entitled, boorish degenerates? Knock me over with a feather. (Equal opportunity degenerates. It's not as if this particular "male power structure" only victimizes one sex, as others have pointed out above.)
I was under the impression that Hollywood was always a sewer. Now dumping ever nastier sewage into the public square at an ever-increasing volume. So I'm supposed to be scandalized that one of the fat greasy degenerates in DC, uh, sorry, Hollywood does things like, say, waylaying women in the halls of a private venue so he can wank into potted plants in their presence? Hollywood, DC, you can see why I get confused - sounds like something Teddy Kennedy would do.
waylaying women in the halls of a private venue so he can wank into potted plants in their presence
This an unusually weird story, by the way. Wank physiology wouldn't seem to work like that.
Poor Hillary. Poor Harvey.
Won't you make a donation to the DNC?
Forget about Weinstein's sexual escapades for a minute. Assume they were all consensual.
So, then please tell me why this guy was able to physically assault people on at least two different times in incredibly public venues? The first time was the reporter & her boyfriend, which we have discussed. The second time is Nathan Lane, at, ----unbelievably! --- Hillary Clinton's birthday party!
Why didn't someone just shoot this motherfucker? He seems to be a pyscho. The sex is one thing, but the violence is another. It's amazing how some sociopaths can just intimidate those in their orbit for years & years. This reminds me of reading the biography of Mao Tse Tung, when I'd often look up from the pages & go "How come no one offed this fucker along the way?"
The assumption seems to be that women owe each other loyalty just because they are women. But why should that be?
Exactly. Why do we assume that women have a Sisterhood that we all need to belong to. It is a concept that the left/feminists want to advance while at the same time they tear down any woman who doesn't adhere to their rigid belief system. Sarah Palin is a prime example of how "The Sisterhood" is nothing more than a fantasy, a fiction and a big fat lie.
I agree it's not a man/woman thing; Althouse errs in this regard.
It is powerful/powerless thing, true.
In Hollywood, the powerful tend to be men, the powerless tend to be young actresses, true.
But that's too general. The problem is Leftwing Hollywood.
Most other businesses don't operate that way. In my field, there's nearly 50-50 women (big field), and harassing a woman job applicant or existing employee would get the company sued and your ass fired.
But, not in Hollywood - well, yes, but after 10 years of shower massages, potted plants and a NYTimes expose.
"'One of the mechanisms of the system of male privilege and the subordination of women is divide and conquer.' So when the fuck does my privilege arrive?'"
It's like with white privilege: Many of the members of the dominating group don't get much if any benefit and can even be big losers, but they are often encouraged to support the system because they do have that one thing: they are white or they are male. I recommend waking up and getting mad at those who are exploiting others, even if you feel slightly allured to feel superior because you are male. It's a con. It's propaganda. The propaganda includes porn, which help you stay inside the fantasy. I recommend cold, hard engagement with reality. Take the red pill!
Ron Winkleheimer: Your assumption seems to be that women owe each other loyalty just because they are women. But why should that be? Men compete for women, women compete for men. Absent an objective morality, why shouldn't it be a free for all?
Funny how high-falutin' progressive universalism, which jettisons everything from the category of "objective morality" but "equality", "non-discrimination", and an abstract contractualism, always ends in the rankest tribalism. And women are not a tribe.
This scene from The Godfather springs to mind: Why Johnny won't get the part. Of course, we know that Johnny DID get the part.
"Is Harvey Weinstein a freakish outlier, or was he doing what many other powerful men are doing?"
He's doing exactly what most other scummy and abusive power-hungry men do: they pretend they're "feminist", and support the political Left, in exchange for getting to be abusive bastards to actual women.
See joss Whedon for another recent example.
And Rep Murphy is a shining example of why most of the "support" the Left. You do that on the GOP side, you get tossed out, because we're not so scummy and low that we'll give you a free pass.
The Left, OTOH, appears to be filled with political whores. And in this I'm talking about their voters, not merely their politicians. "We want power for our side, and will excuse anything to get it" is the battle cry of the Left.
The propaganda includes porn, which help you stay inside the fantasy
Porn gets rid of an obsession for a while. It's not about fantasy. It's a real obsession. A young man thinks of pussy five times an hour.
After wanking, he doesn't.
It does, in that regard, displace a need for girls, though. Not good for their market value.
Of course, girls could displace the guy's interest in porn, too. They'd have to attract him though.
It's like with white privilege: Many of the members of the dominating group don't get much if any benefit and can even be big losers, but they are often encouraged to support the system because they do have that one thing: they are white or they are male.
