The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Why Was Movie Business Less Sexist Back in the Griffith-Pickford Era?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

In the New York Times, Manohla Dargis writes:

The industry’s silence has historically shielded the men who make movies, including the old studio bosses like Louis B. Mayer to whom Mr. Weinstein has often been nostalgically compared. In histories, these old-studio chiefs are genteelly referred to as womanizers, a polite metaphor for conduct that ranges from time on the casting couch, another odious euphuism, to what sounds a lot like prostitution. According to the historian Scott Eyman, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer — the studio that bore Mayer’s name and boasted that it had more stars than there are in heaven — had a supply “of what were known as ‘six-month-option girls’ to be passed around the executive offices.”

If this seems, well, normal it is because this tawdry glimpse into the industry — with its powerful men and passed-around girls — is deeply embedded in its history, its lore and its very identity.

And yet, if you go back before the Studio System fully emerged in Hollywood in the 1920s, you’ll see that women were more integrated into behind the scenes jobs than after the Mayers came to dominate the business. As I wrote in Taki’s Magazine in 2013:

For instance, back during the D. W. Griffith era of filmmaking, women were widely employed as screenwriters, editors, directors, and even producers. Mary Pickford, “America’s Sweetheart,” produced her own movies from 1916 onward and became a mogul in 1919 when she, her fiancé Douglas Fairbanks Sr., Charlie Chaplin, and D. W. Griffith founded United Artists.

In the later 1920s, Gloria Swanson, backed by her boyfriend Joseph Kennedy, Sr.’s money, attempted to follow Pickford’s path into controlling her own career. But the now dominant studio system had little use for such presumption. Billy Wilder’s 1950 classic Sunset Boulevard, starring Swanson as washed-up silent star Norma Desmond, reflects studio Hollywood’s view of the powerful women of the industry’s early days as uppity broads who deserved to turn into crazy old bats. In the real world, though, Swanson, an extremely enterprising woman, had found numerous ways after leaving Hollywood for New York to make money (and would continue to do so up until her death in the 1980s).

There were two main reasons for this change from the Mary Pickford Era to the studio era when ambitious women were turned into quasi-horror figures like Norma Desmond.

One involved a broad reaction among bohemians against women in power. Feminism had been in the ascendant in WASP-dominated American culture in 1910s, eventually achieving two huge nearly simultaneous triumphs: Women’s Suffrage and Prohibition.

Prohibition proved a disaster for Feminism, however, by discrediting Feminism among America’s bohemian culturati. For example, Wilfrid Sheed wrote of the mid-20th Century New Yorker:

[James] Thurber’s world cannot remotely be understood without understanding Prohibition, or the locker-room version of it: a plot brewed up by women and Protestant ministers while our soldiers were overseas, in order to end America’s men-only culture and bring the boys all the way home, not just as far as the nearest saloon.

Within the movie business itself, another reason for the swing away from feminism after WWI was the triumph of non-WASP moguls like Mayer in taking over the industry. They came from more patriarchal and ethnocentric backgrounds, and didn’t see much reason to respect shiksas. As I wrote then:

The rise of the Ellis Island immigrant populations helped delay feminism’s triumph that had once seemed imminent in WASP-dominated America. But that’s the kind of paradox likely to be met with blank stares in 2013.

 
Hide 268 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    that’s the kind of paradox likely to be met with blank stares

    Any remotely accurate account of the past is now conceived of (at best) as “alternate history” and more often as “Fake News” on its way toward Oblivion. Facts which dare to conflict with the Narrative are what we call ‘hate facts’ and what the Establishment doesn’t call anything: they simply erase them. Easier than ever to do now that no one maintains hard copy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/why-was-movie-business-less-sexist-back-in-the-griffith-pickford-era/#comment-2039700
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. “For instance, back during the D. W. Griffith era of filmmaking, women were widely employed as screenwriters, editors, directors, and even producers.”

    Cecil B. DeMille’s editor Anne Bauchens was the first full time woman editor to work in Hollywood (ca.1918) and the first woman editor to win the Academy Award. And his scenarist and later screenwriter Jeanie MacPherson. It was her social comedies for DeMille (these comedies of manners between the sexes helped pave the way for Lubitch’s work in the ’30′s) that made Gloria Swanson a superstar in Hollywood.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. Perhaps the best way to destroy the WASP /Jew ruling class is for a pro-beauty aesthetic to manifest itself in the rejection of the uglier aspects of Hollywood and academic feminism.

    Harvey Weinstein is an ugly fat baby boomer Jew who had his paws all over a chiclet-toothed, fivehead WASP woman named Chilton. This Chilton slob married Harvey Weinstein for money. Donna Karan is an ugly baby boomer Jew who defended Harvey Weinstein against accusations that Harvey is a disgusting lecherous rat. I would hope that White Core America would be repulsed by the anti-White scum in Hollywood.

    Academic Feminism must be destroyed by firing the female professors who infest that domain. Remove their overpaid asses immediately.

    The Harvey Weinstein business is ugly as all hell. The WASP / Jew ruling class is ugly as all hell. Beauty demands that the current ugly ruling class be smashed.

    Ugly as moneygrubbers, ugly as nation-wreckers, ugly as anti-Christian rats, ugly as anti-White rodents. UGLY BASTARDS DOING UGLY THINGS.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. A number of screenplays were written by Anita Loos, author of novel “Gentlemen Prefer Blondes,” the original bimbo bible.

    Btw, H’wood’s had open season on non-shiksas for some time now. Weinstein ran his routine on Gwyneth Paltrow ((1/2 I believe)), and while she claims she didn’t ante up, she got _Shakespeare in Love_ over Winona Ryder ((nee Horowitz)), who was being considered for it. Ryder said Gwyneth saw the script in her living room and lobbied for it, but given that Winona had a long run of good performances (Heathers, Great Balls of Fire, The Age of Innocence), and suddenly couldn’t get a headline except by literally getting arrested, I’m guessing she wouldn’t give Weinstein what he wanted and Gwyneth did.

    These guys have NO loyalty–not tribal, not even professional (Gwyneth, Mira Sorvino, and Asia Argento all have parents in the industry). They’ll treat the spawn of H’wood and B’way royalty the same as any backwoods scrubber off the street. In their way, they’re quite egalitarian. If they won’t bother the likes of Streep and Mirren, it’s because they’re already established and too long in the tooth anyway.

    Read More
    • Replies: @whorefinder

    Weinstein ran his routine on Gwyneth Paltrow ((1/2 I believe)), and while she claims she didn’t ante up, she got _Shakespeare in Love
     
    That surprised me, because Paltrow's father was a big name producer and she is very close with family friend Steven Spielberg (one of her first movie roles was the plum role of Wendy in Spielberg's Hook, and by most accounts she got it because Spielberg viewed her as a second daughter); I would think that Weinstein would not have tried his routine on her due to these protections, and that, if he did, Paltrow's father and Spielberg would have gone after him--and they were a lot more established than Weinstein at the time.

    So either Paltrow is lying to jump on board here, or her father/Spielberg weren't that protective, or this sort of thing is routine amongst Hollywood types so Paltrow/Spielberg didn't bat an eye.

    , @jack ryan
    "These guys have NO loyalty–not tribal, not even professional"

    I respond:

    Their politics of toeing the PC Left, anti White domestic party line and toeing the pro Israel, Zionist, Neo Con party line in foreign policy, military policy - that's a form of loyalty.

    The only pro America First, fairness toward American White Southerners - these folks have to stay in the closet in Hollywood.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Jake says:

    “The rise of the Ellis Island immigrant populations helped delay feminism’s triumph that had once seemed imminent in WASP-dominated America. But that’s the kind of paradox likely to be met with blank stares in 2013.”

    True.

    Feminism is a WASP thing. Just like demanding we all declare the Negro Numinous. And in each, the original WASP allies the Jews took over the particular WASP delusion/insanity and ran hog wild with it, at the expense of all other white Christians.

    The problem I have with this Steve blog is that it implies that -at least for Hollywood – the choices were WASP feminism or the casting couch.

    Read More
    • Replies: @advancedatheist

    Feminism is a WASP thing.
     
    Well, yeah, despite what some historically ignorant Alt Right people claim. You can't get any whiter than the first feminist coming out of the Enlightenment, the Englishwoman Mary Wollstonecraft.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Mary_Wollstonecraft_by_John_Opie_%28c._1797%29.jpg

    , @Curle
    Correction: Yankee WASP thing.

    Don’t tarnish the reputation of southern WASPS with the behavior of their northern cousins.
    , @SMK
    The women's movement or feminism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries was a "Wasp thing" and more or less ended with the passage of the 19th Amendment and the repeal of prohibition. The "second wave" of feminism that emerged in 1970 and transformed our culture and institutions -usually defined as "radical feminism" or "women's liberation- was a "Anglo"-Jewish movement, not a "Wasp thing," since even those feminists, i.e, the hardcore ideologues, who aren't Jewish are nearly all left-liberal atheists.
    , @SMK
    To change the subject: How sad and off that Steve Sailer -who doesn't believe that men and women and boys and girls are exactly the same apart from the inescapable differences in anatomy and, consequently, doesn't support all or most of the feminist agendum- should use a word like "sexism" without quotation marks. As 'racism" is used by left-liberals and "cucks" to demonize and ostracize and silence anyone who tells the truth about average negro intelligence, pandemic black criminality, black-on-white violence, etc., so "sexism" is used to demonize and ostracize and silence anyone who criticizes the dogmas of feminism and opposes the agenda and goals that derive from its regnant fantasy of undifferentiated equality.

    "Sexism" is not synonymous with true misogyny, that of Muslims and MRA's, the misogynist lunatics of the soi-disant "men's movement." Even those who don't hate women generally, who even love women generally, are "sexist" if they argue that the sexes are innately different in profound and significant ways. A "sexist is anyone who believes that generic disparities in sexual "roles" and behavior are natural and ineradicable in a free and private society in which feminist don't enjoy absolute power, and thus realizes the that feminist ideology is inherently totalitarian; who opposes all or most of the feminist agendum: women in combat, the feminization of the military, police and fire departments, male prisons and the male housing units of jails, legal abortion (even if only in the third trimester, feminist-imposes sex-crime laws; the utopian vision of a society in which the sexes are equal in virtually all areas and aspects of life, a goal which could only be imposed by a totalitarian regime.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. kihowi says:

    The most interesting question is as usual not being asked.

    What does this say about women? There was no rape here. He didn’t shackle anybody to a bed in a soundproof basement. These were all situations that could be walked away from at any time.

    That would mean no more chance at fame, of course, but that’s exactly the trade-off that these women made. He was able to do this for such a long time because all those women at some level of consciousness bartered with their bodies.

    As with a lot of sexual politics, all the indignation is built on the assumption that women are imbeciles. That they did not understand what was up:

    a) before they met him. Were they the only people in the western world who didn’t know about this aspect of Hollywood? Don’t make me laugh.
    b) when they saw him. He drips sleaze. Nobody is this clueless.
    c) when he started putting the moves on them. He’s obviously not a subtle man. You’d know.

    In real life, women are really good at knowing what kind of man they’re dealing with.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Redman
    Agree completely.

    I met Weinstein a couple of years ago when he was in my building working on some sort of deal with the Discovery network. He more than oozed sleaze. He is shockingly reptilian in person.

    He had an entourage of men and women whom he ordered around like a dictator. And you could tell he enjoyed being out on the street and recognized, while bossing around these paid acolytes. Like Zuck, he wore a plain brown tee shirt and jeans, trying to show his prole roots I suspect. Man of the people or something.

    Many (not most) women are very comfortable trading sex for what they want. Citizenship, money, fame. Nobody was Cosbied here, so I don't have much sympathy.
    , @MBlanc46
    You have to be a bit delusional to find this behavior shocking. Why do people think that men fight like hell for money and power? What is it that people think women chase men with money and power for?
    , @whorefinder

    What does this say about women? There was no rape here.
     
    Some of the accounts are rape or sexual assault. Some accounts are that he exposed himself to the women, masturbated in front of them without warning, or forcibly grabbed them and forcibly performed oral sex on them, or forced them to touch his privates. And the tales have all been how they met Harvey in a non-sexual places such as restaurants and offices.

    This isn't Cosby, where not a single story alleges rape or assault, but merely that the women, after flirting and cozying up to Cosby, and going back to his home/bedroom/hotel room, consensually took drugs he offered them and either "blacked out" or else have trouble remembering what happened. In none of the cases can they prove the encounters were nonconsensual.

    Weinstein is different; Lauren Sivian's account is just illustrative. She meets him in a restaurant, they talk and flirt a bit, he gets her to walk downstairs to the basement of the restaurant, and he just starts masturbating in front of her. That's sexual assault: exposure and lewd acts.

    But it does say something about how all the stereotypes of casting couches and desperate-for-fame actresses are pretty much true.
    , @Old fogey
    The entire movie industry today is "pornography lite" with women fully undressed and positioned with male actors into every aspect of sexual intercourse. To be an actress or female "actor" nowadays this is accepted as the norm. Why would not the producer expect to be able to "try them out" before casting them for such productions?

    The whole subject is ridiculous.
    , @Sean

    There was no rape here.
     
    Every rapist says that.
    , @theMann
    Well gee everybody, when you understand that women are amoral, irrational, and vicious, it becomes a lot easier to understand what is going on here.


    Weinstein my be an out of control little creep, but he didn't create the situation he found himself in, he merely exploited what was already there with a little more aggressive fury than most. Give him his props for committing fully to the wickedness of his opportunities, most bad people are much weaker than that.


    There is no such thing as sexual morality where women are concerned, they simply seek status, approval, and power, and sex is the means to all those things. (As a mental exercise, figure out how much porn there is in America, how much of it involves hot women ages 18-36, and how many hot women there are in America ages 18-36. Seriously, that is the number of women willing to do porn for crying out loud.)


    The casting couch doesn't exist because some men are exploiters, it exist because women have the power to choose, and a lot of them choose to give it up to an appalling physical creep like Weinstein, for status (actress), approval(roles), power(fame). Seriously, he never got kicked in the balls? Once even? Nobody comes off looking good here, and if you want to make a case for burning Hollywood to the ground, I won't argue against it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Winona had a long run of good performances (Heathers, Great Balls of Fire, The Age of Innocence), and suddenly couldn’t get a headline except by literally getting arrested, I’m guessing she wouldn’t give Weinstein what he wanted

    Incidentally, catch the (endlessly variable) Winona Ryder in the Brit TV film “Turks & Caicos” — she’s nothing less than an absolute revelation. A cracking good yarn from David Hare and Ms Ryder pretty much walks away with it. Middle film in a trilogy IIRC, and by far the best of the three.

    More than once I’ve been dismayed at the way the threads on iSteve devolve into ‘Hollywood Movie Chat’. Well, now I’ve no one else to blame but myself…besides, at least this time it’s relevant, sorta.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. whorefinder says: • Website

    Well, before the movie system coalesced into the Hollywood studio-monopolies, the wide-openness of the industry probably allowed for enterprising sorts to make their way based on talent and less on connections. Monopolies tend to encourage more politically-minded types and is all about ladder-climbing and is less about talent, hence all the lurid Hollywood tales about backbiting and rumor-mongering and secret-gay-lovers from the studio era.

    Mary Pickford could sell a movie based on her name alone, and there was no powerful studio needed to make the distribution happen—and there was none around to tear her down if she had a fight with the producers. (We forget how many of today’s “troubled star”-type stories are fed to gossip rags by studios and directors and producers trying to blacken the name of a star who’s crossed them).

    IIRC, the golden age of Hollywood gossip (Hedda Hopper, etc.) coincided with the rise of the studio-monopoly system—which makes sense, as gossip is a powerful weapon in a political-based system and, conversely, has much less power when an industry is wide open and new.

    Talkies made it much harder to run a mom-and-pop shop. Talkies created a need for microphones, synching, soundtracks,and more dedicated theater space for movies only (so the sound system could be set up), meaning more money, meaning only larger studios could control it. The rise of the musical probably killed off a lot of smaller studios over the long haul, as only a large studio could afford to produce the lavish musicals that dominated Hollywood from the 1930s to the early 1960s.

    And we also have the post-1920s rejection of “Wiemar republic” values. In the 1920s more than few Hollywood stars could be open-secret type homosexuals and get divorces and such. The Hays Code era of the studios tampered down on that, and thus probably turned off a lot of lesbian-enterprising types from hitching a ride.

    however, monopolies almost always naturally tend to rise due to someone dominating an industry, whether for good or for ill.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Well, before the movie system coalesced into the Hollywood studio-monopolies,

    There was no monopoly. There were eight major studios. A motor for the migration of the film industry to Los Angeles was the formation of the Motion Picture Patents Trust in 1909. That actually was an attempt at monopoly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. whorefinder says: • Website
    @Rosamond Vincy
    A number of screenplays were written by Anita Loos, author of novel "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes," the original bimbo bible.

    Btw, H'wood's had open season on non-shiksas for some time now. Weinstein ran his routine on Gwyneth Paltrow ((1/2 I believe)), and while she claims she didn't ante up, she got _Shakespeare in Love_ over Winona Ryder ((nee Horowitz)), who was being considered for it. Ryder said Gwyneth saw the script in her living room and lobbied for it, but given that Winona had a long run of good performances (Heathers, Great Balls of Fire, The Age of Innocence), and suddenly couldn't get a headline except by literally getting arrested, I'm guessing she wouldn't give Weinstein what he wanted and Gwyneth did.

    These guys have NO loyalty--not tribal, not even professional (Gwyneth, Mira Sorvino, and Asia Argento all have parents in the industry). They'll treat the spawn of H'wood and B'way royalty the same as any backwoods scrubber off the street. In their way, they're quite egalitarian. If they won't bother the likes of Streep and Mirren, it's because they're already established and too long in the tooth anyway.

    Weinstein ran his routine on Gwyneth Paltrow ((1/2 I believe)), and while she claims she didn’t ante up, she got _Shakespeare in Love

    That surprised me, because Paltrow’s father was a big name producer and she is very close with family friend Steven Spielberg (one of her first movie roles was the plum role of Wendy in Spielberg’s Hook, and by most accounts she got it because Spielberg viewed her as a second daughter); I would think that Weinstein would not have tried his routine on her due to these protections, and that, if he did, Paltrow’s father and Spielberg would have gone after him–and they were a lot more established than Weinstein at the time.

    So either Paltrow is lying to jump on board here, or her father/Spielberg weren’t that protective, or this sort of thing is routine amongst Hollywood types so Paltrow/Spielberg didn’t bat an eye.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jake
    Or Gwyneth Paltrow had a reputation then as a wild girl who probably would be intrigued if not flattered.
    , @Rosamond Vincy
    Gwynnie is pretty messed-up look at her GOOP site some time), so that could mean either bandwagon (she is nutty enough to believe it even if it didn't happen), or it did happen, and maybe that's one reason she's so nutty. Contrary to gyn advice, the woman steam-cleans her hoo-ha. Well, maybe she has valid reason to think it needs it.
    , @neprof
    From what you describe, Paltrow would have been a perfect target for Weinstein. For him sex is secondary for his need to push ever further into the verboten. For him it's more about projection of power and who's the top dog in Hollywood.

    A Spielberg protege? Gotta make my mark on that.
    , @Desiderius
    To be the man you've got to beat the man.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjW9UXoKU2s

    Weinstein probably went after her because she was so well protected.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Thomas says:

    They came from more patriarchal and ethnocentric backgrounds, and didn’t see much reason to respect shiksas. As I wrote then:

    The rise of the Ellis Island immigrant populations helped delay feminism’s triumph that had once seemed imminent in WASP-dominated America. But that’s the kind of paradox likely to be met with blank stares in 2013.

    With yet another patriarchal, Semitic-originating religion and culture seeing its membership expanding fast in the Western world, history may be repeating itself a century later.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
    Slightly off-topic: Holy moly, you were right about Marilyn Manson. Compared to Weinstein, he really was a step up.

    How did Harvey have time to eat all those meals he clearly had, let alone do any actual business? Even if some of the accusations are "me, too! Let ME on the bandwagon," it sounds like that's all he ever did.

    In South Park terms:

    You don't eat or sleep or mow the lawn
    You just maul your starlets all day long
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDDJvC2CGaU
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Lurker says:

    Prohibition proved a disaster for Feminism, however, by discrediting Feminism among America’s bohemian culturati.

    And that’s the beauty of holding the megaphone – now Prohibition can be dumped onto the already heavily overburdened donkey of stale patriarchy. Because what problems could feminism cause?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. Meanwhile, is Harvey Weinstien the first Great (((White))) Defendant?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. Isn’t simpler explanation just that as business becomes more high status more men are attracted by it and it becomes more competitive and cruel and women being generally less competitive and driven by status gravitate towards other fields.

    I’d assume that happened to being a musician in the 60′s. Women are artistic, conscientious and like music so there were plenty of talented professional musicians like Carol Kaye. But then came rock and men fueled by dreams of becoming a rockstar flooded the business.By early 80′s studio musicians were more male than they were in early 60′s because talented artistic women looking for a job were crowded out by status seeking failed rock stars.

    I’d assume computer science and banking got more male when they became ways to become masters of universe.

    Reverse has happened in publishing and journalism.
    ….

    And men really don’t like competing against women. Men do really enjoy see their male rivals to lose to a woman, but winning a woman feels like winning a battle against erectile dysfunction. You feel humiliated that you needed to fight in the first place.

    And that’s why I think there is more vitriol against female political opponents than there would be against similar male opponents, whether it is Thatcher or Hillary. Women should know their place. Business and war should be game of men against men for the access to fertile women. Women’s game is to be the first prize.

    There’s the phrase about James Bond about men wanting to be him and women wanting to sleep with him. The woman that women want to be and that men want to sleep with is not a spy with a licence to kill or and who is excellent at fighting .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh



    And men really don’t like competing against women. Men do really enjoy see their male rivals to lose to a woman, but winning a woman feels like winning a battle against erectile dysfunction. You feel humiliated that you needed to fight in the first place.

     

    Beautiful twist of the phrase, sir.
    , @Pat Boyle
    Your analysis of the sexes in music is strained. I don't know a damn thing about popular music but in serious music the pattern is clear. Everyone knows. Women simply don't have the requisite talent. There never was a female Mozart. Indeed no woman has ever been even a minor composer. Women are vital to sing in opera but there are no operas written by a woman.

    There were famous female novelists throughout the nineteenth century but no female composers. Female composers have been as rare as female mathematicians.

    Someone will probably cite some woman who wrote a symphony sometime, but you will never have heard of her. I have listened to music written by women - various people sponsor competitions and other venues for female composers. Their works are not unpleasant but not really good enough to interest anyone except an feminism advocate.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Tiny Duck says:

    This is why we need diversity in the movie industry.

    As long as white Christian males continue to run things women will continue to be savaged

    A movie industry of Color will better the interests of all people and especially women

    This is why Lena Dunham’s work is so important

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter

    As long as white Christian males continue to run things women will continue to be savaged
     
    Isn't it anti-Semitic to claim that a Jew is a Christian? You are slipping there Tiny D*ck.
    , @White Guy In Japan
    Movies of Color? Think White men already did that awhile back.
    , @Rosamond Vincy
    Dunham was so busy inventing college rapists she never noticed she shouldn't shake hands with Weinstein. Oh well, she's piled on now, along with everyone else. Buncha hypocrites.
    , @Bernardista
    Did you really use 'Lena Dunham' and 'important' in the same sentence? Excellent trolling.
    , @Seriously
    What we really need is people with influence like Mr. Weinstein, but who also prefer non-cisgender, non-white women. How can a WOC get ahead in the entertainment industry when privileged white males refuse to hit on them.
    The Oscars will remain white until moguls like Mr. Weinstein curb their privilege and grope the marginalized members of our society.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. J.Ross says: • Website

    OT, apologies if you’ve seen this, but by way of Charles Murray’s twtter feed (which, by random turns, is the best source for relevant articles, and also the most Colbert-surpassingly brainless anti-Trump and anti-Trump-voter screed), an interesting blog post by Spotted Toad talking about New York City public school demographics, in light of some pseudo-intellectual receiving a formerly important award.

    https://spottedtoad.wordpress.com/2016/06/10/middle-class-kids-arent-magic-pixie-dust/amp/

    Toad responds to an indulgent and easily refuted New York Times piece on whites evilly choosing to not commute to the ghetto and get their kids physically beaten, the author of which has joined Ta-Jeanyus Coats at the MacArthur Center For Smart Kids Who Can Write Good, but Murray’s twitter connection (which brings in Cordelia Fine joining the Royal Society) elevates this to a response to the broader phenomenon of pseudo-intellectuals clutching meaningless statuettes to drown out the silence from flyover country. I think Trotsky said something about bureaucrats decorating their breasts with little tin stars in proportion to their inability to imagine the real night sky (once he was no longer one of them).
    One of the most important and unreported themes of the Trumpening is the Crisis of Authority.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lorne-michaels-snl-harvey-weinstein_us_59db3c27e4b072637c452329

    It’s the Current Year was a good meme.

    Now a new one.

    It’s a New York Thing.

    But its arms reached all the way to LA?

    And by ‘New York Thing’, what’s it mean? I mean NY is pretty diverse? Are Afghani taxi drivers sending signals to LA?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lugash
    (MS)NBC/SNL actions are interesting. 30 Rock knew what was up, and I'd assume there's shop talk between the two writing teams. They spiked Ronan Farrow's story, yet they allowed him to run with it elsewhere. Ronan's screen time disappeared about a year ago. It seemed like they were trying to make him a Serious TV Journalist, but he didn't have the gravitas. Maybe he was really making people uncomfortable? I'd bet that Ronan has a friend or connection in the movie business that Harvey attacked.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Writers as far back as Tocqueville and before noted your connection between feminism and old puritinism. If there is any ideology that truly denies its ancestors, it is feminism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. inertial says:

    … a supply “of what were known as ‘six-month-option girls’ to be passed around the executive offices.”

    This type of thing is as old as Hollywood, as the Fatty Arbuckle scandal (1921) had shown. Indeed, it is as old as theater.

    I am not sure what this has to do with the lack of female executives in the movie business after the industry had matured. The reasons for that were explained by James Damore in his famous memo.

    [Mary Pickford], her fiancé Douglas Fairbanks Sr., Charlie Chaplin, and D. W. Griffith founded United Artists.

    Chaplin was well known for his penchant for underage girls.

    They came from more patriarchal and ethnocentric backgrounds, and didn’t see much reason to respect shiksas.

    Did they respect Jewish women? You’d think they did, being ethnocentric and all. And yet they didn’t promote them either.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous

    Did they respect Jewish women? You’d think they did, being ethnocentric and all. And yet they didn’t promote them either.
     
    Evidently they did not. Look at how many Jewish gals were involved in second wave feminism. Jewish men must have really been ogres. What else explains it?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Hodag says:

    1. I was going to make the same point about Prohibition but our host beat me to it. Ask Menkin what he thought of feminism.

    2. John Doe from X was Winona Ryder’s father in Great Balls of Fire.

    3. John Doe’s best role of course was in Roadhouse.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    X had a big impact on movies briefly (e.g., "Breathless").
    , @dr kill
    And his best tune is The Golden State, with Kathleen Edwards.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZO0GIqi9PI
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Women today are “widely employed as screenwriters, editors, directors, and even producers” – way more than in the very short “Golden Age of Mary Pickford” and Hollywood is a sewer. Employing women as “screenwriters, editors, directors, and even producers” isn’t mutually exclusive with treating other women like prostitutes. Charlie Chaplin had an interesting taste in young women. Fatty Arbuckle may not have raped “aspiring actress” Virgina Rappe but she did not seem to be living a very healthy lifestyle. Or better yet, Thomas Ince formed a company with D.W. Griffith and Mack Sennett in 1915 to make movies and he was accused of raping a young woman on William Randolph Hearst’s yacht. Feminism, even “WASP-dominated feminism”, doesn’t do anything to prevent this kind of thing. It probably encourages it by discouraging men to think of themselves as the protector of women. The great feminists in Hollywood today, all the women producers and writers and directors and editors and agents and superstar actresses certainly didn’t do a thing to stop Weinstein for 20 years. Why do you think if Mary Pickford and Gloria Swanson had only succeeded that this would have stopped the Hollywood casing couch from appearing?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. Hollywood is like an onion, peel away one layer of hypocrisy, and you get 10 more layers of hypocrisy, all the way down to its rotten core. Little wonder it stinks like one.

    Women of Hollywood have been subjected to this kind of treatment for far too long. I’m sure many famous actresses have been forced to sleep with producers and studio chiefs before they became famous, maybe even after, to get roles. Child actors are especially vulnerable to this type of abuse, including male actors, many eventually turned to drugs, alcohol and partying to numb their pain. Corey Feldman’s story in the Sunday Times of London about wide spread abuse of male child actors in Hollywood will make anyone vomit. I want all these victims to come out and name names. Weinstein can’t be the only scumbag in Hollywood, there are many others.

    These abuses by Weinstein is allowed to go on for so long because Hollywood is being protected by another institution dominated by liberals – the media. The two formed a symbiosis of powerful Jewish men looking out for one another, a group of Jews who will screw over anyone to get what they want, they think everything they do is justified because of the Holocaust and 2000 years of oppression. In addition to Hollywood and the media, this Jewish cartel also dominate our academia, Silicon Valley, Wall Street and the Democratic Party, and they are responsible for inflicting upon the western world the toxic insidious ideology of Liberalism. This Weinstein scandal involves many big names in Hollywood and the Democratic party, from Matt Damon to the Clintons to Obama, even the NYT and NBC. Liberalism is imploding, it has finally been exposed for what it really is – nothing but a narcissistic, self-righteous, hypocritical, and morally bankrupt pile of crap.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AM

    Women of Hollywood have been subjected to this kind of treatment for far too long. I’m sure many famous actresses have been forced to sleep with producers and studio chiefs before they became famous, maybe even after, to get roles.
     
    Nobody forced them to want to become actress. It's hard for me to muster much sympathy on that point.

    Generally speaking, actresses have historically been considered this side of prostitutes, if not actually that. Banning women actresses basically was about protecting their virtue. (Which is perhaps why heights of drama are achieved when the actors are all male. No casting couch, or perhaps very limited in number.)

    It's modern abnormality, in other words, to presume that actress will not turn into prostitutes and that a field abnormally concerned about fame and fortune will somehow have virtue.

    One of the failures right now is women unwilling to slut shame their sisters. Middle class women need to get it back into their heads, that for the most part, this is what acting devolves to and keep their girls from it.

    But then again, we can't get those same families to demand chaperones or single sex dorms at college, so there's work to be done.

    If only the net fallout from all of this is that middle America gets into their head that Hollywood is cesspool that eats women (and men), then that's something.

    , @Anonymous

    Weinstein can’t be the only scumbag in Hollywood, there are many others.
     
    Of course there are others, but if we start naming them, people might notice a (pattern) and then where would we be? For the moment, Ben Affleck to the rescue. Meanwhile, put out a casting call for sleazy hollywood goys, would you? Time is tight.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    Dog bites man, world shocked.
    , @Laugh Track

    Liberalism is imploding, it has finally been exposed for what it really is – nothing but a narcissistic, self-righteous, hypocritical, and morally bankrupt pile of crap.
     
    Ha. I wish.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. @Hodag
    1. I was going to make the same point about Prohibition but our host beat me to it. Ask Menkin what he thought of feminism.

    2. John Doe from X was Winona Ryder's father in Great Balls of Fire.

    3. John Doe's best role of course was in Roadhouse.

    X had a big impact on movies briefly (e.g., “Breathless”).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. J1234 says:

    In histories, these old-studio chiefs are genteelly referred to as womanizers, a polite metaphor for conduct that ranges from time on the casting couch, another odious euphuism [sic] to what sounds a lot like prostitution.

    In classical Rome, actors had essentially the same social standing as prostitutes. That seems about right. Then actors started becoming rich, obscenely (pun intended), so their social standing improved.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Abe

    In classical Rome, actors had essentially the same social standing as prostitutes.
     
    Right. When Byzantine Emperor Justinian married theater actress Theodora it was considered hugely scandalous, and almost certainly not without reason.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. drawbacks says:

    So, the movie mogul gets caught short while surveying the day’s shooting and proceeds to relieve himself into the foliage on the set of a jungle picture.
    “Mr. Arkoff, please – there are ladies present!” says his PA.
    “If there’s a woman on this set who’s never seen this, I want her in my office in 15 minutes!”

    https://www.amazon.com/Casting-Couch-Selwyn-Ford/dp/0586203869/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. More than any other institution, Hollywood is responsible for the downward spiral of western culture. In movies, TV shows, pop music, lifestyles of its stars, Hollywood constantly tells us that it’s okay to commit any and all sins from adultery to crime, sexual perversion, homosexuality, transgenderism, drugs, alcohol, prostitution, all are okay because we are supposed to follow our feeeeelings, because feelings are the only things that matter.

    Hollywood popularize the dumbing down of America long before our education system follows suit. Now they glorify gun violence then claim to be anti gun. They trump up identity politics, the victimhood mentality, and would never let America forget racism and the holocaust. Of course all their toxic propaganda were also reinforced by the media and academia, two other areas dominated by Jewish liberals, but make no mistake Hollywood leads the way in the degeneration of western civilization.

    Read More
    • Replies: @wiseguy
    What's the formula again? Academia explores the liberalism of tomorrow, media decides the liberalism of today, and entertainment reinforces the liberalism decided upon yesterday? Or is it that academia markets degeneracy to the high-brow, media pushes it to the middle-brow, and entertainment inundates the low-brow?
    , @Lurker
    Yep!

    It would be great to think the harpooning of the Weinstein whale was merely the first strike in a rolling attack designed to bring down the whole thing.

    I guess it's more likely part of some ruthless industry backstabbing designed to get him out of the way.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Lugash says:
    @Anon
    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lorne-michaels-snl-harvey-weinstein_us_59db3c27e4b072637c452329

    It's the Current Year was a good meme.

    Now a new one.

    It's a New York Thing.

    But its arms reached all the way to LA?

    And by 'New York Thing', what's it mean? I mean NY is pretty diverse? Are Afghani taxi drivers sending signals to LA?

    (MS)NBC/SNL actions are interesting. 30 Rock knew what was up, and I’d assume there’s shop talk between the two writing teams. They spiked Ronan Farrow’s story, yet they allowed him to run with it elsewhere. Ronan’s screen time disappeared about a year ago. It seemed like they were trying to make him a Serious TV Journalist, but he didn’t have the gravitas. Maybe he was really making people uncomfortable? I’d bet that Ronan has a friend or connection in the movie business that Harvey attacked.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @Tiny Duck
    This is why we need diversity in the movie industry.

    As long as white Christian males continue to run things women will continue to be savaged

    A movie industry of Color will better the interests of all people and especially women

    This is why Lena Dunham's work is so important

    As long as white Christian males continue to run things women will continue to be savaged

    Isn’t it anti-Semitic to claim that a Jew is a Christian? You are slipping there Tiny D*ck.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tiny Duck
    Harvey ceased to be Jewish when he did evil

    Evil =white Christian makes
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @Tiny Duck
    This is why we need diversity in the movie industry.

    As long as white Christian males continue to run things women will continue to be savaged

    A movie industry of Color will better the interests of all people and especially women

    This is why Lena Dunham's work is so important

    Movies of Color? Think White men already did that awhile back.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Weiner, Weinstein, Wenner, Sterling, Spector, Abramoff, Spitzer, Glass, Madoff, Erdely, Geftman-Gold, and the list goes on.

    Are we seeing some kind of meltdown?

    Could it be part of the reason is Jews are so high-achieving that every ambitious Jewish guy or girls feels this need to ‘win’(in money, power, sex, notoriety), and ANYTHING is fair game to make some kind of splash or get some kind of edge?

    This movie seems more and more relevant.
    There seems to be a kind of neurosis at work than mere corruption. In the case of Glass, I’m not even sure it was corruption. More like an addiction. Like Weiner just couldn’t control himself.

    Holden Caulfields of the world got some power.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
    Doesn't explain Roger Ailes, O'Reilly, or the Kennedys. Give guys a little power, and they all become slπtboys.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @inertial

    ... a supply “of what were known as ‘six-month-option girls’ to be passed around the executive offices.”
     
    This type of thing is as old as Hollywood, as the Fatty Arbuckle scandal (1921) had shown. Indeed, it is as old as theater.

    I am not sure what this has to do with the lack of female executives in the movie business after the industry had matured. The reasons for that were explained by James Damore in his famous memo.

    [Mary Pickford], her fiancé Douglas Fairbanks Sr., Charlie Chaplin, and D. W. Griffith founded United Artists.
     
    Chaplin was well known for his penchant for underage girls.

    They came from more patriarchal and ethnocentric backgrounds, and didn’t see much reason to respect shiksas.
     
    Did they respect Jewish women? You'd think they did, being ethnocentric and all. And yet they didn't promote them either.

    Did they respect Jewish women? You’d think they did, being ethnocentric and all. And yet they didn’t promote them either.

    Evidently they did not. Look at how many Jewish gals were involved in second wave feminism. Jewish men must have really been ogres. What else explains it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jake
    What explains 'it' is the Jewish rebellion against God, meaning Jews defining themselves as ANTI-Christ. Jewish Feminism is merely the girl's part in the post-World War 2 landscape.

    Here is an equally important question: Why is Feminism in origin a WASP thing?

    Answer: That was the WASP female response to the post-Enlightenment version of the continuing rebellion against Christendom
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. In Day of the Locust, written in the 1930s by one Nathan Wallerstein (aka Nathanael West), the blonde goy starlet Faye Greener is portrayed as a fame-obsessed whore who wreaks havoc in men’s lives with her charms. She says she can only love a man who has money or who can make her famous. Another Ellis Islander’s low view of WASP women.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kylie
    But Arthur Miller was Jewish and obviously had a high opinion of WASP women, as evidenced by his marriage to Hollywood's most famous WASP intellectual, Marilyn Monroe.
    , @Pat Boyle
    When I was a sophomore at George Mason I had nothing to read one day. So I went to the school librarian and asked for a recommendation. He thought for a day or two and then recommended Day of the Locust.

    Are there any librarians anymore?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @Jake
    "The rise of the Ellis Island immigrant populations helped delay feminism’s triumph that had once seemed imminent in WASP-dominated America. But that’s the kind of paradox likely to be met with blank stares in 2013."

    True.

    Feminism is a WASP thing. Just like demanding we all declare the Negro Numinous. And in each, the original WASP allies the Jews took over the particular WASP delusion/insanity and ran hog wild with it, at the expense of all other white Christians.

    The problem I have with this Steve blog is that it implies that -at least for Hollywood - the choices were WASP feminism or the casting couch.

    Feminism is a WASP thing.

    Well, yeah, despite what some historically ignorant Alt Right people claim. You can’t get any whiter than the first feminist coming out of the Enlightenment, the Englishwoman Mary Wollstonecraft.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    But MODERN feminism (e.g. post 1960's) tends to be most decidedly non-WASP. Bella Abzug, Naomi Wolf, Gloria Steinem, and Betty Friedan, Boxer, Feinstein, are not WASPS. Perhaps they are, and some are just deceived. Anti-feminist Phyllis Schalfly, however, is a WASP. Certainly WASPS still hover around the periphery of the modern feminist movement, but all in all, the non-WASP influence over the feminist movement of today is firmly entrenched.

    In other words, for the past half century at least, Jews have definitely had a hand in directing and leading modern feminist movement.
    , @Millennial
    Wow. I didn't know the Spartans were actually crypto-WASPS.

    "...In Spartan society, women could own estates, travel freely without male escort, and even initiate divorce. These rights were far from the historical norm. Indeed, one may see many parallels between women’s rights in Ancient Sparta and those found in the modern developed world..."

    http://www.returnofkings.com/50732/womens-rights-are-a-function-of-economy-ancient-sparta

    , @Bill
    Always so pretty and feminine.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Redman says:
    @kihowi
    The most interesting question is as usual not being asked.

    What does this say about women? There was no rape here. He didn't shackle anybody to a bed in a soundproof basement. These were all situations that could be walked away from at any time.

    That would mean no more chance at fame, of course, but that's exactly the trade-off that these women made. He was able to do this for such a long time because all those women at some level of consciousness bartered with their bodies.

    As with a lot of sexual politics, all the indignation is built on the assumption that women are imbeciles. That they did not understand what was up:

    a) before they met him. Were they the only people in the western world who didn't know about this aspect of Hollywood? Don't make me laugh.
    b) when they saw him. He drips sleaze. Nobody is this clueless.
    c) when he started putting the moves on them. He's obviously not a subtle man. You'd know.

    In real life, women are really good at knowing what kind of man they're dealing with.

    Agree completely.

    I met Weinstein a couple of years ago when he was in my building working on some sort of deal with the Discovery network. He more than oozed sleaze. He is shockingly reptilian in person.

    He had an entourage of men and women whom he ordered around like a dictator. And you could tell he enjoyed being out on the street and recognized, while bossing around these paid acolytes. Like Zuck, he wore a plain brown tee shirt and jeans, trying to show his prole roots I suspect. Man of the people or something.

    Many (not most) women are very comfortable trading sex for what they want. Citizenship, money, fame. Nobody was Cosbied here, so I don’t have much sympathy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. whoever says: • Website

    Don’t forget actress, writer, director, producer Mabel Normand. She had an outsized influence on the early flickers, and it is she “Norma Desmond” is meant to mock.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. Jake says:
    @whorefinder

    Weinstein ran his routine on Gwyneth Paltrow ((1/2 I believe)), and while she claims she didn’t ante up, she got _Shakespeare in Love
     
    That surprised me, because Paltrow's father was a big name producer and she is very close with family friend Steven Spielberg (one of her first movie roles was the plum role of Wendy in Spielberg's Hook, and by most accounts she got it because Spielberg viewed her as a second daughter); I would think that Weinstein would not have tried his routine on her due to these protections, and that, if he did, Paltrow's father and Spielberg would have gone after him--and they were a lot more established than Weinstein at the time.

    So either Paltrow is lying to jump on board here, or her father/Spielberg weren't that protective, or this sort of thing is routine amongst Hollywood types so Paltrow/Spielberg didn't bat an eye.

    Or Gwyneth Paltrow had a reputation then as a wild girl who probably would be intrigued if not flattered.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. whorefinder says: • Website

    Not really palatable, since Weinstein at the time would have been trepidatious at a Paltrow Sr/Spielberg double team. You don’t piss off a better-known producer and the most profitable, beloved, and artistic-Americanna director since John Ford simply for a shot at some skank tail.

    All makes me think either Gwyneth made it up, is deluded enough to believe her own hysterical need to be a victim, or such behavior was par for the course amongst producers/directors, which is why daddy Paltrow/Spielberg didn’t consider this an affront.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Antlitz Grollheim

    deluded enough to believe her own hysterical need to be a victim
     
    bingo
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. J.Ross says: • Website

    The original and current take at 4chan:
    Holywood is Pedowood. While Mueller’s Russian hackers refuse to materialize after a year of searching and babbling, “alt-right” allegations of pedo rings (which started with evidence such as Skippy Podesta’s profile in a neutral lifestyle magazine) have been rewarded with a dramatic yet wierdly under-reported uptick in pedo arrests. We’re closing in on them, and they’re selflessly throwing Harvey to the hounds hoping it will help them get away. This will not end soon and will not end with Harvey.
    Possibility: One of Obama’s daughters did an “internship” with high-visibility party donor Weinstein. Obama has felt the need to weigh in with his disgust, possibly just his reliably insane ego, but possibly this is the thing that makes Weinstein’s excesses different.
    Keep in mind that the Awan scandal is developing in the background. After a year of incoherent yet strident-toned babble about Russian hackers, it is emerging that top congressional Democrats handed state secrets to the Pakistani ISI.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  38. Funny how people aren’t talking about Michael Bay yet. I’m admittedly no so familar with Weinstein, but Bay is pretty famous for his ‘choices’ of lead female supporting actresses.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. ChrisZ says:

    Thus is a great, audacious, post. Steve’s piece of a few years back on Prohibition is still one of my all time favorites; this deepens and enlarges his thesis there. I do think Steve has a fascinating book in him where he’d look at the first third of the 20th century in his heterodox way: its repercussions for today, and the paths not taken at the time.

    The present post made me think of the vivid scene in “The Godfather” novel, where Tom Hagen visits the Hollywood mogul. On the periphery of the scene is a woman who’s bringing her beautiful underage daughter to the mogul’s mansion; in Tom’s company the mogul seems cordial and genteel, but the intrusions of the mother and daughter—the latter visibly disoriented in her final appearance—signal to Tom his true nature. It’s one of Puzo’s most unsettling vignettes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Thete's also a brief scene in "LA Confidential," showing that one of the options available from the celebrity lookalike escort service is Shirley Temple.
    , @Triumph104
    In the movie, the Hollywood mogul, Jack Woltz, makes the confusing statement that a starlet was young, innocent and the best he ever had. The two scenes below refer to his pedophilia but were cut from the film.

    https://youtu.be/13EmjpXQ8_w

    https://youtu.be/KdUELdJ4jmU
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. AM says:
    @Another realist
    Hollywood is like an onion, peel away one layer of hypocrisy, and you get 10 more layers of hypocrisy, all the way down to its rotten core. Little wonder it stinks like one.

    Women of Hollywood have been subjected to this kind of treatment for far too long. I'm sure many famous actresses have been forced to sleep with producers and studio chiefs before they became famous, maybe even after, to get roles. Child actors are especially vulnerable to this type of abuse, including male actors, many eventually turned to drugs, alcohol and partying to numb their pain. Corey Feldman's story in the Sunday Times of London about wide spread abuse of male child actors in Hollywood will make anyone vomit. I want all these victims to come out and name names. Weinstein can't be the only scumbag in Hollywood, there are many others.

    These abuses by Weinstein is allowed to go on for so long because Hollywood is being protected by another institution dominated by liberals - the media. The two formed a symbiosis of powerful Jewish men looking out for one another, a group of Jews who will screw over anyone to get what they want, they think everything they do is justified because of the Holocaust and 2000 years of oppression. In addition to Hollywood and the media, this Jewish cartel also dominate our academia, Silicon Valley, Wall Street and the Democratic Party, and they are responsible for inflicting upon the western world the toxic insidious ideology of Liberalism. This Weinstein scandal involves many big names in Hollywood and the Democratic party, from Matt Damon to the Clintons to Obama, even the NYT and NBC. Liberalism is imploding, it has finally been exposed for what it really is - nothing but a narcissistic, self-righteous, hypocritical, and morally bankrupt pile of crap.

    Women of Hollywood have been subjected to this kind of treatment for far too long. I’m sure many famous actresses have been forced to sleep with producers and studio chiefs before they became famous, maybe even after, to get roles.

    Nobody forced them to want to become actress. It’s hard for me to muster much sympathy on that point.

    Generally speaking, actresses have historically been considered this side of prostitutes, if not actually that. Banning women actresses basically was about protecting their virtue. (Which is perhaps why heights of drama are achieved when the actors are all male. No casting couch, or perhaps very limited in number.)

    It’s modern abnormality, in other words, to presume that actress will not turn into prostitutes and that a field abnormally concerned about fame and fortune will somehow have virtue.

    One of the failures right now is women unwilling to slut shame their sisters. Middle class women need to get it back into their heads, that for the most part, this is what acting devolves to and keep their girls from it.

    But then again, we can’t get those same families to demand chaperones or single sex dorms at college, so there’s work to be done.

    If only the net fallout from all of this is that middle America gets into their head that Hollywood is cesspool that eats women (and men), then that’s something.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Another realist
    Would you still say the same if corporate America plays by the same rules, that women pretty much have to sleep their way to the top? Just because that's the way it's always been doesn't make it any less wrong. It's gone on long enough. With all the liberal talk of empowering women, it's about time these female champions of liberalism step up and expose the hypocrisy of Hollywood. We all know Hollywood is a cesspool, but we've been subjected to their hypocrisy long enough. I'm glad these women are stepping up. I hope more creeps like Weinstein get exposed. Ben Affleck is already next in line.

    Liberalism is imploding. One by one these champions of liberalism are being brought down by their own hypocrisy. The best thing is the media and leaders of the Democratic party including Obama and Clinton are now caught up in the massive cover up of this Weinstein scandal. They have no more moral high ground to stand on. Couldn't have happened to a better group of hypocrites.

    , @Rod1963
    Writers Ray Bradbury and Harlan Ellison once spoke at a Sci-Fi writers conference about Hollywood and women. As both stated all Hollywood wanted were "f**ker women", they'd only select women who were sex objects pure and simple. This is why the shelf life of most actresses is so short and why most look like tramps. A few manage to go further, but they are the big names.

    And yeah there is the casting couch for men as well. Given the amount of homosexuals in power in Hollywood how could there not be? Way too many stories about aspiring male actors having to perform sex acts on some degenerate casting agent/director. Nobody wants to touch this angle because of the homosexual component. It's no wonder a lot of actors are seriously screwed up and into all sorts of drugs and booze. Getting molested tends to seriously mess with people.

    At the end of the day Hollywood as you state is a cesspool. All it churns out is garbage.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Its a wonderful weinstein world. An ambitious woman born with good looks but really very much like all the other women of the world can become rich, famous and adored simply by helping out her new friend, Harvey. Seems like a quid pro quo any adult would be happy to have (or not have) by her choice. Talent is knowing your strengths and taking advantage of them. Leave the movies to Harvey.

    Who is complaining and why? Its got be something to with those wrinkly pink hats.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  42. Dave Pinsen says: • Website

    One question I have about all of these actresses coming out of the woodwork now with Weinstein accusations: why did none (except for the Italian one prompted by the NYPD) surreptitiously record their conversations with him?

    Get him (or someone else pulling the same crap) on tape, walk out, and then if you don’t get the part, threaten to release the tape.

    One interesting angle here is that Gawker, which we all agreed last year was evil, was the one media outlet openly soliciting dirt on Weinstein a couple of years ago.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Triumph104
    What you are proposing is called extortion. David Letterman was threatened with extortion and later admitted he had sex with several of his employees. The man who threatened him was sentenced to six months in Riker's Island.

    In California and several other states it is illegal to record a conversation without the consent of all parties. Among other things, Los Angeles private investigator Anthony Pellicano was sent to prison for wiretapping Sylvester Stallone and Keith Carradine. He also extorted Ron Buckle, a supermarket billionaire. Michael Ovitz, the talent agent, had hired Pellicano to investigate Buckle so Pellicano turned around and told Buckle he wouldn't do the investigation if Buckle paid $100k to $250k.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. wiseguy says:
    @Another realist
    More than any other institution, Hollywood is responsible for the downward spiral of western culture. In movies, TV shows, pop music, lifestyles of its stars, Hollywood constantly tells us that it's okay to commit any and all sins from adultery to crime, sexual perversion, homosexuality, transgenderism, drugs, alcohol, prostitution, all are okay because we are supposed to follow our feeeeelings, because feelings are the only things that matter.

    Hollywood popularize the dumbing down of America long before our education system follows suit. Now they glorify gun violence then claim to be anti gun. They trump up identity politics, the victimhood mentality, and would never let America forget racism and the holocaust. Of course all their toxic propaganda were also reinforced by the media and academia, two other areas dominated by Jewish liberals, but make no mistake Hollywood leads the way in the degeneration of western civilization.

    What’s the formula again? Academia explores the liberalism of tomorrow, media decides the liberalism of today, and entertainment reinforces the liberalism decided upon yesterday? Or is it that academia markets degeneracy to the high-brow, media pushes it to the middle-brow, and entertainment inundates the low-brow?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @whorefinder

    Weinstein ran his routine on Gwyneth Paltrow ((1/2 I believe)), and while she claims she didn’t ante up, she got _Shakespeare in Love
     
    That surprised me, because Paltrow's father was a big name producer and she is very close with family friend Steven Spielberg (one of her first movie roles was the plum role of Wendy in Spielberg's Hook, and by most accounts she got it because Spielberg viewed her as a second daughter); I would think that Weinstein would not have tried his routine on her due to these protections, and that, if he did, Paltrow's father and Spielberg would have gone after him--and they were a lot more established than Weinstein at the time.

    So either Paltrow is lying to jump on board here, or her father/Spielberg weren't that protective, or this sort of thing is routine amongst Hollywood types so Paltrow/Spielberg didn't bat an eye.

    Gwynnie is pretty messed-up look at her GOOP site some time), so that could mean either bandwagon (she is nutty enough to believe it even if it didn’t happen), or it did happen, and maybe that’s one reason she’s so nutty. Contrary to gyn advice, the woman steam-cleans her hoo-ha. Well, maybe she has valid reason to think it needs it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @whorefinder
    Women have a greater capacity than men at self-delusion, hysteria, and group-think, as most people have found throughout the centuries. It is notable that the accusers in the Salem Witch Trials were all young girls. Certainly the more dramatic a woman is, the more she is prone to inventing delusions and tales and then believing them---so I would not be surprised if someone as delusional of herself such as Paltrow would be doing this. She craves attention and being the center of it all.

    Paltrow is quite famous even among Hollywood actresses for being incredibly and retardedly delusional and self-centered. Being an Upper East Side JAP who has a movie producer for a daddy and Steven Spielberg handing her out roles as a gift will do that, and that's before we get to the fact that among the Jewish girls of her set she was blond, thin, and with long legs. I have to think growing up being the absolutely queen bee of that exclusive set must've set her ego on the top rung of the ladder, and, unfortunately, she managed to cement herself as a Hollywood leading lady with an Oscar to boot (got on Daddy's grave, but that's another story), a string of leading men boyfriends (Brad Pit, Ben Affleck), and a rock star whipped-pup husband (till she "consciously uncoupled" from him).

    In other words, unless something drastic occurs, she's permanently going to think the sun rises and sets on her backside. And that she should ALWAYS be the center of attention. That would make her invent a story like this AND start to believe it. Or perhaps she just told simple old Brad it happened so she could make him fight Harvey .

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @Anon
    Weiner, Weinstein, Wenner, Sterling, Spector, Abramoff, Spitzer, Glass, Madoff, Erdely, Geftman-Gold, and the list goes on.

    Are we seeing some kind of meltdown?

    Could it be part of the reason is Jews are so high-achieving that every ambitious Jewish guy or girls feels this need to 'win'(in money, power, sex, notoriety), and ANYTHING is fair game to make some kind of splash or get some kind of edge?

    This movie seems more and more relevant.
    There seems to be a kind of neurosis at work than mere corruption. In the case of Glass, I'm not even sure it was corruption. More like an addiction. Like Weiner just couldn't control himself.

    Holden Caulfields of the world got some power.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajcVgbrSIWk

    Doesn’t explain Roger Ailes, O’Reilly, or the Kennedys. Give guys a little power, and they all become slπtboys.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. J.Ross says: • Website
    @ChrisZ
    Thus is a great, audacious, post. Steve’s piece of a few years back on Prohibition is still one of my all time favorites; this deepens and enlarges his thesis there. I do think Steve has a fascinating book in him where he’d look at the first third of the 20th century in his heterodox way: its repercussions for today, and the paths not taken at the time.

    The present post made me think of the vivid scene in “The Godfather” novel, where Tom Hagen visits the Hollywood mogul. On the periphery of the scene is a woman who’s bringing her beautiful underage daughter to the mogul’s mansion; in Tom’s company the mogul seems cordial and genteel, but the intrusions of the mother and daughter—the latter visibly disoriented in her final appearance—signal to Tom his true nature. It’s one of Puzo’s most unsettling vignettes.

    Thete’s also a brief scene in “LA Confidential,” showing that one of the options available from the celebrity lookalike escort service is Shirley Temple.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @Tiny Duck
    This is why we need diversity in the movie industry.

    As long as white Christian males continue to run things women will continue to be savaged

    A movie industry of Color will better the interests of all people and especially women

    This is why Lena Dunham's work is so important

    Dunham was so busy inventing college rapists she never noticed she shouldn’t shake hands with Weinstein. Oh well, she’s piled on now, along with everyone else. Buncha hypocrites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    Lena Dunham must be one of the few Hollywood actresses Weinstein never thought of hitting on.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @Rosamond Vincy
    Dunham was so busy inventing college rapists she never noticed she shouldn't shake hands with Weinstein. Oh well, she's piled on now, along with everyone else. Buncha hypocrites.

    Lena Dunham must be one of the few Hollywood actresses Weinstein never thought of hitting on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
    Maybe he has standards after all.
    , @Jake
    As Blaine Edwards says to Antoine Meriweather about Roseanne Barr: She's the kind of woman that made me turn in the first place.
    , @Rosamond Vincy
    Speaking of which:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4978864/Lena-Dunham-editor-chief-Glamour.html

    Most comments speculate that this is an Onion story. The woman has no experience editing a magazine, and as for fashion sense, while many style icons have overcome personal deficiencies with a knack for what is chic, Dunham unerringly gravitates to the frumpy. I no longer believe she's just tone-deaf to fashion; it's her message of hostility to the world. There are pictures of her at red carpet events where someone has clearly styled her: soft make-up, hair arranged, clothing with lines that lengthen her rather lumpy body.
    Example 1: https://media.glamour.com/photos/5943f8ae8bb2814937a78bc3/1:1/w_352/GettyImages-671286224.jpg

    Within hours, she will appear looking as awful as possible:
    Example 2:
    https://images.hellogiggles.com/uploads/2017/10/11091230/lena-700x525.jpg

    I sincerely believe she thinks the public doesn't deserve to look at attractive women.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @ChrisZ
    Thus is a great, audacious, post. Steve’s piece of a few years back on Prohibition is still one of my all time favorites; this deepens and enlarges his thesis there. I do think Steve has a fascinating book in him where he’d look at the first third of the 20th century in his heterodox way: its repercussions for today, and the paths not taken at the time.

    The present post made me think of the vivid scene in “The Godfather” novel, where Tom Hagen visits the Hollywood mogul. On the periphery of the scene is a woman who’s bringing her beautiful underage daughter to the mogul’s mansion; in Tom’s company the mogul seems cordial and genteel, but the intrusions of the mother and daughter—the latter visibly disoriented in her final appearance—signal to Tom his true nature. It’s one of Puzo’s most unsettling vignettes.

    In the movie, the Hollywood mogul, Jack Woltz, makes the confusing statement that a starlet was young, innocent and the best he ever had. The two scenes below refer to his pedophilia but were cut from the film.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ChrisZ
    Thanks for these, Triumph. First time I’ve ever seen these, and they’re very creepy.

    Puzo’s description in the novel left a strong impression in my mind of what the mother looked like. I wonder whether she was entirely his invention, or (like so much else in the book) Puzo’s recollection of a real person? It’s troubling merely to think about—but clearly such things are real.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Kylie says:
    @Seth Largo
    In Day of the Locust, written in the 1930s by one Nathan Wallerstein (aka Nathanael West), the blonde goy starlet Faye Greener is portrayed as a fame-obsessed whore who wreaks havoc in men's lives with her charms. She says she can only love a man who has money or who can make her famous. Another Ellis Islander's low view of WASP women.

    But Arthur Miller was Jewish and obviously had a high opinion of WASP women, as evidenced by his marriage to Hollywood’s most famous WASP intellectual, Marilyn Monroe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lagertha
    Gentlemen Prefer Blondes ;)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @advancedatheist

    Feminism is a WASP thing.
     
    Well, yeah, despite what some historically ignorant Alt Right people claim. You can't get any whiter than the first feminist coming out of the Enlightenment, the Englishwoman Mary Wollstonecraft.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Mary_Wollstonecraft_by_John_Opie_%28c._1797%29.jpg

    But MODERN feminism (e.g. post 1960′s) tends to be most decidedly non-WASP. Bella Abzug, Naomi Wolf, Gloria Steinem, and Betty Friedan, Boxer, Feinstein, are not WASPS. Perhaps they are, and some are just deceived. Anti-feminist Phyllis Schalfly, however, is a WASP. Certainly WASPS still hover around the periphery of the modern feminist movement, but all in all, the non-WASP influence over the feminist movement of today is firmly entrenched.

    In other words, for the past half century at least, Jews have definitely had a hand in directing and leading modern feminist movement.

    Read More
    • Replies: @inertial
    28 women who co-founded NOW:

    Ada Allness, Mary Evelyn Benbow, Gene Boyer, Analoyce Clapp, Kathryn Clarenbach, Catherine Conroy, Caroline Davis, Mary Eastwood, Edith Finlayson, Betty Friedan, Dorothy Haener, Anna Roosevelt Halstead, Lorene Harrington, Mary Lou Hill, Esther Johnson, Nancy Knaak, Min Matheson, Helen Moreland, Dr. Pauli Murray (later Rev.), Ruth Murray, Inka O’Hanrahan, Pauline A. Parish, Eve Purvis, Edna Schwartz, Mary-Jane Ryan Snyder, Gretchen Squires, Betty Talkington and Dr. Caroline Ware.
     
    , @Tracy

    Anti-feminist Phyllis Schalfly, however, is a WASP.
     
    Mrs. Schlafly was Catholic.
    , @Art Deco
    In other words, for the past half century at least, Jews have definitely had a hand in directing and leading modern feminist movement.

    NOW had two Jewish presidents during the period running from 1966 to 1977; none since. Steinem's Jewish affiliation is tenuous; she grew up in Toledo and grew up poor because of the idiosyncratic incompetence of her mother and her father. Abzug's a much better example, though much more of a generic red-haze type prior to 1979.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. KunioKun says:

    I wonder if this ever happens with homosexuals

    Read More
    • Replies: @Another realist

    I wonder if this ever happens with homosexuals
     
    No one is spared, not even child actors:

    http://people.com/celebrity/corey-feldman-on-child-sexual-abuse-in-hollywood-and-corey-haim/

    Hollywood is sick to the core. It's about time these hypocrites get exposed for what they really are. Maybe now the Democratic party candidates will think twice before flaunting their celebrity endorsements, though I wouldn't bet on it. I can't wait to see what kind of hypocritical bullcrap they are going to stuff down our throat at the next Oscars, not that I'm going to watch that vomit inducing liberal love fest, I haven't in years, but I'm sure it'll be all over the news the next day. You don't think these people have any more moral high ground to stand on, but if liberals actually understood hypocrisy, they wouldn't be liberals.

    , @Brutusale
    Don't know about homosexuals, but good-looking straight actors are still groped by studio execs.

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/12/entertainment/james-van-der-beek-grabbed/index.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Lurker says:

    It probably encourages it by discouraging men to think of themselves as the protector of women.

    And encouraging women to think they can handle it easily enough. Are they not butt-kicking babes?

    It’s almost as if feminism were designed to exacerbate these problems.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  54. neprof says:
    @whorefinder

    Weinstein ran his routine on Gwyneth Paltrow ((1/2 I believe)), and while she claims she didn’t ante up, she got _Shakespeare in Love
     
    That surprised me, because Paltrow's father was a big name producer and she is very close with family friend Steven Spielberg (one of her first movie roles was the plum role of Wendy in Spielberg's Hook, and by most accounts she got it because Spielberg viewed her as a second daughter); I would think that Weinstein would not have tried his routine on her due to these protections, and that, if he did, Paltrow's father and Spielberg would have gone after him--and they were a lot more established than Weinstein at the time.

    So either Paltrow is lying to jump on board here, or her father/Spielberg weren't that protective, or this sort of thing is routine amongst Hollywood types so Paltrow/Spielberg didn't bat an eye.

    From what you describe, Paltrow would have been a perfect target for Weinstein. For him sex is secondary for his need to push ever further into the verboten. For him it’s more about projection of power and who’s the top dog in Hollywood.

    A Spielberg protege? Gotta make my mark on that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @whorefinder
    That's a very dangerous game for him to play, and doesn't really fit his now-public m.o.: finding young, desperate ingenues whom he towers over in terms of power---some street urchin he can play My Fair Lady to, except that he gets to cum on their face first. And if they refuse, he can hush up their stories because he's Harvey Weinstein and he towers over them in the Hollywood power scheme.

    Gweneth Paltrow didn't tower over or equal Harvey at that point, but her family/close friends sure did. This would be like Bill Clinton in the middle of the '92 race after he'd won the primary but before the election forcing himself on Caroline Kennedy. At that point, Clinton was definitely not the biggest player in D politics nationwide, and hadn't yet taken over the party with his neoliberalism, and Caroline Kennedy was still a Kennedy with a powerful Senator uncle (Ted) , the family legacy in the party, and a number of up-and-comers.

    Plus Daddy Paltrow and Spielberg had to have known about Weinstein, and warned G. Paltrow about him. So unless it is acceptable for all Hollywood producers to do this, and G. Paltrow was sickly told by her family to play ball, or its fictitious.

    P.S. There's a very salacious rumor going about that The Fappenning---the release of a large number of nude and pornographic personal images of current Hollywood starlets from an apple i cloud account within the last 18 months---was from not a hack of many accounts (as the story went), but only from Weinstein's account, who had them all on his phone. I believe Apple has always denied a major, multiple-account hack on this issue. Wouldn't it make sense that someone just got into one account---Weinstein's?

    The pictures were quite raunchy. One was Jennifer Lawrence nude with a white liquid substance dripping off her face and a coy smile at the camera---all in an office/bedroom setting. You can find others, but you get the point: they weren't artistic shots, but private cameraphone shots. By someone.
    , @Pat Boyle
    I think this analysis is pretty close to the mark. Handsome Harvey obviously wasn't doing it just for straight up normal sex. Yes, he is remarkably ugly ("The face that sunk a thousand ships") but even so had he wished it instead of having his assistant set up these elaborate scenarios so he could lure women into his rooms where he would appear in a loosely fitting bathrobe. He could have just had his assistant call up some service and have them send over a professional girl. But Harvey didn't want a normal beautiful young prostitute who was well adjusted to being a whore. He wanted to treat a non-prostitute like a whore and make them like it.

    So Harvey is in some way a practitioner of BDSM sex. Most BDSM dominant men like to beat women. Many also enjoy humiliating them by having them do things most girls wouldn't normally do. Harvey apparently liked to initiate young girls into some of the darker areas of human sexuality.

    So he was a monster, right?

    Well the fact that never seems to get mentioned in all the press accounts is that the majority of these girls must have enjoyed being humiliated. He did his little act for decades. There were probably hundreds of girls at one time or another. In the Bay Area you can't spin a dead cat without hitting a feminist. I imagine it's the same in Hollywood. If so, he must have encountered not just a lot of girls who were offended by his creepy antics but many who enjoyed what he made them do.

    People like to ignore the fact that as far as we know BDSM is more common than homosexuality. About two or three percent of men and women are gay but probably at least five percent enjoy some BDSM role. There are lots of submissive women out there. And if you don't beat and humiliate them they will look for some man who will.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @Harry Baldwin
    Lena Dunham must be one of the few Hollywood actresses Weinstein never thought of hitting on.

    Maybe he has standards after all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Brutusale
    No it's not standards, it's more along the lines of not wiping your butt with used toilet paper!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Does the disgrace of Harvey Weinstein mean that the eagerly anticipated Trayvon Martin biopic will not be forthcoming? Say it ain’t so!

    http://variety.com/2017/film/news/jay-z-trayvon-martin-movie-documentary-series-weinstein-1202015276/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jake
    More likely is that Weinstein is the one guilty freak that Hollywood has tossed up in order to protect the entire monstrosity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Lurker says:
    @Another realist
    More than any other institution, Hollywood is responsible for the downward spiral of western culture. In movies, TV shows, pop music, lifestyles of its stars, Hollywood constantly tells us that it's okay to commit any and all sins from adultery to crime, sexual perversion, homosexuality, transgenderism, drugs, alcohol, prostitution, all are okay because we are supposed to follow our feeeeelings, because feelings are the only things that matter.

    Hollywood popularize the dumbing down of America long before our education system follows suit. Now they glorify gun violence then claim to be anti gun. They trump up identity politics, the victimhood mentality, and would never let America forget racism and the holocaust. Of course all their toxic propaganda were also reinforced by the media and academia, two other areas dominated by Jewish liberals, but make no mistake Hollywood leads the way in the degeneration of western civilization.

    Yep!

    It would be great to think the harpooning of the Weinstein whale was merely the first strike in a rolling attack designed to bring down the whole thing.

    I guess it’s more likely part of some ruthless industry backstabbing designed to get him out of the way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Oh yes. Hearing all of this you immediately wonder whose toes Weinstein trod to get into all this trouble.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Jake says:
    @anonymous

    Did they respect Jewish women? You’d think they did, being ethnocentric and all. And yet they didn’t promote them either.
     
    Evidently they did not. Look at how many Jewish gals were involved in second wave feminism. Jewish men must have really been ogres. What else explains it?

    What explains ‘it’ is the Jewish rebellion against God, meaning Jews defining themselves as ANTI-Christ. Jewish Feminism is merely the girl’s part in the post-World War 2 landscape.

    Here is an equally important question: Why is Feminism in origin a WASP thing?

    Answer: That was the WASP female response to the post-Enlightenment version of the continuing rebellion against Christendom

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Jake says:
    @Harry Baldwin
    Does the disgrace of Harvey Weinstein mean that the eagerly anticipated Trayvon Martin biopic will not be forthcoming? Say it ain't so!

    http://variety.com/2017/film/news/jay-z-trayvon-martin-movie-documentary-series-weinstein-1202015276/

    More likely is that Weinstein is the one guilty freak that Hollywood has tossed up in order to protect the entire monstrosity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @neprof
    Here's a good piece By Kyle Smith describing the problems this event could hold for Hollywood:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452554/harvey-weinstein-scandal-hollywoods-silence
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @Dave Pinsen
    One question I have about all of these actresses coming out of the woodwork now with Weinstein accusations: why did none (except for the Italian one prompted by the NYPD) surreptitiously record their conversations with him?

    Get him (or someone else pulling the same crap) on tape, walk out, and then if you don't get the part, threaten to release the tape.

    One interesting angle here is that Gawker, which we all agreed last year was evil, was the one media outlet openly soliciting dirt on Weinstein a couple of years ago.
    https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/917156998621401089

    What you are proposing is called extortion. David Letterman was threatened with extortion and later admitted he had sex with several of his employees. The man who threatened him was sentenced to six months in Riker’s Island.

    In California and several other states it is illegal to record a conversation without the consent of all parties. Among other things, Los Angeles private investigator Anthony Pellicano was sent to prison for wiretapping Sylvester Stallone and Keith Carradine. He also extorted Ron Buckle, a supermarket billionaire. Michael Ovitz, the talent agent, had hired Pellicano to investigate Buckle so Pellicano turned around and told Buckle he wouldn’t do the investigation if Buckle paid $100k to $250k.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    In that case, someone would have had to take the risk of leaking the tape, without asking for an quid pro quo. That helps explain why no one did (at least not in California).
    , @Bill

    What you are proposing is called extortion.
     
    Sure, but if it is done through lawyers and on the behalf of a victim, it is called and out-of-court settlement and is perfectly legal.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Jake says:
    @Harry Baldwin
    Lena Dunham must be one of the few Hollywood actresses Weinstein never thought of hitting on.

    As Blaine Edwards says to Antoine Meriweather about Roseanne Barr: She’s the kind of woman that made me turn in the first place.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. ChrisZ says:
    @Triumph104
    In the movie, the Hollywood mogul, Jack Woltz, makes the confusing statement that a starlet was young, innocent and the best he ever had. The two scenes below refer to his pedophilia but were cut from the film.

    https://youtu.be/13EmjpXQ8_w

    https://youtu.be/KdUELdJ4jmU

    Thanks for these, Triumph. First time I’ve ever seen these, and they’re very creepy.

    Puzo’s description in the novel left a strong impression in my mind of what the mother looked like. I wonder whether she was entirely his invention, or (like so much else in the book) Puzo’s recollection of a real person? It’s troubling merely to think about—but clearly such things are real.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. dr kill says:
    @Hodag
    1. I was going to make the same point about Prohibition but our host beat me to it. Ask Menkin what he thought of feminism.

    2. John Doe from X was Winona Ryder's father in Great Balls of Fire.

    3. John Doe's best role of course was in Roadhouse.

    And his best tune is The Golden State, with Kathleen Edwards.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hodag
    I have never heard that song until now. It is great...seriously I am tabbing it.

    But the best X song is White Girl.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @AM

    Women of Hollywood have been subjected to this kind of treatment for far too long. I’m sure many famous actresses have been forced to sleep with producers and studio chiefs before they became famous, maybe even after, to get roles.
     
    Nobody forced them to want to become actress. It's hard for me to muster much sympathy on that point.

    Generally speaking, actresses have historically been considered this side of prostitutes, if not actually that. Banning women actresses basically was about protecting their virtue. (Which is perhaps why heights of drama are achieved when the actors are all male. No casting couch, or perhaps very limited in number.)

    It's modern abnormality, in other words, to presume that actress will not turn into prostitutes and that a field abnormally concerned about fame and fortune will somehow have virtue.

    One of the failures right now is women unwilling to slut shame their sisters. Middle class women need to get it back into their heads, that for the most part, this is what acting devolves to and keep their girls from it.

    But then again, we can't get those same families to demand chaperones or single sex dorms at college, so there's work to be done.

    If only the net fallout from all of this is that middle America gets into their head that Hollywood is cesspool that eats women (and men), then that's something.

    Would you still say the same if corporate America plays by the same rules, that women pretty much have to sleep their way to the top? Just because that’s the way it’s always been doesn’t make it any less wrong. It’s gone on long enough. With all the liberal talk of empowering women, it’s about time these female champions of liberalism step up and expose the hypocrisy of Hollywood. We all know Hollywood is a cesspool, but we’ve been subjected to their hypocrisy long enough. I’m glad these women are stepping up. I hope more creeps like Weinstein get exposed. Ben Affleck is already next in line.

    Liberalism is imploding. One by one these champions of liberalism are being brought down by their own hypocrisy. The best thing is the media and leaders of the Democratic party including Obama and Clinton are now caught up in the massive cover up of this Weinstein scandal. They have no more moral high ground to stand on. Couldn’t have happened to a better group of hypocrites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AM
    "With all the liberal talk of empowering women, it’s about time these female champions of liberalism step up and expose the hypocrisy of Hollywood. "

    Right... except what I'm getting at is historically the nature of the occupation has been considered almost interchangeable with prostitute and I largely agree with that conclusion.

    I think the liberal mindset is fundamentally flawed and rather naive on that point. You aren't going to get a brothel of now extremely wealthy women to repent of their occupation or in this case, fight the boss.

    As for making it equivalent to CEO, I see your point ;), but I think most women are ill suited to formal leadership positions, regardless of the level of honestly involved in aquiring it.

    "Liberalism is imploding."

    It's imploding not because they're hypocrites - we're all that - but because it's unstable. It's a worldview built on a comically poor and sometimes hopeless naive view of the world.

    Since I rather assumed that most of Hollywood had bi-weekly IVs of antibiotics to ward off disease, this sudden outrage leaves me unimpressed. It also makes me wonder what's really going on.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. neprof says:
    @Jake
    More likely is that Weinstein is the one guilty freak that Hollywood has tossed up in order to protect the entire monstrosity.

    Here’s a good piece By Kyle Smith describing the problems this event could hold for Hollywood:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452554/harvey-weinstein-scandal-hollywoods-silence

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @whorefinder

    Weinstein ran his routine on Gwyneth Paltrow ((1/2 I believe)), and while she claims she didn’t ante up, she got _Shakespeare in Love
     
    That surprised me, because Paltrow's father was a big name producer and she is very close with family friend Steven Spielberg (one of her first movie roles was the plum role of Wendy in Spielberg's Hook, and by most accounts she got it because Spielberg viewed her as a second daughter); I would think that Weinstein would not have tried his routine on her due to these protections, and that, if he did, Paltrow's father and Spielberg would have gone after him--and they were a lot more established than Weinstein at the time.

    So either Paltrow is lying to jump on board here, or her father/Spielberg weren't that protective, or this sort of thing is routine amongst Hollywood types so Paltrow/Spielberg didn't bat an eye.

    To be the man you’ve got to beat the man.

    Weinstein probably went after her because she was so well protected.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Abe says: • Website

    Within the movie business itself, another reason for the swing away from feminism after WWI was the triumph of non-WASP moguls like Mayer in taking over the industry. They came from more patriarchal and ethnocentric backgrounds, and didn’t see much reason to respect shiksas.

    And it was hardly just the movie industry. WWII marked the end of ethnic America. After that the idea that one should live, marry, and socialize solely within one’s own ethnic or confessional boundaries came to be seen as quaint and antiquated. And so what replaced various local, Old World-based mens’ cultures but a lowest-common-denominator ‘lad’ culture centered around sports, popular music, pornography (from burlesque to PENTHOUSE), cars, and the crudest sorts of womanizing, now that Old World courtship rituals had lost all meaning. For some reason I credit the Bohunks with this race to the battle-of-the-sexes bottom, though based nothing more on how strong an impression John Belushi (Albanian) made with his role in ANIMAL HOUSE (sorry Slovaks, Bohemians, Czechs, Croats, Ukrainians, Galicians, Poles).

    But anyway, do a little sociological digging into any milieu between 1958 and 1990 considered even a bit ‘old boys network’ and you’ll find a bunch 2nd and 3rd generation Greeks, Jews, Italians, Irish, etc. all egging each other on towards the most ludicrous extremes of macho, virile behavior. This is quite obvious in WOLF OF WALLSTREET, and it’s not just cinematic exaggeration- Michael Lewis’s LIARS POKER from over 20 years before conveys the exact same impression of what packing a trading floor of Long Island lunkheads will get you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    Why are you using an anti-Bohemian ethnic slur to describe everyone from the Elbe to the Urals?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Abe says: • Website

    BTW, funny FAMILY GUY clip in honor of Harvey Swinestein:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  69. inertial says:
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    But MODERN feminism (e.g. post 1960's) tends to be most decidedly non-WASP. Bella Abzug, Naomi Wolf, Gloria Steinem, and Betty Friedan, Boxer, Feinstein, are not WASPS. Perhaps they are, and some are just deceived. Anti-feminist Phyllis Schalfly, however, is a WASP. Certainly WASPS still hover around the periphery of the modern feminist movement, but all in all, the non-WASP influence over the feminist movement of today is firmly entrenched.

    In other words, for the past half century at least, Jews have definitely had a hand in directing and leading modern feminist movement.

    28 women who co-founded NOW:

    Ada Allness, Mary Evelyn Benbow, Gene Boyer, Analoyce Clapp, Kathryn Clarenbach, Catherine Conroy, Caroline Davis, Mary Eastwood, Edith Finlayson, Betty Friedan, Dorothy Haener, Anna Roosevelt Halstead, Lorene Harrington, Mary Lou Hill, Esther Johnson, Nancy Knaak, Min Matheson, Helen Moreland, Dr. Pauli Murray (later Rev.), Ruth Murray, Inka O’Hanrahan, Pauline A. Parish, Eve Purvis, Edna Schwartz, Mary-Jane Ryan Snyder, Gretchen Squires, Betty Talkington and Dr. Caroline Ware.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Around five-seven, or about 1/4, are of non-WASP and are Jewish (some may have anglicized names as well). Considering that Jews comprise about 2-3% of the US total population that means that they are still over-represented in NOW. The ones that were previously mentioned are feminists who have assumed a very public face for the movement as a whole. Prominent feminists on the Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Kagan are both non-WASPs. Ginsburg, for example, served as chief general counsel to the ACLU (an organization that has been known to champion feminist values and public policies).
    , @Brutusale
    My first boss was Lou Burke. My first paycheck was signed by Louis K. Berkowitz.

    My second boss was Mike Karess. Paycheck was signed by Myron Karess.

    Not so much now, but back in the day many of the Tribe, indeed many non-Anglo ethnics, believed in protective camouflage.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Triumph104
    What you are proposing is called extortion. David Letterman was threatened with extortion and later admitted he had sex with several of his employees. The man who threatened him was sentenced to six months in Riker's Island.

    In California and several other states it is illegal to record a conversation without the consent of all parties. Among other things, Los Angeles private investigator Anthony Pellicano was sent to prison for wiretapping Sylvester Stallone and Keith Carradine. He also extorted Ron Buckle, a supermarket billionaire. Michael Ovitz, the talent agent, had hired Pellicano to investigate Buckle so Pellicano turned around and told Buckle he wouldn't do the investigation if Buckle paid $100k to $250k.

    In that case, someone would have had to take the risk of leaking the tape, without asking for an quid pro quo. That helps explain why no one did (at least not in California).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. I suppose we should’ve known this was all going to come to a head. You cannot simultaneously promote women’s rights with a butt-kicking men-beating Ninja chick in every movie while still demanding that these women sleep with the producer to get to play the butt kicking Ninja chick. It’s the kind of irony/hypocrisy that can only exist in Hollywood, almost surreal.

    Read More
    • Agree: Hibernian
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  72. Abe says: • Website
    @J1234

    In histories, these old-studio chiefs are genteelly referred to as womanizers, a polite metaphor for conduct that ranges from time on the casting couch, another odious euphuism [sic] to what sounds a lot like prostitution.
     
    In classical Rome, actors had essentially the same social standing as prostitutes. That seems about right. Then actors started becoming rich, obscenely (pun intended), so their social standing improved.

    In classical Rome, actors had essentially the same social standing as prostitutes.

    Right. When Byzantine Emperor Justinian married theater actress Theodora it was considered hugely scandalous, and almost certainly not without reason.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    As the actress said to the Bishop.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. MBlanc46 says:
    @kihowi
    The most interesting question is as usual not being asked.

    What does this say about women? There was no rape here. He didn't shackle anybody to a bed in a soundproof basement. These were all situations that could be walked away from at any time.

    That would mean no more chance at fame, of course, but that's exactly the trade-off that these women made. He was able to do this for such a long time because all those women at some level of consciousness bartered with their bodies.

    As with a lot of sexual politics, all the indignation is built on the assumption that women are imbeciles. That they did not understand what was up:

    a) before they met him. Were they the only people in the western world who didn't know about this aspect of Hollywood? Don't make me laugh.
    b) when they saw him. He drips sleaze. Nobody is this clueless.
    c) when he started putting the moves on them. He's obviously not a subtle man. You'd know.

    In real life, women are really good at knowing what kind of man they're dealing with.

    You have to be a bit delusional to find this behavior shocking. Why do people think that men fight like hell for money and power? What is it that people think women chase men with money and power for?

    Read More
    • Replies: @whorefinder
    Whenever I see one of those Reality TV shows starring has-been celebrities, or hear about some way-over-the-hill musician touring, I always think that the biggest addiction those dudes have isn't drugs or alcohol, it's the ease of sexual access that women give to celebrities. Those guys are just addicted to the fact that merely appearing on stage or on camera for a few hours total can make really hot, really good looking women go back to their hotel room without a word.
    , @Flip
    As Howard Stern said, what's the point of wealth and fame if it doesn't get you naked chicks?
    , @Hibernian
    There's a limit to the brazeness that you can get away with.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @KunioKun
    I wonder if this ever happens with homosexuals

    I wonder if this ever happens with homosexuals

    No one is spared, not even child actors:

    http://people.com/celebrity/corey-feldman-on-child-sexual-abuse-in-hollywood-and-corey-haim/

    Hollywood is sick to the core. It’s about time these hypocrites get exposed for what they really are. Maybe now the Democratic party candidates will think twice before flaunting their celebrity endorsements, though I wouldn’t bet on it. I can’t wait to see what kind of hypocritical bullcrap they are going to stuff down our throat at the next Oscars, not that I’m going to watch that vomit inducing liberal love fest, I haven’t in years, but I’m sure it’ll be all over the news the next day. You don’t think these people have any more moral high ground to stand on, but if liberals actually understood hypocrisy, they wouldn’t be liberals.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thea
    The best thing that could come this is Hollywood losing its cultural power. I'm afraid that instead we'll get some sort of lesson about abuse of power & feminism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Hodag says:
    @dr kill
    And his best tune is The Golden State, with Kathleen Edwards.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZO0GIqi9PI

    I have never heard that song until now. It is great…seriously I am tabbing it.

    But the best X song is White Girl.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. whorefinder says: • Website
    @neprof
    From what you describe, Paltrow would have been a perfect target for Weinstein. For him sex is secondary for his need to push ever further into the verboten. For him it's more about projection of power and who's the top dog in Hollywood.

    A Spielberg protege? Gotta make my mark on that.

    That’s a very dangerous game for him to play, and doesn’t really fit his now-public m.o.: finding young, desperate ingenues whom he towers over in terms of power—some street urchin he can play My Fair Lady to, except that he gets to cum on their face first. And if they refuse, he can hush up their stories because he’s Harvey Weinstein and he towers over them in the Hollywood power scheme.

    Gweneth Paltrow didn’t tower over or equal Harvey at that point, but her family/close friends sure did. This would be like Bill Clinton in the middle of the ’92 race after he’d won the primary but before the election forcing himself on Caroline Kennedy. At that point, Clinton was definitely not the biggest player in D politics nationwide, and hadn’t yet taken over the party with his neoliberalism, and Caroline Kennedy was still a Kennedy with a powerful Senator uncle (Ted) , the family legacy in the party, and a number of up-and-comers.

    Plus Daddy Paltrow and Spielberg had to have known about Weinstein, and warned G. Paltrow about him. So unless it is acceptable for all Hollywood producers to do this, and G. Paltrow was sickly told by her family to play ball, or its fictitious.

    P.S. There’s a very salacious rumor going about that The Fappenning—the release of a large number of nude and pornographic personal images of current Hollywood starlets from an apple i cloud account within the last 18 months—was from not a hack of many accounts (as the story went), but only from Weinstein’s account, who had them all on his phone. I believe Apple has always denied a major, multiple-account hack on this issue. Wouldn’t it make sense that someone just got into one account—Weinstein’s?

    The pictures were quite raunchy. One was Jennifer Lawrence nude with a white liquid substance dripping off her face and a coy smile at the camera—all in an office/bedroom setting. You can find others, but you get the point: they weren’t artistic shots, but private cameraphone shots. By someone.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Plus Daddy Paltrow and Spielberg had to have known about Weinstein, and warned G. Paltrow about him. So unless it is acceptable for all Hollywood producers to do this, and G. Paltrow was sickly told by her family to play ball, or its fictitious.
     
    Maybe she thought it was safe to do business with Weinstein given that she was protected. Maybe her protectors thought the same thing. And maybe Weinstein had other ideas.

    Actually, I'm not surprised that people, either men or women, didn't come forward earlier to denounce Weinstein. What were they supposed to say: "This guy is a predator, at least so I have heard. Everyone knows it". There are libel laws in this country. They may be weaker than in the UK, but they still do exist. And Weinstein had the resources to use them.

    Moreover, being known as a trouble-maker / whistle-blower is usually never a good career move. Even if Weinstein didn't put it a bad word for you, or used his influence to harm your career, other producers still might not want to hire you, because you're a boat-rocker. They might be afraid of what you'd say about them. Who wants to hire a potential liability?

    Hollywood is a dirty business. It should surprise no one that a lot of people in it are dirty.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Tiny Duck says:
    @Peripatetic commenter

    As long as white Christian males continue to run things women will continue to be savaged
     
    Isn't it anti-Semitic to claim that a Jew is a Christian? You are slipping there Tiny D*ck.

    Harvey ceased to be Jewish when he did evil

    Evil =white Christian makes

    Read More
    • Replies: @black sea

    Harvey ceased to be Jewish when he did evil
     
    Why, he's just an angel flying too close to the ground.
    , @Another Realist

    Harvey ceased to be Jewish when he did evil
     
    How funny. I was just thinking from now on all liberals, LGBTQs, SJWs, hypocrites, swindlers, liars, creeps, sleazebags, pervs should just be called Jews, regardless of actual race or ethnicity.

    Jew can even be used as a verb. Jewing somebody just means screwing somebody over, the past tense is "jewed", as in Ashley Judd got jewed, meaning Ashley Judd got screwed.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. whorefinder says: • Website
    @kihowi
    The most interesting question is as usual not being asked.

    What does this say about women? There was no rape here. He didn't shackle anybody to a bed in a soundproof basement. These were all situations that could be walked away from at any time.

    That would mean no more chance at fame, of course, but that's exactly the trade-off that these women made. He was able to do this for such a long time because all those women at some level of consciousness bartered with their bodies.

    As with a lot of sexual politics, all the indignation is built on the assumption that women are imbeciles. That they did not understand what was up:

    a) before they met him. Were they the only people in the western world who didn't know about this aspect of Hollywood? Don't make me laugh.
    b) when they saw him. He drips sleaze. Nobody is this clueless.
    c) when he started putting the moves on them. He's obviously not a subtle man. You'd know.

    In real life, women are really good at knowing what kind of man they're dealing with.

    What does this say about women? There was no rape here.

    Some of the accounts are rape or sexual assault. Some accounts are that he exposed himself to the women, masturbated in front of them without warning, or forcibly grabbed them and forcibly performed oral sex on them, or forced them to touch his privates. And the tales have all been how they met Harvey in a non-sexual places such as restaurants and offices.

    This isn’t Cosby, where not a single story alleges rape or assault, but merely that the women, after flirting and cozying up to Cosby, and going back to his home/bedroom/hotel room, consensually took drugs he offered them and either “blacked out” or else have trouble remembering what happened. In none of the cases can they prove the encounters were nonconsensual.

    Weinstein is different; Lauren Sivian’s account is just illustrative. She meets him in a restaurant, they talk and flirt a bit, he gets her to walk downstairs to the basement of the restaurant, and he just starts masturbating in front of her. That’s sexual assault: exposure and lewd acts.

    But it does say something about how all the stereotypes of casting couches and desperate-for-fame actresses are pretty much true.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Another Realist

    This isn’t Cosby, where not a single story alleges rape or assault, but merely that the women, after flirting and cozying up to Cosby, and going back to his home/bedroom/hotel room, consensually took drugs he offered them and either “blacked out” or else have trouble remembering what happened. In none of the cases can they prove the encounters were nonconsensual.
     
    Cosby drugged and raped these women, that's every bit as disgusting as what Weinstein did, maybe worse. There was nothing consensual about these women who were drugged then raped. From what I recall they were just meeting him in his dressing room. What you are saying is equivalent to blaming date rape victims who were drugged for being consensual and not remembering, seriously ridiculous.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Under the now infamous Tablet article, an announcement:

    COMMENTING CHARGES
    Daily rate: $2
    Monthly rate: $18
    Yearly rate: $180

    WAIT, WHY DO I HAVE TO PAY TO COMMENT?
    Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life …

    It’s like a snip from McSweeney’s, only vaguely anti-Semitic.

    In other news, Dr. Seuss’s characters are getting a lot of notice these days. Or is the image below left a rare Richard Scarry?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
    Alas for Erika Bauer fans, the victims aren't all Aryan maidens. The Coreys (Haim and Feldman) were neither maidens nor Aryan. Haim didn't survive to blow the whistle--although Feldman has been trying to do so for years, disregarded like another Cassandra.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. whorefinder says: • Website
    @MBlanc46
    You have to be a bit delusional to find this behavior shocking. Why do people think that men fight like hell for money and power? What is it that people think women chase men with money and power for?

    Whenever I see one of those Reality TV shows starring has-been celebrities, or hear about some way-over-the-hill musician touring, I always think that the biggest addiction those dudes have isn’t drugs or alcohol, it’s the ease of sexual access that women give to celebrities. Those guys are just addicted to the fact that merely appearing on stage or on camera for a few hours total can make really hot, really good looking women go back to their hotel room without a word.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    Yep, fame and fortune are the way to attract women.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. Rod1963 says:
    @AM

    Women of Hollywood have been subjected to this kind of treatment for far too long. I’m sure many famous actresses have been forced to sleep with producers and studio chiefs before they became famous, maybe even after, to get roles.
     
    Nobody forced them to want to become actress. It's hard for me to muster much sympathy on that point.

    Generally speaking, actresses have historically been considered this side of prostitutes, if not actually that. Banning women actresses basically was about protecting their virtue. (Which is perhaps why heights of drama are achieved when the actors are all male. No casting couch, or perhaps very limited in number.)

    It's modern abnormality, in other words, to presume that actress will not turn into prostitutes and that a field abnormally concerned about fame and fortune will somehow have virtue.

    One of the failures right now is women unwilling to slut shame their sisters. Middle class women need to get it back into their heads, that for the most part, this is what acting devolves to and keep their girls from it.

    But then again, we can't get those same families to demand chaperones or single sex dorms at college, so there's work to be done.

    If only the net fallout from all of this is that middle America gets into their head that Hollywood is cesspool that eats women (and men), then that's something.

    Writers Ray Bradbury and Harlan Ellison once spoke at a Sci-Fi writers conference about Hollywood and women. As both stated all Hollywood wanted were “f**ker women”, they’d only select women who were sex objects pure and simple. This is why the shelf life of most actresses is so short and why most look like tramps. A few manage to go further, but they are the big names.

    And yeah there is the casting couch for men as well. Given the amount of homosexuals in power in Hollywood how could there not be? Way too many stories about aspiring male actors having to perform sex acts on some degenerate casting agent/director. Nobody wants to touch this angle because of the homosexual component. It’s no wonder a lot of actors are seriously screwed up and into all sorts of drugs and booze. Getting molested tends to seriously mess with people.

    At the end of the day Hollywood as you state is a cesspool. All it churns out is garbage.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    I wish I had recorded this, but I was once in an adult bookstore in Southern California where a regular customer was trying to impress the surreally Sklarlike gay cashiers with his cunning plan: he had gone and introduced himself to a porn producer. Their mirth was stereotypical and stratospheric. The new star insisted that his planning was impeccable and that soon he would bed women of surgically-guaranteed beauty, and be paid to do so.
    Sneered pseudo-Sklar sinister: "Maybe eventually. But every single male porn star enters by the rear." Over the course of five minutes of specific names and gossip connections, they proved their case to him. They asked for the name of the producer, and, hearing it, exulted: he in particular was a confirmed devotee of the cult of Antinous.
    It was Seinfeldesque.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. I’ve seen this behavior by men and women in law enforcement as well, though with some differences. Mainly it revolves around women using sex as a bartering chip, and the men delivering patronage.

    Its weird to know married men in these relationships, sometimes with the wife’s knowledge that their husband has a “work wife” as well. Maybe its the lack of an endless stream of ingenues but the dynamics of these seem to have an odd monogamy: the men don’t pass aside the women for younger ones, and often bring the women with them as they climb up the career ladder as “special aides” or what not. The women don’t leave the men just for someone higher up, and hitch their star to the man in question.

    It underlines what has been said here: that many women have no problem seeing sex as another currency. It seems what happens afterwards is different tho.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AM
    "It underlines what has been said here: that many women have no problem seeing sex as another currency."

    Secular liberalism/feminism ignores this human dynamic, one of many issues making it fundamentally flawed from the outset.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Wilkey says:

    “So either Paltrow is lying to jump on board here, or her father/Spielberg weren’t that protective, or this sort of thing is routine amongst Hollywood types so Paltrow/Spielberg didn’t bat an eye.”

    The latter. Hollywood is fiercely competitive. If only a few people were doing it they’d be outed pretty quickly. Weinstein’s biggest sin is being a fat, repulsive, ugly shit. It’s a business that gets thousands of beautiful young naive women (and men) trying to break into every single year, with not much difference between a lot of them except what…or who…they’re willing to do.

    The worst part for them is that they’ve spent the last year bashing on Trump’s pussy grabbing video only to suddenly see how much pussy grabbing is done in Tinseltown, and how widely it’s tolerated.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  84. black sea says:
    @Tiny Duck
    Harvey ceased to be Jewish when he did evil

    Evil =white Christian makes

    Harvey ceased to be Jewish when he did evil

    Why, he’s just an angel flying too close to the ground.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. J.Ross says: • Website

    ///////////////
    UPDATE
    \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
    Rose McGowan has tweeted a message she claims was sent to her anonymously, representing an old but unpublicized complaint about a rape attempt by Mr Weinstein, and general mistreatment from his subordinates.
    That would be Mr Bob Weinstein.
    If this did start as an attempt to force Harvey out of the company then Harvey might be striking back.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  86. Wilkey says:

    I think one reason Hollywood was probably more feminist (in the genuine sense) then as compared to now is the ever-increasing role of special effects and CGI, which has meant that most blockbusters today are action and adventure movies instead of dramas.

    How many blockbusters today are written by or based on books by women? How many are about traditionally feminine subjects? How many have casts where women are ~50% of the leading roles?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  87. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Rod1963
    Writers Ray Bradbury and Harlan Ellison once spoke at a Sci-Fi writers conference about Hollywood and women. As both stated all Hollywood wanted were "f**ker women", they'd only select women who were sex objects pure and simple. This is why the shelf life of most actresses is so short and why most look like tramps. A few manage to go further, but they are the big names.

    And yeah there is the casting couch for men as well. Given the amount of homosexuals in power in Hollywood how could there not be? Way too many stories about aspiring male actors having to perform sex acts on some degenerate casting agent/director. Nobody wants to touch this angle because of the homosexual component. It's no wonder a lot of actors are seriously screwed up and into all sorts of drugs and booze. Getting molested tends to seriously mess with people.

    At the end of the day Hollywood as you state is a cesspool. All it churns out is garbage.

    I wish I had recorded this, but I was once in an adult bookstore in Southern California where a regular customer was trying to impress the surreally Sklarlike gay cashiers with his cunning plan: he had gone and introduced himself to a porn producer. Their mirth was stereotypical and stratospheric. The new star insisted that his planning was impeccable and that soon he would bed women of surgically-guaranteed beauty, and be paid to do so.
    Sneered pseudo-Sklar sinister: “Maybe eventually. But every single male porn star enters by the rear.” Over the course of five minutes of specific names and gossip connections, they proved their case to him. They asked for the name of the producer, and, hearing it, exulted: he in particular was a confirmed devotee of the cult of Antinous.
    It was Seinfeldesque.

    Read More
    • Replies: @whorefinder
    It's amazing how much stupidity/naivetee is still around, despite the internet. The gay porn route for straight male actors is pretty well written about, but so many wannabes have no clue about it. The just never look it up.

    I've had people insist to me that there are men who are gigolos who only service women. It's laughable. When I point out things like how easy it is for women to find sex partners and how those gigolos are servicing dudes, the people double down on the claim and get angry.

    Or with images of celebrities. I've had people insist that various rappers are really hardcore tough guys because of some story they told in an interview and because of their songs. I ask them if they ever double checked the story and they never say they did. Do you really think 50 Cent was some hardcore gangster/crack dealer who suddenly made it as a musician? Or is it more plausible he was a music geek who might have sold drugs once or twice total and was never a gang leader, and then made it in music? And yet people get visibly angry

    And it filters down to even minor stupidity. Just two years ago I heard one teenage kid repeating to another in solemnity the old rumor that Mountain Dew lowered sperm count. I was like: don't you guys have Google?

    Seriously, I thought the internet would be dispelling a lot of ignorance, but the internet can't make you not want to be ignorant. And most people, it seems, want to be.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. whorefinder says: • Website
    @Rosamond Vincy
    Gwynnie is pretty messed-up look at her GOOP site some time), so that could mean either bandwagon (she is nutty enough to believe it even if it didn't happen), or it did happen, and maybe that's one reason she's so nutty. Contrary to gyn advice, the woman steam-cleans her hoo-ha. Well, maybe she has valid reason to think it needs it.

    Women have a greater capacity than men at self-delusion, hysteria, and group-think, as most people have found throughout the centuries. It is notable that the accusers in the Salem Witch Trials were all young girls. Certainly the more dramatic a woman is, the more she is prone to inventing delusions and tales and then believing them—so I would not be surprised if someone as delusional of herself such as Paltrow would be doing this. She craves attention and being the center of it all.

    Paltrow is quite famous even among Hollywood actresses for being incredibly and retardedly delusional and self-centered. Being an Upper East Side JAP who has a movie producer for a daddy and Steven Spielberg handing her out roles as a gift will do that, and that’s before we get to the fact that among the Jewish girls of her set she was blond, thin, and with long legs. I have to think growing up being the absolutely queen bee of that exclusive set must’ve set her ego on the top rung of the ladder, and, unfortunately, she managed to cement herself as a Hollywood leading lady with an Oscar to boot (got on Daddy’s grave, but that’s another story), a string of leading men boyfriends (Brad Pit, Ben Affleck), and a rock star whipped-pup husband (till she “consciously uncoupled” from him).

    In other words, unless something drastic occurs, she’s permanently going to think the sun rises and sets on her backside. And that she should ALWAYS be the center of attention. That would make her invent a story like this AND start to believe it. Or perhaps she just told simple old Brad it happened so she could make him fight Harvey .

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    And that female tendency to fall in line with the girl to either side -- and the corresponding male tendency to insist on doing things a different way regardless of having a good reason -- is the entirety of the progressive belief that formal education is confirming female superiority.
    , @Tracy

    Women have a greater capacity than men at self-delusion, hysteria, and group-think, as most people have found throughout the centuries. It is notable that the accusers in the Salem Witch Trials were all young girls.
     
    While I agree with your first sentence (speaking generally), to the second I have to say that it was a male judge and male jurors who convicted and sentenced the accused. As an aside, I saw an interesting documentary that made a good case for the idea that all that Salem business was due to ergot poisoning. I think this is the documentary I saw: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4BsOvkUjmc
    , @Rosamond Vincy
    You'd think the failure of a marriage would be drastic enough to render Gwyneth a little less up herself, but apparently not. There have been reports by former classmates that Gynnie was a MeanGirl, so much of what you've posted rings true. She certainly exhibits all the classic signs of narcissism, while Winona (also blonde naturally, although most of her roles have been been brunette), has admitted that she was a short-haired tomboy who was presumed gay, pretty much ostracized at school, and after the success of Beetlejuice (which she hoped would finally earn her some approval from her peers), got bullied even more (as in punched and thrown against her locker, not just called nasty names).

    What makes me suspect Weinstein did try something--and despite Gwyneth's claims, had some success--is the fact that she got Shakespeare in Love and Winona didn't. Winona is simply the better actress. I've never seen her give a bad performance, and I've never seen Gwyneth give a fine one, except for Great Expectations, where she had to play a shallow, class-conscious bitch. The best Paltrow can manage is adequate. Try to imagine Shakespeare in Love if Gabriella Wilde or Amanda Seyfried had been the right age to play Lady Viola. The loan shark shakedowns and backstage rivalries were hilariously true, but Gwyneth dragged down the rest of the movie. I don't know how well Ryder does accents, but it can't be any worse than Paltrow's generic, one-size-fits-all "British" accent, which she uses for all Brit pix, regardless of the character's class, region, or time period. Her Emma isn't a patch on Kate Beckinsale's.

    It's unlikely that Daddy Paltrow bought her those film roles or the Oscars, because Asia Argento and Mira Sorvino weren't protected by family connections (or in Sorvino's case, by her own Oscar). After her success in Mighty Aphrodite and Edith Wharton miniseries The Buccaneers, Sorvino was relegated to one small or indy production after another. She kept on working, so her talent was valued, but she was blocked from the high-profile, high-budget projects. So why was a mediocre actress like Gwynnie shoved in the public's face while real talents like Winona and Mira were allowed to languish? What else could it be, but that Weinstein did his casting based on (forgive the crudeness) what he was allowed to shove?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Another realist
    Hollywood is like an onion, peel away one layer of hypocrisy, and you get 10 more layers of hypocrisy, all the way down to its rotten core. Little wonder it stinks like one.

    Women of Hollywood have been subjected to this kind of treatment for far too long. I'm sure many famous actresses have been forced to sleep with producers and studio chiefs before they became famous, maybe even after, to get roles. Child actors are especially vulnerable to this type of abuse, including male actors, many eventually turned to drugs, alcohol and partying to numb their pain. Corey Feldman's story in the Sunday Times of London about wide spread abuse of male child actors in Hollywood will make anyone vomit. I want all these victims to come out and name names. Weinstein can't be the only scumbag in Hollywood, there are many others.

    These abuses by Weinstein is allowed to go on for so long because Hollywood is being protected by another institution dominated by liberals - the media. The two formed a symbiosis of powerful Jewish men looking out for one another, a group of Jews who will screw over anyone to get what they want, they think everything they do is justified because of the Holocaust and 2000 years of oppression. In addition to Hollywood and the media, this Jewish cartel also dominate our academia, Silicon Valley, Wall Street and the Democratic Party, and they are responsible for inflicting upon the western world the toxic insidious ideology of Liberalism. This Weinstein scandal involves many big names in Hollywood and the Democratic party, from Matt Damon to the Clintons to Obama, even the NYT and NBC. Liberalism is imploding, it has finally been exposed for what it really is - nothing but a narcissistic, self-righteous, hypocritical, and morally bankrupt pile of crap.

    Weinstein can’t be the only scumbag in Hollywood, there are many others.

    Of course there are others, but if we start naming them, people might notice a (pattern) and then where would we be? For the moment, Ben Affleck to the rescue. Meanwhile, put out a casting call for sleazy hollywood goys, would you? Time is tight.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. whorefinder says: • Website
    @J.Ross
    I wish I had recorded this, but I was once in an adult bookstore in Southern California where a regular customer was trying to impress the surreally Sklarlike gay cashiers with his cunning plan: he had gone and introduced himself to a porn producer. Their mirth was stereotypical and stratospheric. The new star insisted that his planning was impeccable and that soon he would bed women of surgically-guaranteed beauty, and be paid to do so.
    Sneered pseudo-Sklar sinister: "Maybe eventually. But every single male porn star enters by the rear." Over the course of five minutes of specific names and gossip connections, they proved their case to him. They asked for the name of the producer, and, hearing it, exulted: he in particular was a confirmed devotee of the cult of Antinous.
    It was Seinfeldesque.

    It’s amazing how much stupidity/naivetee is still around, despite the internet. The gay porn route for straight male actors is pretty well written about, but so many wannabes have no clue about it. The just never look it up.

    I’ve had people insist to me that there are men who are gigolos who only service women. It’s laughable. When I point out things like how easy it is for women to find sex partners and how those gigolos are servicing dudes, the people double down on the claim and get angry.

    Or with images of celebrities. I’ve had people insist that various rappers are really hardcore tough guys because of some story they told in an interview and because of their songs. I ask them if they ever double checked the story and they never say they did. Do you really think 50 Cent was some hardcore gangster/crack dealer who suddenly made it as a musician? Or is it more plausible he was a music geek who might have sold drugs once or twice total and was never a gang leader, and then made it in music? And yet people get visibly angry

    And it filters down to even minor stupidity. Just two years ago I heard one teenage kid repeating to another in solemnity the old rumor that Mountain Dew lowered sperm count. I was like: don’t you guys have Google?

    Seriously, I thought the internet would be dispelling a lot of ignorance, but the internet can’t make you not want to be ignorant. And most people, it seems, want to be.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Curle says:
    @Jake
    "The rise of the Ellis Island immigrant populations helped delay feminism’s triumph that had once seemed imminent in WASP-dominated America. But that’s the kind of paradox likely to be met with blank stares in 2013."

    True.

    Feminism is a WASP thing. Just like demanding we all declare the Negro Numinous. And in each, the original WASP allies the Jews took over the particular WASP delusion/insanity and ran hog wild with it, at the expense of all other white Christians.

    The problem I have with this Steve blog is that it implies that -at least for Hollywood - the choices were WASP feminism or the casting couch.

    Correction: Yankee WASP thing.

    Don’t tarnish the reputation of southern WASPS with the behavior of their northern cousins.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Southrons may be White, Protestant and Anglo-Saxon, but they're not WASPs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. anonguy says:

    The short explanation is the hivemind collective just decided that Weinstein is icky rather than outre.

    A fat beta with mega bux, but just a fat obnoxious guy in the end. His pathetic pleading/bleating to that italian actress was telling.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  93. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Marriage?

    Those early female writers and directors might have been married to men who wouldn’t take kindly to their wives being hit on by pervs. In contrast, there are a lot more single and unmarried females today.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  94. J.Ross says: • Website
    @whorefinder
    Women have a greater capacity than men at self-delusion, hysteria, and group-think, as most people have found throughout the centuries. It is notable that the accusers in the Salem Witch Trials were all young girls. Certainly the more dramatic a woman is, the more she is prone to inventing delusions and tales and then believing them---so I would not be surprised if someone as delusional of herself such as Paltrow would be doing this. She craves attention and being the center of it all.

    Paltrow is quite famous even among Hollywood actresses for being incredibly and retardedly delusional and self-centered. Being an Upper East Side JAP who has a movie producer for a daddy and Steven Spielberg handing her out roles as a gift will do that, and that's before we get to the fact that among the Jewish girls of her set she was blond, thin, and with long legs. I have to think growing up being the absolutely queen bee of that exclusive set must've set her ego on the top rung of the ladder, and, unfortunately, she managed to cement herself as a Hollywood leading lady with an Oscar to boot (got on Daddy's grave, but that's another story), a string of leading men boyfriends (Brad Pit, Ben Affleck), and a rock star whipped-pup husband (till she "consciously uncoupled" from him).

    In other words, unless something drastic occurs, she's permanently going to think the sun rises and sets on her backside. And that she should ALWAYS be the center of attention. That would make her invent a story like this AND start to believe it. Or perhaps she just told simple old Brad it happened so she could make him fight Harvey .

    And that female tendency to fall in line with the girl to either side — and the corresponding male tendency to insist on doing things a different way regardless of having a good reason — is the entirety of the progressive belief that formal education is confirming female superiority.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Moshe says:

    I skipped this article because I don’t particularly care about the subject but as I was scrolling through to get to the next one the bold-faced html linked SHIKSAS is designed, successfully, to grab your attention.

    We are now in Julius Streicher territory.

    Jewish reptilian aliens are probing our women.

    I don’t read other Unz writers, but I wonder if any have come up with cartoons depicting these predatory Jews with their arms around the globe picking up blonde women with 1950s hairstyles like King Kong.

    It’s Perverted Jews all the way down.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  96. Moshe says:

    Ctrl+F = Jew

    Every comment is pure and lovely. Jews who view you guys with suspicion are just paranoid. Your world views, particularly regarding the place of “the jew” in the world shows why any distaste for you guys is unfounded and based on ancient ridiculous Jewish phobias.

    Not a comment here with the word “jew” was sane.

    Oh, and the most pertinent bit of information about the article on Spy vs Spy isn’t anything to do with Russia, or that Israel informed the United States about Russia, or really anything else. The most logical summary of that article about Kaspersky is the speculation that somehow the sneaky Jew was doing disgusting things for his demonic reasons.

    It’s Amoral Jews all the way down

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Just wait til you see the over-representation in pedogate...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @inertial
    28 women who co-founded NOW:

    Ada Allness, Mary Evelyn Benbow, Gene Boyer, Analoyce Clapp, Kathryn Clarenbach, Catherine Conroy, Caroline Davis, Mary Eastwood, Edith Finlayson, Betty Friedan, Dorothy Haener, Anna Roosevelt Halstead, Lorene Harrington, Mary Lou Hill, Esther Johnson, Nancy Knaak, Min Matheson, Helen Moreland, Dr. Pauli Murray (later Rev.), Ruth Murray, Inka O’Hanrahan, Pauline A. Parish, Eve Purvis, Edna Schwartz, Mary-Jane Ryan Snyder, Gretchen Squires, Betty Talkington and Dr. Caroline Ware.
     

    Around five-seven, or about 1/4, are of non-WASP and are Jewish (some may have anglicized names as well). Considering that Jews comprise about 2-3% of the US total population that means that they are still over-represented in NOW. The ones that were previously mentioned are feminists who have assumed a very public face for the movement as a whole. Prominent feminists on the Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Kagan are both non-WASPs. Ginsburg, for example, served as chief general counsel to the ACLU (an organization that has been known to champion feminist values and public policies).

    Read More
    • Replies: @StillCARealist
    he gave an interesting link to the founding of NOW. If you keep reading you'll see plenty of Jewish women highlighted. It started with Betty Friedan for goodness' sake.

    It's surprising how many of those old bats are still alive. Have any of them repented, I wonder?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Moshe says:

    Jews are Whites when they win Nobels.

    These white men show how intelligent white people are. [They do not Heaven Forbid show that Goyim are to Jews as Blacks are to Goyim.]

    When we do not like some white person however, we seek the Jew within them.

    Oh, and also, the most pertinent discussion about the Weinstein incident isn’t whether he did it with his perverted Jewish mind but… what the hell exactly is he accused of doing??

    It’s Weinstein’s all the way down.

    Full Disclosure: my brother’s father-in-law is Harvey Weinstein’s first cousin. Unfortunately however Weinstein has sneakily cut off all connections with the lower and middle class branches of his family and did not attend my brother’s wedding or have his secretary send a card. Heck, he probably doesn’t know my brother exists.

    It’s Jewish Ethnic Loyalty all the way down.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  99. I’m not sure about employment in the movie industry overall, but on screen actresses in the 1930s eclipsed anything for the following 30 years, possibly more. Women held more of the top box office positions that decade than any other. The 70s is in second place, but it’s distant. (not sure about box office for last decade or so).

    Also not sure what all this talk about Paltrow being Jewish. Her father was Jewish, but she wasn’t really raised that way, and there’s been talk lately about her converting–which wouldn’t be necessary if she already was. Not that it matters; the obsession with things Jewish among the commenters here has always been perplexing.

    Winona Ryder’s career didn’t go places because she’s a bit wispy and has very little movie star in her. She was in The Crucible, Alien Resurrection, Celebrity (Woody Allen pic) and Girl, Interrupted. All three pics with big names, big releases. She was very much the least interesting thing in those films, and her career fell off a cliff from her lack of star power.

    More interesting to me is how many of the women who have come forward this far come from acting families: Paltrow, Sorvino, Jolie, Arquette. Others were European. The third category are those who left acting in part because of that experience. Maybe the women who came from acting families weren’t able to be shut down.

    BTW, Gretchen Mol just came forward and angrily denied all the rumors that she got her career by giving him sexual favors. Possible she’s lying, but also possible that what everyone “knows” isn’t true.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    the obsession with things Jewish among the commenters here has always been perplexing.
     
    A group that constitutes 2% to 3% of the U.S. population yet dominates this country's (and, by extension, the world's) politics, foreign policy, media, legal establishment, academia and investment banking.

    A group whose leadership has pushed and continues to push for the transformation of formerly white, Christian countries into multi-racial, multi-religious societies while simultaneously fighting tooth and nail for their own ethno-state.

    Yes, quite perplexing.
    , @Thea
    I used to read Hollywood gossip sites and Gretchen Moll has long been singled out as having slept her way to top( as opposed to all other actresses.) no clue why she was singled out.

    Those same sites have long complained that the only reason starlets wear ugly Marchessa dresses was to kiss up to Harvey as his wife is the designer there.
    , @James Kabala
    I barely even know who Gretchen Mol is and have no opinion on her, but I suspect that gossip bloggers are as likely to be depraved liars as anyone else in Hollywood. Some people who pride themselves on their cynicism forget to apply that cynicism to the gossipmongers as well.

    Most of the sensationalistic books on Old Hollywood contained numerous lies (although the true stories were usually bad enough), so modern-day blogs likely take the same approach.
    , @Hibernian
    Inre Paltrow: Reform Judaism recognizes patrilineal descent.
    , @Steve Sailer
    The notorious Richard Gere of story of 40 years ago appears to have been made up by his rival Sylvester Stallone.

    One thing to keep in mind about Hollywood stories is that the source of many of them are some of the world's greatest storytellers. If a guy who is talented enough that he will eventually earn both acting and screenwriting Oscar nominations is going around telling a defamatory story about you, a fair number of people are going to believe it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. @Tiny Duck
    This is why we need diversity in the movie industry.

    As long as white Christian males continue to run things women will continue to be savaged

    A movie industry of Color will better the interests of all people and especially women

    This is why Lena Dunham's work is so important

    Did you really use ‘Lena Dunham’ and ‘important’ in the same sentence? Excellent trolling.

    Read More
    • LOL: Bernardista
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Lurker
    Yep!

    It would be great to think the harpooning of the Weinstein whale was merely the first strike in a rolling attack designed to bring down the whole thing.

    I guess it's more likely part of some ruthless industry backstabbing designed to get him out of the way.

    Oh yes. Hearing all of this you immediately wonder whose toes Weinstein trod to get into all this trouble.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
    His brother's. Bob didn't just find out, of course, but he thought this was the right moment for a takeover.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Curle
    Correction: Yankee WASP thing.

    Don’t tarnish the reputation of southern WASPS with the behavior of their northern cousins.

    Southrons may be White, Protestant and Anglo-Saxon, but they’re not WASPs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Flip
    It depends on how you want to define WASP. At one end, it is all NW European Protestants of any social background and at the other is old money, founding stock Northeasterners.
    , @Hibernian
    They're Anglo-Celts.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. AM says:
    @Another realist
    Would you still say the same if corporate America plays by the same rules, that women pretty much have to sleep their way to the top? Just because that's the way it's always been doesn't make it any less wrong. It's gone on long enough. With all the liberal talk of empowering women, it's about time these female champions of liberalism step up and expose the hypocrisy of Hollywood. We all know Hollywood is a cesspool, but we've been subjected to their hypocrisy long enough. I'm glad these women are stepping up. I hope more creeps like Weinstein get exposed. Ben Affleck is already next in line.

    Liberalism is imploding. One by one these champions of liberalism are being brought down by their own hypocrisy. The best thing is the media and leaders of the Democratic party including Obama and Clinton are now caught up in the massive cover up of this Weinstein scandal. They have no more moral high ground to stand on. Couldn't have happened to a better group of hypocrites.

    “With all the liberal talk of empowering women, it’s about time these female champions of liberalism step up and expose the hypocrisy of Hollywood. ”

    Right… except what I’m getting at is historically the nature of the occupation has been considered almost interchangeable with prostitute and I largely agree with that conclusion.

    I think the liberal mindset is fundamentally flawed and rather naive on that point. You aren’t going to get a brothel of now extremely wealthy women to repent of their occupation or in this case, fight the boss.

    As for making it equivalent to CEO, I see your point ;), but I think most women are ill suited to formal leadership positions, regardless of the level of honestly involved in aquiring it.

    “Liberalism is imploding.”

    It’s imploding not because they’re hypocrites – we’re all that – but because it’s unstable. It’s a worldview built on a comically poor and sometimes hopeless naive view of the world.

    Since I rather assumed that most of Hollywood had bi-weekly IVs of antibiotics to ward off disease, this sudden outrage leaves me unimpressed. It also makes me wonder what’s really going on.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. AM says:
    @Jack Hanson
    I've seen this behavior by men and women in law enforcement as well, though with some differences. Mainly it revolves around women using sex as a bartering chip, and the men delivering patronage.

    Its weird to know married men in these relationships, sometimes with the wife's knowledge that their husband has a "work wife" as well. Maybe its the lack of an endless stream of ingenues but the dynamics of these seem to have an odd monogamy: the men don't pass aside the women for younger ones, and often bring the women with them as they climb up the career ladder as "special aides" or what not. The women don't leave the men just for someone higher up, and hitch their star to the man in question.

    It underlines what has been said here: that many women have no problem seeing sex as another currency. It seems what happens afterwards is different tho.

    “It underlines what has been said here: that many women have no problem seeing sex as another currency.”

    Secular liberalism/feminism ignores this human dynamic, one of many issues making it fundamentally flawed from the outset.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Flip
    Isn't that what marriage is all about? Women trade sex and children for resources and protection.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @advancedatheist

    Feminism is a WASP thing.
     
    Well, yeah, despite what some historically ignorant Alt Right people claim. You can't get any whiter than the first feminist coming out of the Enlightenment, the Englishwoman Mary Wollstonecraft.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Mary_Wollstonecraft_by_John_Opie_%28c._1797%29.jpg

    Wow. I didn’t know the Spartans were actually crypto-WASPS.

    “…In Spartan society, women could own estates, travel freely without male escort, and even initiate divorce. These rights were far from the historical norm. Indeed, one may see many parallels between women’s rights in Ancient Sparta and those found in the modern developed world…”

    http://www.returnofkings.com/50732/womens-rights-are-a-function-of-economy-ancient-sparta

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tracy

    “…In Spartan society, women could own estates, travel freely without male escort, and even initiate divorce. These rights were far from the historical norm. Indeed, one may see many parallels between women’s rights in Ancient Sparta and those found in the modern developed world…”
     
    Aside from bit about divorce, those things were true, too, in medieval Europe (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Middle_Ages). The rise of Protestantism, with its rejection of Mary, female Saints, the monastic route away from housewifery, etc., brought a big drop in the status of women.
    , @hyperbola
    I really come to detest such "social-science" houses of cards. If one goes back to the "original research" upon which these speculations are based, one finds that the original paper is from a faculty of law and the authors were not even capable of putting together a properly referenced bibliography. Those citations which can be deciphered seem to simply be circular repetitions of the same chants. The fact of the matter is that most such "research" relies on very few real sources of information, i.e. is best classified as speculation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Tracy says: • Website
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    But MODERN feminism (e.g. post 1960's) tends to be most decidedly non-WASP. Bella Abzug, Naomi Wolf, Gloria Steinem, and Betty Friedan, Boxer, Feinstein, are not WASPS. Perhaps they are, and some are just deceived. Anti-feminist Phyllis Schalfly, however, is a WASP. Certainly WASPS still hover around the periphery of the modern feminist movement, but all in all, the non-WASP influence over the feminist movement of today is firmly entrenched.

    In other words, for the past half century at least, Jews have definitely had a hand in directing and leading modern feminist movement.

    Anti-feminist Phyllis Schalfly, however, is a WASP.

    Mrs. Schlafly was Catholic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Some always did think she was a little bit WACC-Y (white anglo-celtic Catholic).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. Tracy says: • Website
    @whorefinder
    Women have a greater capacity than men at self-delusion, hysteria, and group-think, as most people have found throughout the centuries. It is notable that the accusers in the Salem Witch Trials were all young girls. Certainly the more dramatic a woman is, the more she is prone to inventing delusions and tales and then believing them---so I would not be surprised if someone as delusional of herself such as Paltrow would be doing this. She craves attention and being the center of it all.

    Paltrow is quite famous even among Hollywood actresses for being incredibly and retardedly delusional and self-centered. Being an Upper East Side JAP who has a movie producer for a daddy and Steven Spielberg handing her out roles as a gift will do that, and that's before we get to the fact that among the Jewish girls of her set she was blond, thin, and with long legs. I have to think growing up being the absolutely queen bee of that exclusive set must've set her ego on the top rung of the ladder, and, unfortunately, she managed to cement herself as a Hollywood leading lady with an Oscar to boot (got on Daddy's grave, but that's another story), a string of leading men boyfriends (Brad Pit, Ben Affleck), and a rock star whipped-pup husband (till she "consciously uncoupled" from him).

    In other words, unless something drastic occurs, she's permanently going to think the sun rises and sets on her backside. And that she should ALWAYS be the center of attention. That would make her invent a story like this AND start to believe it. Or perhaps she just told simple old Brad it happened so she could make him fight Harvey .

    Women have a greater capacity than men at self-delusion, hysteria, and group-think, as most people have found throughout the centuries. It is notable that the accusers in the Salem Witch Trials were all young girls.

    While I agree with your first sentence (speaking generally), to the second I have to say that it was a male judge and male jurors who convicted and sentenced the accused. As an aside, I saw an interesting documentary that made a good case for the idea that all that Salem business was due to ergot poisoning. I think this is the documentary I saw:

    Read More
    • Replies: @whorefinder

    While I agree with your first sentence (speaking generally), to the second I have to say that it was a male judge and male jurors who convicted and sentenced the accused.
     
    A crying, hysterical female will naturally be believed by the vast majority of men who don't know her---the White Knight instinct kicks in (watch for this at bars and clubs if a woman starts screaming and crying or yelling at some guy---all of a sudden a bunch of non-bouncer guys will try to protect her and attack the guy, despite not knowing what really just happened)

    One of the interesting quirks of legal history is that when juries were all male, rape convictions---and harsh punishments---were routine when the alleged victim testified, but when women started being put on juries, rape conviction rates went down. Women were much less likely to believe the crying hysterics of a fellow female on the stand, and understand many women either made up rape charges (to protect their honor, or to hurt a guy who hurt them) or were deluded enough to believe their own lies.

    As to the Salem Witch trials, I've lately come up with the notion that the minister at the center ---Samuel Paris---was a huckster type who loved money, and whipped up the girls into a frenzy and then, using his impramterur as minister, gave their hysteria credence---all to increase his power and keep his job and increase wealth.

    Paris was the scion of a wealthy family who went into the ministry because he sensed it was more powerful than running his family estates, who was financially hurt in Barbados and had to move to Salem, who'd been fired before for not keeping a congregation, and who loved the finer things----he went and found a very hot wife when it was considered unseemly for a minister to do so (supposed to go for the plain church mouse type), and he used church funds to buy very expensive trappings, such as gold candle stickholders (quite eyeopening for the strict Puritans).

    He sounds to me like a foppish huckster who desperately wanted to stay in the upper class but didn't want to work hard for it (like the Kennedys), so chose a career that guaranteed fame and power without manual labor. Add to that the fact that Salem had been firing ministers every year, and Pairs sounds like a guy who needed something to keep his job and keep his privileged life going. When the girls started pretending to be possessed (and I think it was pretend), he used that as an excuse for a witch hunt, which drove up his congregation, made him famous, and convinced the girls they really were possessed.

    Think about it: without the minister vouching for their nonsense, the girls' charges wouldn't have gotten any traction. Holy men get people all the time thinking they are possessed. They usually tamp down on them and don't buy most of them or lend them creedence. Paris did the opposite.

    That Abigail Williams (a cousin he took in) lived under his roof and she and his daughter were among the first "possessed" only adds to my hypothesis. He then convinced the local politicos to let him run the witchhunt by going after their enemies, so they let the madness reignand let him keep his job.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. Tracy says: • Website
    @Millennial
    Wow. I didn't know the Spartans were actually crypto-WASPS.

    "...In Spartan society, women could own estates, travel freely without male escort, and even initiate divorce. These rights were far from the historical norm. Indeed, one may see many parallels between women’s rights in Ancient Sparta and those found in the modern developed world..."

    http://www.returnofkings.com/50732/womens-rights-are-a-function-of-economy-ancient-sparta

    “…In Spartan society, women could own estates, travel freely without male escort, and even initiate divorce. These rights were far from the historical norm. Indeed, one may see many parallels between women’s rights in Ancient Sparta and those found in the modern developed world…”

    Aside from bit about divorce, those things were true, too, in medieval Europe (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Middle_Ages). The rise of Protestantism, with its rejection of Mary, female Saints, the monastic route away from housewifery, etc., brought a big drop in the status of women.

    Read More
    • Replies: @advancedatheist
    Funny how the Protestants became "atheistic" towards the saints that the Catholics worshiped, and yet nothing bad happened to them for their unbelief. Protestants could believe that these biblical and early Christian figures existed historically, led exemplary lives and deserved a spot in heaven; but they denied that these long-dead co-religionists had supernatural powers that mortal humans could access through prayer.

    Later figures in Western thought just carried this discounting of unseeable personalities to its logical conclusion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. Watching this all play out is fascinating. It is satisfying to know how many people in Hollywood are sweating. Weinstein is particularly reprllent. Howard Stern interviewed him and it made my skin crawl. His voice, speaking pattern, look, and even the way he walks. Ugly stereotype embodied. How does this end though? They are trying to circle the wagons (academy meeting, trying to silence Rose McGowan from calling out other actors, etc.), but there must be a million stories, and actresses (to use a forbidden word) who don’t get work anymore have little incentive to keep quiet now, and more of an incentive to speak up. The more famous actresses look very bad, but it is understandable why they did not say anything. I am waiting for the first actor to speak out like Terry Crews, but name names.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  110. There was a long R4 interview yesterday (link to mp3 download page, available for 20 days, 10 minutes in) with the marxist film director (and daughter of Socialist Workers Party founder Michael Kidron) Beeban Kidron.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beeban_Kidron

    Management summary (the whole thing is pretty waffly/fogging, transcript below)

    1. “We must be careful …”

    2. “It happens everywhere, don’t forget the churches”

    3. “Why didn’t the little people do something about it?”

    4. “It may have been acceptable 20 or 30 years ago, but not now”

    The whole thing was an example of what used to be called “making smoke” , with a side order of whattaboutery and outright fibs – outside the media/entertainment world (Kidron has afaik been a London luvvie her entire career) such conduct would have been unacceptable in 1970 or any era. No CEO outside that world could get away with it for thirty years.

    Ed Stourton – Beeban Kidron has been a film maker for 35 years, she directed the television adaptation of Jeanette Winterson’s “Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit” and “Bridget Jones – The Edge Of Reason” – Lady Kidron joins us from our radio car, good afternoon.

    “Good afternoon”

    Well, it’s a terribly shocking thing to hear, that, on the air at lunchtime*, but from what we gather, people inside the industry were familiar with these stories for a long time.

    “I think what we have to be careful is not to have a feeding frenzy around one high-profile case, because actually this happens in the world, not just in the world of film but in the world, wherever there is this huge power imbalance , and we’ve seen it, you know, the politician and the intern, the producer and the actor, the celebrities and their fans, religious leaders and the congregants, you know, I man we’ve seen it everywhere, so, I think that the Obama message was the one that was of interest in that report in that it talked about our need for culture change, and we should be looking at how to have a culture change, so that what was considered acceptable once, which is no longer acceptable now, is not even on the table for our daughters, and in fact our sons.”

    Well, one of the things that has come across in this affair is that most of the world considered it had stopped being acceptable a very long time ago, do you think that the film industry has been slow to pick that up? and if so, why?

    “I… I don’t think it has .. I think, what you have to look at always in these cases is about power imbalance, so, you know, if you think about a young woman, who wants to get a role, this is a high risk business, where you’re only as good as your last gig, and getting a gig is a very difficult thing to do – we don’t have HR departments, we don’t have resources at career progression, you don’t get to, you know, you don’t get to sort of say, oh no thanks, let’s – I’ll go in another direction, work for another company, it’s much more high-octane than that – but that’s just part of the power imbalance, and I’m sorry, but I don’t think I accept that it has, er, that it’s more prevalent in the film business than it is in other places, we’ve seen it everywhere, and we’re trying to deal with it everywhere.”

    But, you talk almost as if people in the film industry accept it as a fact of life.

    “No, I’m not, I’m just making the correlation between film business and elsewhere – I am absolutely very clear that one of the things that has happened over the last twenty years, ten years is that we’ve started articulating what those boundaries are, and saying no more, and we’ve seen that, we’ve seen it everywhere from the church to the film industry, and, er, you know we’ve even seen it at the BBC, and everywhere, and we are saying, no, no more, we want respect in the workplace, and we want respect for people who feel less powerful, and if I go back to that idea of culture change, what changes the culture, is actually having a more equitable power system, having more women in the workplace, having more diversity, having a very very different culture about what goes on, and who’s in charge.”

    Part of the reaction to this has been surprise among many members of the public that given how much people knew, none of this came out beforehand, in the way it’s coming out now. Why do you think that is?

    “Well I think that is an interesting question, and I think one has to be really careful, because a couple of people said to me this morning, you know, if Angelina Jolie knew about it why didn’t she say something, she’s a powerhouse, but the truth is she wasn’t always, she was at a different part of her career, and it was in a different place in her life, and I think we have to be really careful not to victim-blame here, you know, I say what about the agents, what about the assistants, the drivers, what about those board members who’ve now kicked Harvey off but actually must have been across the fact that there’s eight settlements over the years, I think that, you know – that we have to be careful ..”

    But what about them – I mean you say it’s the same everywhere, but in a public company, for example, this wouldn’t happen, would it?

    “Well, I find that hard to believe, I mean we’ve seen scandals everywhere, you know, this is actually very similar in my view to, you know, why did Jimmy Savile get away with it for so long, you know, he was surrounded by people who knew something was up, and nobody said, and da-da-da-da…. I think the conspiracy of silence is a cultural thing and about cultural norms and I think that people who have put up with it, you know, perhaps my generation, your generation, are not prepared to put up with it any more, on behalf of their children and behalf of the current generation, and actually people are saying ‘do you know what, we want a much stricter line about what is allowable and culturally acceptable, because the law is only a backstop.

    * Stourton had just finished an interview with actress Zoe Brock, who described hiding in the bathroom while HW hammered on the door. When she came out, she said, he started crying and said “is it because I’m fat?

    Read More
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    Actually, scrap the 'marxist' in Beeban Kidron, I was thinking of her dad. I see Steve wrote about her brother Adam way back.

    https://isteve.blogspot.com/2006/04/who-is-adam-kidron-man-behind-nuestro.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. @YetAnotherAnon
    There was a long R4 interview yesterday (link to mp3 download page, available for 20 days, 10 minutes in) with the marxist film director (and daughter of Socialist Workers Party founder Michael Kidron) Beeban Kidron.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beeban_Kidron

    Management summary (the whole thing is pretty waffly/fogging, transcript below)

    1. "We must be careful ..."

    2. "It happens everywhere, don't forget the churches"

    3. "Why didn't the little people do something about it?"

    4. "It may have been acceptable 20 or 30 years ago, but not now"

    The whole thing was an example of what used to be called "making smoke" , with a side order of whattaboutery and outright fibs - outside the media/entertainment world (Kidron has afaik been a London luvvie her entire career) such conduct would have been unacceptable in 1970 or any era. No CEO outside that world could get away with it for thirty years.


    Ed Stourton - Beeban Kidron has been a film maker for 35 years, she directed the television adaptation of Jeanette Winterson's "Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit" and "Bridget Jones - The Edge Of Reason" - Lady Kidron joins us from our radio car, good afternoon.

    "Good afternoon"

    Well, it's a terribly shocking thing to hear, that, on the air at lunchtime*, but from what we gather, people inside the industry were familiar with these stories for a long time.

    "I think what we have to be careful is not to have a feeding frenzy around one high-profile case, because actually this happens in the world, not just in the world of film but in the world, wherever there is this huge power imbalance , and we've seen it, you know, the politician and the intern, the producer and the actor, the celebrities and their fans, religious leaders and the congregants, you know, I man we've seen it everywhere, so, I think that the Obama message was the one that was of interest in that report in that it talked about our need for culture change, and we should be looking at how to have a culture change, so that what was considered acceptable once, which is no longer acceptable now, is not even on the table for our daughters, and in fact our sons."

    Well, one of the things that has come across in this affair is that most of the world considered it had stopped being acceptable a very long time ago, do you think that the film industry has been slow to pick that up? and if so, why?

    "I... I don't think it has .. I think, what you have to look at always in these cases is about power imbalance, so, you know, if you think about a young woman, who wants to get a role, this is a high risk business, where you're only as good as your last gig, and getting a gig is a very difficult thing to do - we don't have HR departments, we don't have resources at career progression, you don't get to, you know, you don't get to sort of say, oh no thanks, let's - I'll go in another direction, work for another company, it's much more high-octane than that - but that's just part of the power imbalance, and I'm sorry, but I don't think I accept that it has, er, that it's more prevalent in the film business than it is in other places, we've seen it everywhere, and we're trying to deal with it everywhere."

    But, you talk almost as if people in the film industry accept it as a fact of life.

    "No, I'm not, I'm just making the correlation between film business and elsewhere - I am absolutely very clear that one of the things that has happened over the last twenty years, ten years is that we've started articulating what those boundaries are, and saying no more, and we've seen that, we've seen it everywhere from the church to the film industry, and, er, you know we've even seen it at the BBC, and everywhere, and we are saying, no, no more, we want respect in the workplace, and we want respect for people who feel less powerful, and if I go back to that idea of culture change, what changes the culture, is actually having a more equitable power system, having more women in the workplace, having more diversity, having a very very different culture about what goes on, and who's in charge."

    Part of the reaction to this has been surprise among many members of the public that given how much people knew, none of this came out beforehand, in the way it's coming out now. Why do you think that is?

    "Well I think that is an interesting question, and I think one has to be really careful, because a couple of people said to me this morning, you know, if Angelina Jolie knew about it why didn't she say something, she's a powerhouse, but the truth is she wasn't always, she was at a different part of her career, and it was in a different place in her life, and I think we have to be really careful not to victim-blame here, you know, I say what about the agents, what about the assistants, the drivers, what about those board members who've now kicked Harvey off but actually must have been across the fact that there's eight settlements over the years, I think that, you know - that we have to be careful .."

    But what about them - I mean you say it's the same everywhere, but in a public company, for example, this wouldn't happen, would it?

    "Well, I find that hard to believe, I mean we've seen scandals everywhere, you know, this is actually very similar in my view to, you know, why did Jimmy Savile get away with it for so long, you know, he was surrounded by people who knew something was up, and nobody said, and da-da-da-da.... I think the conspiracy of silence is a cultural thing and about cultural norms and I think that people who have put up with it, you know, perhaps my generation, your generation, are not prepared to put up with it any more, on behalf of their children and behalf of the current generation, and actually people are saying 'do you know what, we want a much stricter line about what is allowable and culturally acceptable, because the law is only a backstop."

     

    * Stourton had just finished an interview with actress Zoe Brock, who described hiding in the bathroom while HW hammered on the door. When she came out, she said, he started crying and said "is it because I'm fat?"

    Actually, scrap the ‘marxist’ in Beeban Kidron, I was thinking of her dad. I see Steve wrote about her brother Adam way back.

    https://isteve.blogspot.com/2006/04/who-is-adam-kidron-man-behind-nuestro.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. Interesting thesis. Mr. Weinstein’s travails represent an interesting cultural and political event. The question (as always) with these things is whether they constitute inflection points. To my mind, these are the key take-outs:

    1. For all the “past is a different country” talk about the evils of yesteryear compared to our progressive and enlightened present, two things are quite striking.

    One is that the most egregious allegations of sexual harassment (such as those against Weinstein) almost invariably involve (a) rape; (b) sexual assault; (c) common assault; or (d) behaviour consisting of the threat to engage in (a) – (c) above. All of these were both civilly and criminally actionable before the legislative draftsmen invented this new concept of sexual harassment, meaning that the latter is fundamentally a redundant concept other than for the purposes of of frivolous (“His coffee mug made me feel uncomfortable”) and fundamentally abusive (“An ugly guy asked me out on a date and I’m offended”) complaints.

    The other is that, for all the pretensions to liberalism, what feminists really seem to want is a return to the rules of engagement for male-female interactions that look, walk, talk and act a whole lot like good old fashioned social conservatism – and what is it they say about things that look, walk, talk and act like ducks? [Apologies if that offends Tiny Duck, but then, what doesn't?]

    2. While a critical mass of allegations levelled against Weinstein are at the serious (i.e. criminal/tortious) end of the sexual harassment spectrum, the same can’t be said about the tidal wave of stories that it has prompted from Hollywood actresses complaining about “casting couch” culture. Implicit in these stories is that a wannabe starlet who is asked to temporarily engage in the world’s oldest profession in order to gain lucrative access to a newer one can somehow be compared, in a practical or moral sense, to a victim of assault or threats thereof. By jumping on the bandwagon when allegations of the former arise, “victims” of the latter are implicitly suggesting that being asked to sleep with someone in return for a lucrative gig somehow equates to being assaulted. As usually happens during these feeding frenzies, the finger prints of third wave feminists (with their manic obsession with defining more and more routine sexual interaction as abuse) and the canny agents of over-the-hill Hollywood actresses (attention, attention, uber alles) are all over this one.

    3. Who are the victims of casting couch culture anyway? Certainly not the women (or men, for that matter) who sleep their way to the bigtime – for them it’s just one of those bargaining decisions about whether the prize is worth the price. An obvious alternative answer is (a) those who refuse the overture and fail to get a break they deserved; and (b) those who never got offered the casting couch bargain at all. Fine, but how many of those are there? That brings me to the most consistent victims of the casting couch, namely film financiers like Steve Bannon and Steven Mnuchin. If they are fronting up money for a Harvey Weinstein to make a lucrative movie on their behalf, they are entitled to assume that the man they’ve entrusted with their money is looking after their bottom line and not Charlize Theron’s bottom (no matter how pleasing the latter may be).

    4. It is this latter issue that makes me sceptical about how pervasive (or at least distortive) casting couch culture actually is. The likes of Weinstein make their money by spotting talent differentials which can be worth tens or even hundreds of millions of Dollars to investors. How plausible is it that these guys can get so rich whilst simultaneously making propositions to actresses which amount to “you can milk my investors, but only if you milk me first”? My suspicion about the casting couch is that those who understand it don’t talk about it and that those who talk about it don’t understand it.

    Look behind the stories and I suspect that 90% or more of the complaints are fabricated by people who came close but didn’t make it and are now in bitter, excuse-making mode. As for the 10% that are true, it seems reasonable to surmise that because of the importance of sex appeal in making casting decisions, those most likely to make the cut in the first place are, themselves, more likely to be propositioned. Indeed, if you’re a highly desirable starlet who makes it big having serviced a Weinstein or two in the foothills of your ascent, perhaps you feel bitter about having been convinced to do the deed in order to get a part that Mr. Bigshot Mogul probably would have had to give you anyway in order to make his money. In other words, given that the man who made the proposition in the first place probably has no choice but to deny it, perhaps the bit of the story that the accuser is leaving out is that, when invited onto the infamous couch, she didn’t demur.

    5. Perhaps though, after the first few lucrative successes, as someone like Weinstein gets older, richer and fatter, triumphalism dulls his instincts and he starts to ignore such petty fripperies as voice timbre and acting range in favour of cruder and more one-dimensional metrics that lend themselves more readily to casting couch logic. For instance, was Weinstein’s final reckoning some kind of revenge for his losing someone money by using an organ that was not his brain for thinking?

    6. Much like the Bill Cosby revelations that suddenly came out after decades of silence, this story shows how politically incorrect a place reality truly is and how many of the furnishings of fantasy the advocates of PC have to use in order to comfortably live in that reality. Even at the most extreme end of Mr. Weinstein’s alleged behaviour (none of which seems to have been on the uber-violent end of the spectrum), it just doesn’t seem as if male sexual malfeasance, of itself, really causes all that much life changing trauma.

    Bear in mind that whether the allegations consist of actual assault or those of the “He turned up at the audition wearing a bathrobe” variety, none of the alleged victims seems to be claiming that he coerced their silence with “I’ll kill you” or “I’ll kill your family”-type threats. Rather, the threat that kept them silent was that going public would compromise their lucrative careers. What this implies is that the decision to stay shtum was not based on true terror but simply a pragmatic calculation that they’d be better off in the long run not upsetting the applecart. Indeed, how many of Weinstein’s alleged victims thought that the threat of later going public would be a handy blackmail tool – one which lost its value once he was outed?

    The bottom line is that far from being lauded as “brave” and virtuous or as “survivors”, the people who are now coming forward should actually be seen as having fed Weinstein’s appetite and contributed to the gradual descent of his behaviour into manic compulsion by not having tackled him contemporaneously on it.

    7. The fact that the women in question feared adverse career consequences (in the most ostensibly progressive profession there is) for going public in the first place demonstrates (for the umpteenth time) that the elites are entirely insincere in professing to believe in the puritanical rules of engagement that they keep formulating and that the dictats of “equality”, “diversity” and “respect” are really little more than cynical mechanisms designed to insinuate the administrative state into the lives of us normals. If you’re actually part of the elite, there’s no problem with buying your way out of any of the rules that, for instance, university fraternities must now observe.

    8. As usually happens in these scenarios, there will be some kind of new furore about sexual harassment which will affect the rest of society for more than it will the world of Hollywood from which it originated. It may be a passing storm or it may have longer-term consequences. It’s hard to tell. One way or the other, as usual, the key drivers of whatever form the post-Weinstein reaction takes will be less attractive women who will seize on the opportunity to regulate workplaces in the belief that the more constrained the working environment is, the less opportunity the hot bitches will have to take advantage of male bosses who think with their Johnsons. Of course, it won’t work (contrary to feminist mythology, the only thing that does is the now verboten art of slut-shaming). The more attractive women (who are, as usual, the true targets of each new wave of outrage) will end up (as usual) being the true beneficiaries, with more material for Ellen Pao-style blackmail litigation when office affairs don’t yield the desired career progression. The big victims will be poorer, uglier men, whose non-abusive overtures will be most likely to cause offence and discomfort. Wealthier and more attractive men (the ostensible targets of the new rules) will escape the consequences as long as they: (a) keep paying protection money to the Democrats, NOW, NARAL and the Sierra Club; and (b) assiduously abide by the eleventh commandment (Thou shalt not get caught).

    9. There are, in spite of 8 above, a few reasons for guarded optimism arising out of this affair, which optimism might (in time) become much less guarded:

    (a) Compare this story to Cosby. I can remember being aware of the Cosby allegations as far back as 2004/5 and he was still America’s uncle. The real reason why Cosby came a cropper when he did was that it was the dawn of the BLM era and the Afristocracy decided to use to the PC-wave unleashed by Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign to exact revenge on Cosby for his “Poundcake” heresy. By contrast, Weinstein got destroyed despite the fact that he was still an establishment pet and the Dems had every interest in hushing the story up.

    (b) As an experienced insider of the kind that Cosby never really was, Weinstein thought that he could skillfully manoeuvre his way out of trouble. Firstly, unlike Cosby, who simply denied the allegations against him, Weinstein immediately confessed to the less serious ones and sought to reinforce the rules of his tribe by engaging in a Maoist self-criticism for transgressing them. Moreover, he even had the gall to say that he would atone for his misdeeds by writing some big cheques to the anti-gun lobby in the aftermath of Vegas. It failed. Ultimately, the progressive establishment couldn’t control the angry feminist reaction and had to throw poor Harvey under the bus.

    (c) The damage done to the Dems’ control of its coalition of the fringes (as laid bare by Trump’s victory in 2016) has been deep. At the heart of the sexual politics of the Democratic Party is a chasmic faultline, namely the fact that their coalition includes Marcusian feminists whose obsession with perceived male violence and sexual predation is becoming more hysterical with every passing week, supporters who themselves include a disproportionate number of male sexual predators amongst their number (black football players, Hollywood moguls, Bill Clinton etc.) and others who harbour thinly veiled aspirations to inflict violence on women (Muslims, Trannies etc.). Weinstein shows how quickly these troops start turning the guns on each other (instead of Haven Monahan or George Zimmerman) and how increasingly sketchy is the centralised command and control over them.

    Watch this space…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    Great analysis!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Thea says:
    @Another realist

    I wonder if this ever happens with homosexuals
     
    No one is spared, not even child actors:

    http://people.com/celebrity/corey-feldman-on-child-sexual-abuse-in-hollywood-and-corey-haim/

    Hollywood is sick to the core. It's about time these hypocrites get exposed for what they really are. Maybe now the Democratic party candidates will think twice before flaunting their celebrity endorsements, though I wouldn't bet on it. I can't wait to see what kind of hypocritical bullcrap they are going to stuff down our throat at the next Oscars, not that I'm going to watch that vomit inducing liberal love fest, I haven't in years, but I'm sure it'll be all over the news the next day. You don't think these people have any more moral high ground to stand on, but if liberals actually understood hypocrisy, they wouldn't be liberals.

    The best thing that could come this is Hollywood losing its cultural power. I’m afraid that instead we’ll get some sort of lesson about abuse of power & feminism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lagertha
    No. It is unforgivable that so many women in Hollywood/NYC allowed this to go on. They're like the German villagers who knew about the Holocaust, but said nothing - ok, I admit, that's a bit extreme. But, as a woman, I am totally outraged that all these privileged women never spoke up years ago. It is so outrageous that they just kept their mouths shut - how many innocent teens/ YA have been molested as a result? It's so blechhh!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. Is all of this just the opening salvo of World War W, which was geared up to happen anyway if Hillary was elected? Now will we see men dragged down and a constant barrage of feminist issues in the news?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  115. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Around five-seven, or about 1/4, are of non-WASP and are Jewish (some may have anglicized names as well). Considering that Jews comprise about 2-3% of the US total population that means that they are still over-represented in NOW. The ones that were previously mentioned are feminists who have assumed a very public face for the movement as a whole. Prominent feminists on the Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Kagan are both non-WASPs. Ginsburg, for example, served as chief general counsel to the ACLU (an organization that has been known to champion feminist values and public policies).

    he gave an interesting link to the founding of NOW. If you keep reading you’ll see plenty of Jewish women highlighted. It started with Betty Friedan for goodness’ sake.

    It’s surprising how many of those old bats are still alive. Have any of them repented, I wonder?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Pro-woman Phyllis Schlafly, for one, was a WASP.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. jack ryan says: • Website

    M’thinks Steve Sailer is reaching a bit here.

    What a choice:

    Feminism vs Harry Weinstein style sexual degeneracy ethnic media mafia rule!

    That’s like saying the only choice is between living the rest of your life with cancer or AIDS.

    It’s also like trying to argue the only reason Western Europe, UK, USA – the West should resist mass Muslim migration invasions is because ISIS and other Muslims are intolerant of gays and feminist women.

    I don’t want either domination by American feminist women – WASP or Ruth Bader Ginzberg/Bella Abzug style feminism or domination by the sexual pervert J Media mafia.

    One of the reasons these J media mogul types go in for the worst forms of porn, prostitution

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  117. jack ryan says: • Website
    @Rosamond Vincy
    A number of screenplays were written by Anita Loos, author of novel "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes," the original bimbo bible.

    Btw, H'wood's had open season on non-shiksas for some time now. Weinstein ran his routine on Gwyneth Paltrow ((1/2 I believe)), and while she claims she didn't ante up, she got _Shakespeare in Love_ over Winona Ryder ((nee Horowitz)), who was being considered for it. Ryder said Gwyneth saw the script in her living room and lobbied for it, but given that Winona had a long run of good performances (Heathers, Great Balls of Fire, The Age of Innocence), and suddenly couldn't get a headline except by literally getting arrested, I'm guessing she wouldn't give Weinstein what he wanted and Gwyneth did.

    These guys have NO loyalty--not tribal, not even professional (Gwyneth, Mira Sorvino, and Asia Argento all have parents in the industry). They'll treat the spawn of H'wood and B'way royalty the same as any backwoods scrubber off the street. In their way, they're quite egalitarian. If they won't bother the likes of Streep and Mirren, it's because they're already established and too long in the tooth anyway.

    “These guys have NO loyalty–not tribal, not even professional”

    I respond:

    Their politics of toeing the PC Left, anti White domestic party line and toeing the pro Israel, Zionist, Neo Con party line in foreign policy, military policy – that’s a form of loyalty.

    The only pro America First, fairness toward American White Southerners – these folks have to stay in the closet in Hollywood.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @whorefinder
    Women have a greater capacity than men at self-delusion, hysteria, and group-think, as most people have found throughout the centuries. It is notable that the accusers in the Salem Witch Trials were all young girls. Certainly the more dramatic a woman is, the more she is prone to inventing delusions and tales and then believing them---so I would not be surprised if someone as delusional of herself such as Paltrow would be doing this. She craves attention and being the center of it all.

    Paltrow is quite famous even among Hollywood actresses for being incredibly and retardedly delusional and self-centered. Being an Upper East Side JAP who has a movie producer for a daddy and Steven Spielberg handing her out roles as a gift will do that, and that's before we get to the fact that among the Jewish girls of her set she was blond, thin, and with long legs. I have to think growing up being the absolutely queen bee of that exclusive set must've set her ego on the top rung of the ladder, and, unfortunately, she managed to cement herself as a Hollywood leading lady with an Oscar to boot (got on Daddy's grave, but that's another story), a string of leading men boyfriends (Brad Pit, Ben Affleck), and a rock star whipped-pup husband (till she "consciously uncoupled" from him).

    In other words, unless something drastic occurs, she's permanently going to think the sun rises and sets on her backside. And that she should ALWAYS be the center of attention. That would make her invent a story like this AND start to believe it. Or perhaps she just told simple old Brad it happened so she could make him fight Harvey .

    You’d think the failure of a marriage would be drastic enough to render Gwyneth a little less up herself, but apparently not. There have been reports by former classmates that Gynnie was a MeanGirl, so much of what you’ve posted rings true. She certainly exhibits all the classic signs of narcissism, while Winona (also blonde naturally, although most of her roles have been been brunette), has admitted that she was a short-haired tomboy who was presumed gay, pretty much ostracized at school, and after the success of Beetlejuice (which she hoped would finally earn her some approval from her peers), got bullied even more (as in punched and thrown against her locker, not just called nasty names).

    What makes me suspect Weinstein did try something–and despite Gwyneth’s claims, had some success–is the fact that she got Shakespeare in Love and Winona didn’t. Winona is simply the better actress. I’ve never seen her give a bad performance, and I’ve never seen Gwyneth give a fine one, except for Great Expectations, where she had to play a shallow, class-conscious bitch. The best Paltrow can manage is adequate. Try to imagine Shakespeare in Love if Gabriella Wilde or Amanda Seyfried had been the right age to play Lady Viola. The loan shark shakedowns and backstage rivalries were hilariously true, but Gwyneth dragged down the rest of the movie. I don’t know how well Ryder does accents, but it can’t be any worse than Paltrow’s generic, one-size-fits-all “British” accent, which she uses for all Brit pix, regardless of the character’s class, region, or time period. Her Emma isn’t a patch on Kate Beckinsale’s.

    It’s unlikely that Daddy Paltrow bought her those film roles or the Oscars, because Asia Argento and Mira Sorvino weren’t protected by family connections (or in Sorvino’s case, by her own Oscar). After her success in Mighty Aphrodite and Edith Wharton miniseries The Buccaneers, Sorvino was relegated to one small or indy production after another. She kept on working, so her talent was valued, but she was blocked from the high-profile, high-budget projects. So why was a mediocre actress like Gwynnie shoved in the public’s face while real talents like Winona and Mira were allowed to languish? What else could it be, but that Weinstein did his casting based on (forgive the crudeness) what he was allowed to shove?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    Winona is simply the better actress. I’ve never seen her give a bad performance

    I thought she was awful in Stranger Things, but then I thought the whole series was awful. I don't understand its popularity.
    , @The Last Real Calvinist
    I too wondered what ever happened to Mira Sorvino; she seemed poised for stardom, and then mostly faded away.

    [Gwyneth Paltrow's] Emma isn’t a patch on Kate Beckinsale’s.

     

    Too true. We Calvinists have just watched the latter, and it's very good, especially with the remarkably crisp Andrew Davies script. Paltrow was too cutesy as Emma; there has to be a thoughtless, almost nasty edge to her manipulations to do justice to the character.

    The 2008 Emma miniseries with Romola Garai is also very good -- maybe overall more rewarding to watch than the 1996 Kate Beckinsdale version -- mostly because of better development of secondary characters.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Seriously says:
    @Tiny Duck
    This is why we need diversity in the movie industry.

    As long as white Christian males continue to run things women will continue to be savaged

    A movie industry of Color will better the interests of all people and especially women

    This is why Lena Dunham's work is so important

    What we really need is people with influence like Mr. Weinstein, but who also prefer non-cisgender, non-white women. How can a WOC get ahead in the entertainment industry when privileged white males refuse to hit on them.
    The Oscars will remain white until moguls like Mr. Weinstein curb their privilege and grope the marginalized members of our society.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Antlitz Grollheim
    Now you're thinking intersectionally.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @Anonymous
    Oh yes. Hearing all of this you immediately wonder whose toes Weinstein trod to get into all this trouble.

    His brother’s. Bob didn’t just find out, of course, but he thought this was the right moment for a takeover.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. She meets him in a restaurant, they talk and flirt a bit, he gets her to walk downstairs to the basement of the restaurant, and he just starts masturbating in front of her. That’s sexual assault: exposure and lewd acts.

    It sounds incredible, so maybe it is, or there are huge numbers of details omitted here, like how the conversation went before, during, and after, and whether there was any flirtation, or he really just took her to the basement and whipped out his dick a propos of nothing, and wasn’t just drunk and taking a whizz in a potted plant.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  122. AnonyTrad says:

    I’m surprised Steve Sailer hasn’t highlighted this article in the Tablet (jewish online mag) with the provocative title

    The Specifically Jewy Perviness of Harvey Weinstein

    http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/246724/the-specifically-jewy-perviness-of-harvey-weinstein

    The author had to issue an “apology” for the title. But he kept the article up as is.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  123. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    So who’s worse, Weinstein or feminist and Democratic party hero Bill Clinton? Let’s lay out their respective track records side-by-side and see who wins.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    We don't really know the track record of either.
    The facts may be horrifying in both cases.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @Tracy

    “…In Spartan society, women could own estates, travel freely without male escort, and even initiate divorce. These rights were far from the historical norm. Indeed, one may see many parallels between women’s rights in Ancient Sparta and those found in the modern developed world…”
     
    Aside from bit about divorce, those things were true, too, in medieval Europe (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Middle_Ages). The rise of Protestantism, with its rejection of Mary, female Saints, the monastic route away from housewifery, etc., brought a big drop in the status of women.

    Funny how the Protestants became “atheistic” towards the saints that the Catholics worshiped, and yet nothing bad happened to them for their unbelief. Protestants could believe that these biblical and early Christian figures existed historically, led exemplary lives and deserved a spot in heaven; but they denied that these long-dead co-religionists had supernatural powers that mortal humans could access through prayer.

    Later figures in Western thought just carried this discounting of unseeable personalities to its logical conclusion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ian M.

    Later figures in Western thought just carried this discounting of unseeable personalities to its logical conclusion.
     
    I think a better handle for you might be 'unthinkingatheist'. The 'one god further' objection and its variants has to be one of the most brain-dead and nonsensical objections to theism out there. Rather than being logical, it's just a blatant non-sequitor:

    http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/04/one-god-further-objection.html

    It's a manifestation of our chattering, canting age that a great many people evidently think this sort of shallow objection is some kind of devastating blow to theism rather than the showcasing of the intellectual destitution and philistinism of pop atheism it is. It would be similar to someone saying, "Earlier astronomers reduced the number of cycles needed to describe the Earth's orbit (primary cycle plus epicycles). We just carry this to its logical conclusion and say that there is no cycle (orbit) at all!"

    By the way, Protestants believe that the saints exist. They just don't pray to them.
    , @AM

    but they denied that these long-dead co-religionists had supernatural powers that mortal humans could access through prayer.
     
    Will any atheist ever get Catholicism right? sigh

    You pray to saints to have them to pray for you. They're more like advocates on your behalf. Think of them as Heavenly specialist lawyers who work pro bono and are good examples all at the same time. They won't take up your cause if it's unworthy, and even then it only amplifies your petition. God/Christ/Holy Spirit actually fulfills the petition, but only if that would serve His purposes either for Creation or your life. (So no, not a mindless vending machine or Santa Claus. I imagine most "make me rich" prayers are quite rightly responded to as "No, and for your own good")

    If the saints had supernatural powers, that would be idolatry and an extremely bad thing. Not even Mary has extraordinary powers - the best you can get is to ask her to pray for you too.

    Basically, the original Protestants had to lie about what Catholicism taught in order to gain any traction whatsoever. I've had long chats with Lutherans and Presbyterians online about several points of supposed disagreement, even showing them catechism and their answer, if they were was honest was "Oh, I didn't know that". There was no disagreement, just as in this case on the point of idolatry.

    (PS - You don't have to pray to saints or rosaries to be a Catholic - just participate in Mass which about Christ and the Gospels. Catholics have you covered if the whole saint concept is too confusing and would lead to idolatry.)

    Later figures in Western thought just carried this discounting of unseeable personalities to its logical conclusion.
     
    Later figures in Western thought took them, like yourself to the logical conclusion of denying God, which is why Catholics fought the 30 Year's War. They understood that any attempts to lie about smaller truths would lead to denying the ultimate truth. They just 500 years ahead of the curve.

    That said, it's silly to blame Protestantism for our current woes. There's lots of modern Catholics->atheists without that intermediate step. Most of the descendants of Protestants were only carrying out what they knew. Once the spirit of rebellion and lies are in the water, so to speak, there's no magic in Catholicism that would stop it.

    Honestly, I have no idea, given the high quality of some of your other writings, what's left in at least dropping your hostility to Christianity. "Advanced" atheist is a major factor causes the degeneracy around you. People behave better when they understand their behavior matters.
    , @Tracy
    Catholics, too, didn't and don't think that Saints have supernatural powers. It's the prayers of the Saints that are efficacious; they don't have any inherent super-powers or anything.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. Mr. Anon says:
    @whorefinder
    That's a very dangerous game for him to play, and doesn't really fit his now-public m.o.: finding young, desperate ingenues whom he towers over in terms of power---some street urchin he can play My Fair Lady to, except that he gets to cum on their face first. And if they refuse, he can hush up their stories because he's Harvey Weinstein and he towers over them in the Hollywood power scheme.

    Gweneth Paltrow didn't tower over or equal Harvey at that point, but her family/close friends sure did. This would be like Bill Clinton in the middle of the '92 race after he'd won the primary but before the election forcing himself on Caroline Kennedy. At that point, Clinton was definitely not the biggest player in D politics nationwide, and hadn't yet taken over the party with his neoliberalism, and Caroline Kennedy was still a Kennedy with a powerful Senator uncle (Ted) , the family legacy in the party, and a number of up-and-comers.

    Plus Daddy Paltrow and Spielberg had to have known about Weinstein, and warned G. Paltrow about him. So unless it is acceptable for all Hollywood producers to do this, and G. Paltrow was sickly told by her family to play ball, or its fictitious.

    P.S. There's a very salacious rumor going about that The Fappenning---the release of a large number of nude and pornographic personal images of current Hollywood starlets from an apple i cloud account within the last 18 months---was from not a hack of many accounts (as the story went), but only from Weinstein's account, who had them all on his phone. I believe Apple has always denied a major, multiple-account hack on this issue. Wouldn't it make sense that someone just got into one account---Weinstein's?

    The pictures were quite raunchy. One was Jennifer Lawrence nude with a white liquid substance dripping off her face and a coy smile at the camera---all in an office/bedroom setting. You can find others, but you get the point: they weren't artistic shots, but private cameraphone shots. By someone.

    Plus Daddy Paltrow and Spielberg had to have known about Weinstein, and warned G. Paltrow about him. So unless it is acceptable for all Hollywood producers to do this, and G. Paltrow was sickly told by her family to play ball, or its fictitious.

    Maybe she thought it was safe to do business with Weinstein given that she was protected. Maybe her protectors thought the same thing. And maybe Weinstein had other ideas.

    Actually, I’m not surprised that people, either men or women, didn’t come forward earlier to denounce Weinstein. What were they supposed to say: “This guy is a predator, at least so I have heard. Everyone knows it”. There are libel laws in this country. They may be weaker than in the UK, but they still do exist. And Weinstein had the resources to use them.

    Moreover, being known as a trouble-maker / whistle-blower is usually never a good career move. Even if Weinstein didn’t put it a bad word for you, or used his influence to harm your career, other producers still might not want to hire you, because you’re a boat-rocker. They might be afraid of what you’d say about them. Who wants to hire a potential liability?

    Hollywood is a dirty business. It should surprise no one that a lot of people in it are dirty.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
    An actor warned his actress friend about Weinstein, not knowing she was already having an affair with him. She told Weinstein, and the guy got a phone call saying he'd never work again.
    , @whorefinder
    Yeah, the current crop of feminazism did Harvey in. The SJWs of Hollywood--including Weinstein-- let that nonsense into the Hollywood sphere, and it turned and bit him on the backside.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @il gottoso
    Isn't simpler explanation just that as business becomes more high status more men are attracted by it and it becomes more competitive and cruel and women being generally less competitive and driven by status gravitate towards other fields.

    I'd assume that happened to being a musician in the 60's. Women are artistic, conscientious and like music so there were plenty of talented professional musicians like Carol Kaye. But then came rock and men fueled by dreams of becoming a rockstar flooded the business.By early 80's studio musicians were more male than they were in early 60's because talented artistic women looking for a job were crowded out by status seeking failed rock stars.

    I'd assume computer science and banking got more male when they became ways to become masters of universe.

    Reverse has happened in publishing and journalism.
    ....

    And men really don't like competing against women. Men do really enjoy see their male rivals to lose to a woman, but winning a woman feels like winning a battle against erectile dysfunction. You feel humiliated that you needed to fight in the first place.

    And that's why I think there is more vitriol against female political opponents than there would be against similar male opponents, whether it is Thatcher or Hillary. Women should know their place. Business and war should be game of men against men for the access to fertile women. Women's game is to be the first prize.

    There's the phrase about James Bond about men wanting to be him and women wanting to sleep with him. The woman that women want to be and that men want to sleep with is not a spy with a licence to kill or and who is excellent at fighting .

    And men really don’t like competing against women. Men do really enjoy see their male rivals to lose to a woman, but winning a woman feels like winning a battle against erectile dysfunction. You feel humiliated that you needed to fight in the first place.

    Beautiful twist of the phrase, sir.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @Another realist
    Hollywood is like an onion, peel away one layer of hypocrisy, and you get 10 more layers of hypocrisy, all the way down to its rotten core. Little wonder it stinks like one.

    Women of Hollywood have been subjected to this kind of treatment for far too long. I'm sure many famous actresses have been forced to sleep with producers and studio chiefs before they became famous, maybe even after, to get roles. Child actors are especially vulnerable to this type of abuse, including male actors, many eventually turned to drugs, alcohol and partying to numb their pain. Corey Feldman's story in the Sunday Times of London about wide spread abuse of male child actors in Hollywood will make anyone vomit. I want all these victims to come out and name names. Weinstein can't be the only scumbag in Hollywood, there are many others.

    These abuses by Weinstein is allowed to go on for so long because Hollywood is being protected by another institution dominated by liberals - the media. The two formed a symbiosis of powerful Jewish men looking out for one another, a group of Jews who will screw over anyone to get what they want, they think everything they do is justified because of the Holocaust and 2000 years of oppression. In addition to Hollywood and the media, this Jewish cartel also dominate our academia, Silicon Valley, Wall Street and the Democratic Party, and they are responsible for inflicting upon the western world the toxic insidious ideology of Liberalism. This Weinstein scandal involves many big names in Hollywood and the Democratic party, from Matt Damon to the Clintons to Obama, even the NYT and NBC. Liberalism is imploding, it has finally been exposed for what it really is - nothing but a narcissistic, self-righteous, hypocritical, and morally bankrupt pile of crap.

    Dog bites man, world shocked.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @Another realist
    Hollywood is like an onion, peel away one layer of hypocrisy, and you get 10 more layers of hypocrisy, all the way down to its rotten core. Little wonder it stinks like one.

    Women of Hollywood have been subjected to this kind of treatment for far too long. I'm sure many famous actresses have been forced to sleep with producers and studio chiefs before they became famous, maybe even after, to get roles. Child actors are especially vulnerable to this type of abuse, including male actors, many eventually turned to drugs, alcohol and partying to numb their pain. Corey Feldman's story in the Sunday Times of London about wide spread abuse of male child actors in Hollywood will make anyone vomit. I want all these victims to come out and name names. Weinstein can't be the only scumbag in Hollywood, there are many others.

    These abuses by Weinstein is allowed to go on for so long because Hollywood is being protected by another institution dominated by liberals - the media. The two formed a symbiosis of powerful Jewish men looking out for one another, a group of Jews who will screw over anyone to get what they want, they think everything they do is justified because of the Holocaust and 2000 years of oppression. In addition to Hollywood and the media, this Jewish cartel also dominate our academia, Silicon Valley, Wall Street and the Democratic Party, and they are responsible for inflicting upon the western world the toxic insidious ideology of Liberalism. This Weinstein scandal involves many big names in Hollywood and the Democratic party, from Matt Damon to the Clintons to Obama, even the NYT and NBC. Liberalism is imploding, it has finally been exposed for what it really is - nothing but a narcissistic, self-righteous, hypocritical, and morally bankrupt pile of crap.

    Liberalism is imploding, it has finally been exposed for what it really is – nothing but a narcissistic, self-righteous, hypocritical, and morally bankrupt pile of crap.

    Ha. I wish.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. Old fogey says:
    @kihowi
    The most interesting question is as usual not being asked.

    What does this say about women? There was no rape here. He didn't shackle anybody to a bed in a soundproof basement. These were all situations that could be walked away from at any time.

    That would mean no more chance at fame, of course, but that's exactly the trade-off that these women made. He was able to do this for such a long time because all those women at some level of consciousness bartered with their bodies.

    As with a lot of sexual politics, all the indignation is built on the assumption that women are imbeciles. That they did not understand what was up:

    a) before they met him. Were they the only people in the western world who didn't know about this aspect of Hollywood? Don't make me laugh.
    b) when they saw him. He drips sleaze. Nobody is this clueless.
    c) when he started putting the moves on them. He's obviously not a subtle man. You'd know.

    In real life, women are really good at knowing what kind of man they're dealing with.

    The entire movie industry today is “pornography lite” with women fully undressed and positioned with male actors into every aspect of sexual intercourse. To be an actress or female “actor” nowadays this is accepted as the norm. Why would not the producer expect to be able to “try them out” before casting them for such productions?

    The whole subject is ridiculous.

    Read More
    • Agree: Triumph104
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    When an actor (man or woman) auditions for a role in which nudity will be required, such as in most roles on Game of Thrones, does the director ask to see him/her naked? It seems like it would be a reasonable request.

    Simpsons quote:
    Renee: Really? You think I'm gorgeous?
    Moe: Yeah, well, the part that's showin'. Guess you could have a lotta weird scars or a fake ass or somethin'.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. schmenz says:

    I think author Scott Eyman, in an attempt to sell more copies of his book on MGM, went a bit overboard in his depiction of Louis Mayer as a lecherous old codger. True, Mayer was not a candidate for canonization but his supposed lack of morals has been widely exaggerated.

    Also true, he was hated by many in the industry but mostly for issues of greed than anything else.

    To get a more balanced view of such men I suggest looking up Kevin Brownlow’s superb documentaries about the great years of Hollywood (long, long gone, alas). In those documentaries, especially the one he did about Buster Keaton, he interviews close associates of Mayer which reveal a different man than one depicted by scandal mongers like Eyman.

    As for comparing Mayer to scum like Weinstein, it is ridiculous to even attempt to do so. Mayer was a flawed man; Weinstein is mere filth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Mayer talking about his reasons for casting 16 y/o Lana Turner:
    ''She looks like a woman with an itchy cunt.''
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. Flip says:
    @MBlanc46
    You have to be a bit delusional to find this behavior shocking. Why do people think that men fight like hell for money and power? What is it that people think women chase men with money and power for?

    As Howard Stern said, what’s the point of wealth and fame if it doesn’t get you naked chicks?

    Read More
    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    As is often the case, Howard has it right.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. I am still stunned to learn that Mat Damon can kill a story in the NY Times. I never thought that the Times was that week. Remember this was from a newspaper that covered up the Ukrainian famine in the 1930s.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  133. Flip says:
    @Anonymous
    Southrons may be White, Protestant and Anglo-Saxon, but they're not WASPs.

    It depends on how you want to define WASP. At one end, it is all NW European Protestants of any social background and at the other is old money, founding stock Northeasterners.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. Flip says:
    @AM
    "It underlines what has been said here: that many women have no problem seeing sex as another currency."

    Secular liberalism/feminism ignores this human dynamic, one of many issues making it fundamentally flawed from the outset.

    Isn’t that what marriage is all about? Women trade sex and children for resources and protection.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AM

    Isn’t that what marriage is all about? Women trade sex and children for resources and protection.
     
    It can be that, if that's what the two people wish.

    In the Catholic world, it's a sacrament where the two of you tie yourselves together to drag each other over the finish line called Heaven. The economics of marriage, as you described, are a part of it. But it can be something more, if the two individuals wish it to be.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. Pat Boyle says:
    @il gottoso
    Isn't simpler explanation just that as business becomes more high status more men are attracted by it and it becomes more competitive and cruel and women being generally less competitive and driven by status gravitate towards other fields.

    I'd assume that happened to being a musician in the 60's. Women are artistic, conscientious and like music so there were plenty of talented professional musicians like Carol Kaye. But then came rock and men fueled by dreams of becoming a rockstar flooded the business.By early 80's studio musicians were more male than they were in early 60's because talented artistic women looking for a job were crowded out by status seeking failed rock stars.

    I'd assume computer science and banking got more male when they became ways to become masters of universe.

    Reverse has happened in publishing and journalism.
    ....

    And men really don't like competing against women. Men do really enjoy see their male rivals to lose to a woman, but winning a woman feels like winning a battle against erectile dysfunction. You feel humiliated that you needed to fight in the first place.

    And that's why I think there is more vitriol against female political opponents than there would be against similar male opponents, whether it is Thatcher or Hillary. Women should know their place. Business and war should be game of men against men for the access to fertile women. Women's game is to be the first prize.

    There's the phrase about James Bond about men wanting to be him and women wanting to sleep with him. The woman that women want to be and that men want to sleep with is not a spy with a licence to kill or and who is excellent at fighting .

    Your analysis of the sexes in music is strained. I don’t know a damn thing about popular music but in serious music the pattern is clear. Everyone knows. Women simply don’t have the requisite talent. There never was a female Mozart. Indeed no woman has ever been even a minor composer. Women are vital to sing in opera but there are no operas written by a woman.

    There were famous female novelists throughout the nineteenth century but no female composers. Female composers have been as rare as female mathematicians.

    Someone will probably cite some woman who wrote a symphony sometime, but you will never have heard of her. I have listened to music written by women – various people sponsor competitions and other venues for female composers. Their works are not unpleasant but not really good enough to interest anyone except an feminism advocate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherGuessModel
    So female composers are not only rare, they also suck? Will ya throw us a bone here?

    There is film score composer Rachel Portman, ironically a frequent composer under Miramax. Some of her soundtracks are dearly loved and established as modern classics. (The Human Stain soundtrack can bring me to tears.) Would you concede there is at least one prolific, popular, and critically acclaimed female composer?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. The irony of this, um, exposure of Harvey Weinstein is that it seems to have been driven by Rowan Farrow.

    I get the impression, though I don’t know, that the NY Times pushed at the story to scoop The New Yorker. One would guess that Farrow would have hawked the story to the Times as well.

    But why did Farrow pursue the story so doggedly?

    Because he wants to lash out against his father, Woody Allen.

    But the ironic part is that, very likely in my opinion, Woody Allen is not guilty of the charge against him. I believe this for the simplest possible reason: until the time of Mia Farrow’s charges against him, Allen had zero history of the sort of child sexual abuse he was accused of. (Which is why I also discredit the idea that Trump was a serial harasser: until he ran for President, there was no significant history of accusations and settlements against him.)

    Very likely, Ronan Farrow believes what he does about his father sincerely, but he does so because he’s been successfully manipulated by his mother. Such things happen.

    The larger point is that it took the motivated pursuit by someone like Ronan Farrow to smoke out the offenders in Hollywood, but such a person in the liberal media would be hard to find; certainly the politics of it would never recommend such a pursuit. Ronan Farrow happened to possess the required set of motives, but for very personal reasons. And in fact those motives are themselves hardly beyond reproach, having been manipulated into existence by his rather crazy mother.

    Read More
    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    • Replies: @Flip
    And it seems likely that Allen is not his biological father. Farrow certainly looks like a blonde, young Frank Sinatra.
    , @Thea
    Woody Allen married his adopted. Step daughter. Clearly he had deep issues. Having a crazy mother doesn't make this easier to deal with but Ronan seems balanced considering his upbringing. You dad sleeping with your adopted sister has to be rough.


    Hollywood stood behind Polanski, why not Weinstein?
    , @Lagertha
    I think Ronan may be a crusader. However, I don't think Woody is one of his targets...I think it is "liars & phonies," industries full of hypocrites, like what Holden Caulfield objected to. Why?

    1. he was replaced with another newscaster that was openly gay in 2015; so naturally, he was going to diss MSNBC, as far as who got to break this story.

    2.It's always been a rumor that his real father is Frank Sinatra, so yeah, maybe he wants to turn the focus on Hollywood from some primal grievance perspective towards people who keep their mouths shut about sexual predators in their midst; or alternatively, he wants to excoriate gossipers and rumor mongers, extortionist - shame the of people in Hollywood who pretend to be moral. I mean, if his dad is Frank, then, so what?

    Or maybe he wants to humiliate liberals who don't actually believe in: "if you see something, say something; No means No." All the college rape epidemic nonsense seems a little silly now, when all of Hollywood allows all these creepy men (a well ensconced fratty group of frat boys) to grope, demand blow jobs, rape, masturbate, demand massages from young women and me. All, that was missing from the Harvey story, is a glass table.

    3. which leads me to my last guess: someone he cares about deeply has been a victim of Hollywood fratty-frat boys.

    , @Pat Boyle
    Why the mystery? It's like the question of the Amerindian ancestry of Elizabeth Warren. You could just get a saliva drop from her or from Farrow's mouth and do a DNA test. Sherlock Holmes in the 1880's did a lot of inductive reasoning. Today detectives get DNA traces and look at the records from surveillance cameras. When I watch the real crime TV shows I'm always surprised at how plodding and stupid the police detectives are - but it doesn't seem to matter.
    , @Sean
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNWGVpwgzz4

    Blonde 12 year old, eh?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. hyperbola says:
    @Millennial
    Wow. I didn't know the Spartans were actually crypto-WASPS.

    "...In Spartan society, women could own estates, travel freely without male escort, and even initiate divorce. These rights were far from the historical norm. Indeed, one may see many parallels between women’s rights in Ancient Sparta and those found in the modern developed world..."

    http://www.returnofkings.com/50732/womens-rights-are-a-function-of-economy-ancient-sparta

    I really come to detest such “social-science” houses of cards. If one goes back to the “original research” upon which these speculations are based, one finds that the original paper is from a faculty of law and the authors were not even capable of putting together a properly referenced bibliography. Those citations which can be deciphered seem to simply be circular repetitions of the same chants. The fact of the matter is that most such “research” relies on very few real sources of information, i.e. is best classified as speculation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Millennial
    Ancient literary sources are, comparatively speaking, rare.

    However, the extant ancient sources (incl. Aristotle, Plutarch, Polybius) that describe Spartan culture are generally in agreement. These sources are also very blunt - there's really no need to "read between the lines" (unless you believe they were falsified by medieval scribes, or were all written with defamatory intentions).

    If Spartan polyandry and gender equality must be casually dismissed as merely speculative, then so must vast swathes of recorded ancient history (for example, only two ancient authors, Livy and Polybius, documented Hannibal's invasion of Europe).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. Flip says:
    @candid_observer
    The irony of this, um, exposure of Harvey Weinstein is that it seems to have been driven by Rowan Farrow.

    I get the impression, though I don't know, that the NY Times pushed at the story to scoop The New Yorker. One would guess that Farrow would have hawked the story to the Times as well.

    But why did Farrow pursue the story so doggedly?

    Because he wants to lash out against his father, Woody Allen.

    But the ironic part is that, very likely in my opinion, Woody Allen is not guilty of the charge against him. I believe this for the simplest possible reason: until the time of Mia Farrow