Principles matter. The pro-choice doctrine, including the progressive standard of diversity, and its female chauvinist companion, is at best avoidance.
AA: It's like with white privilege: Many of the members of the dominating group don't get much if any benefit and can even be big losers, but they are often encouraged to support the system because they do have that one thing: they are white or they are male. I recommend waking up and getting mad at those who are exploiting others, even if you feel slightly allured to feel superior because you are male. It's a con. It's propaganda. The propaganda includes porn, which help you stay inside the fantasy. I recommend cold, hard engagement with reality. Take the red pill!
You're putting us on here, right? Because nobody buying into this slow-witted-undergraduate analysis of "[fill in the blank] privilege" has any business peddling red-pills to anybody else. Whatever limited use it has or had in explaining behavior in a narrow range of circumstances, it has by now hardened into useless obfuscating cant. Flush those blue pills!
(If you're putting us on, well-played.)
See joss Whedon for another recent example.
That didn't get much traction, but then he didn't assault anyone and there weren't any stories about inviting woman to watch him shower or masturbating in front of them. Nobody was surprised that a dorky looking dude with power in the entertainment industry was using his position to have sex with hot young actresses. You need some salacious details if you want anyone to pay attention. Also, from reading what his wife put out, I got the impression it was less him demanding sex from actresses for parts and more actresses offering him sex for parts and him being unable to resist. But, I could be wrong.
(If you're putting us on, well-played.)
That was my thought as well.
"A young man thinks of pussy five times an hour."
Oh, really? I heard 5 times a second.
SNL is so locker room. Ask any woman who worked there.
Every time I hear Jane Curtain, Amy Poehler or another female SNL alum railing against Donald Trump or another Republican male, I now wonder how much of that is them venting their frustrations that they can’t say what they want to say about the men who actually have mistreated them in their profession because they’re on Team Blue and going after them would be career suicide.
Oh, really? I heard 5 times a second.
Would not surprise me. Young men's imperative is to mate. Almost all comedy's aimed at the teen market feature some guy looking for "love". Society used to divert this energy to useful purposes. Now it just feeds the propensity.
Oh, really? I heard 5 times a second.
It varies with age. An old guy can go for days without thinking of it.
5 times a second is probably newborns, except they're not past puberty so it doesn't actually show up.
Althouse is on fire!
It's like with white privilege: Many of the members of the dominating group don't get much if any benefit and can even be big losers, but they are often encouraged to support the system because they do have that one thing: they are white or they are male.
This is a powerful point, worthy of a separate post, because it is mostly true. But it lacks some important mitigating nuance. The word "privilege" is misplaced.
I am a dark-skinned male. I never thought of myself as "white." I did think of myself as American. I did notice that most of the people I saw were, in fact, whit -- with a small minority that were black. I straddled both groups.
But, the hard trut is that American was founded by white British males, who predominate. Just as China has lotsa Chinese males, who predominate. Just as Nigeria has lotsa Nigerian males who predominate.
So, I dispute the concept of "white privilege" -- it is a tautology, just as Chinese privilege in China is a tautology.
I would reframe it as this:
In general, minorities have it tougher in a country then majorities. It's that simple. There is a concept of strength in numbers, and it exists. Being an outcast, being different than the majority is no doubt difficult. There are extra challenges, that whites don't face.
But, at least in the USA, we have taken great strides to focus less on ethnicity, and more on a bundle of ideas: liberty, free market capitalism, Judeo-Christian values.
This "bundle of ideas" has allowed us to integrate Irish, Italians, Germans, Asians, hispanics, and many blacks remarkably well into a successful, prosperous country. We are not fucking Venezuela.
If a "minority" buys this "bundle of ideas" that is proven to work over the past 240 years, the odds are, he or she or ze will do just fine.
The primary challenge of minorities in 2017 is that they don't buy this "bundle of ideas." The challenges of minority status are real. but pale in significance to the "bundle of ideas," they often don't accept.
Myself, I am empathetic to the struggle to make it in the US. It is often hard, and harder for minorities. But I think the solution lies not in fighting American values, but mostly embracing them with perhaps a few tweaks here and there.
The number came from Imus in the 70s commenting on a survey.
Imus said he only thought of pussy once an hour, but it was for 55 minutes.
It varies with age. An old guy can go for days without thinking of it.
And environment. I imagine anyone at a Playboy party or watching Eyes Wide Shut is thinking about it constantly.
So New York things are discriminatory, sexist, manipulative, and hypocritical. Sonuvabitch. I was right!
Yes, women will all band together as "sisters".
LOL. You have 1/2 of humanity -men - competing with each other, even killing each other, for personal advantage. But women are different. That 1/2 of humanity will forget personal advantage, band together and fight the power.
Dream on.
I wish people wouldn't be so stupid. Lorne Michael's "New York" answer was a deliberate non sequitur.
It was nice way of saying "fuck you" to the reporter.
Bay Area Guy suggests: But I think the solution lies not in fighting American values, but mostly embracing them with perhaps a few tweaks here and there.
As the Japanese, Chinese and Vietnamese immigrants have shown.
I think Weinstein's politics were simply a way of covering for his sexual abuse.
If Weinstein had been apolitical or even vaguely conservative, he would've been outed 12 years ago.
In 2013, Michelle Obama publicly praised Weinstein as a 'wonderful human being'. Videos are available.
"I've been doing a lot of posts on Weinstein, and one type of comment I've been seeing minimizes the importance of what he's doing because it's just business as usual — the way it's always been."
Any cynicism I may have about this story is not meant to be directed at you. You're doing an excellent job pointing out the hypocrisy of the self-proclaimed "decent" people on the left who claim they fight for the powerless, but their actions show they're looking out only for themselves. Powerful people like Meryl Streep*, who conveniently turn a blind eye to the abuses of power by people like Weinstein, and the media, which will sit-on stories that hurt their narrative, share the blame in keeping the cycle of abuse going.
My cynicism is directed squarely at the media who could've exposed this man (no pun intended!) years ago but for self-serving reasons decided not to, who are running big with this story now that the guy is clearly no longer the powerbroker he once was. I, like others, can't help but wonder what they are hoping to gain from pushing this story. It could be nothing more than ratings, it could be politically motivated, could be both.
These "stars" and media people taking to twitter now to condemn Weinstein are hypocritical virtue-signalers. Keep on doing what you're doing berating them, and ignore those who wish you would shut up about what is probably embarrassing to them.
*Do I believe she was completely unaware of Weinstein's proclivities? Not a chance; there had to be rumors that she chose to ignore because it was better for her career to do so. The Clintons, the Obamas and Oprah also probably heard the rumors and just didn't care.
(edited for typos.)
which will sit-on stories that hurt their narrative, share the blame in keeping the cycle of abuse going.
"The washing machine is so conceived that, having filled with a heap of ignoble tissue, the inner emtion, the boiling indignation that if feels from this, when channeled to the upper part of its being, falls back down on the heap of ignoble tissue turning in its stomach -- more or less perpetually -- it being a process that should end up with a purification."
Francis Ponge explains the operation of the washing machine
"Don't fall for the framing of this as a "men v. woman" thing. This is a powerful vs. everyone else thing."
I agree.
In the glorious 70s, the social order was quite simple:
Boys competed against boys, and the winners got the best girls.
I want those days back! Heh!
p.s. Harvey is fat and ugly, but rich and powerful. Alas, girls migrated towards him -- and he migrated towards potted plants:)
I think I'm putting together a picture of what's happening here.
This "outing" of Harvey Weinstein was orchestrated probably by his brother Bob, but also by those around him or the board at the Weinstein Corp. HW is 64. My guess is that, even by HW's standards, something recently snapped, & mentally he just went over the edge. My guess is that his behavior was becoming more & more outrageous, including credible threats of violence.
The brother & board wanted him out, so they used the closest weapon at hand to use against a 21st C liberal -- sexual exploitation. Racial would have been better, but HW seems clean on that score, so they went with what they knew they had hundreds of examples. BW probably scouted around until he found someone like Rose McGowan who'd come forward, & he promised her that 1) they were planning to take HW out of the business for good & 2) the Weinstein Corp would give her all the support & protection it could. After McGowan & Ashley Judd came forward, it was clear to the rest that the dike had sprung a leak, & it was okay to come forward.
Things are not going well for the Weinstein Corp. Creditors calling & past funding partners no longer taking HW calls may have just drove him over the bend, & he snapped. My guess is that the Weinstein Corp's creditors, stockholders, board members, & business partners told Bob that Harvey goes or they're done. So, Harvey went.
>I think I'm putting together a picture of what's happening here.
I believe that you're painting a very credible picture.
I'm dubious about the national politics connection, since it's not going to tar the Democrats. It's unlikely that Streep heard no rumors, but Hillary could make the same claim plausibly.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন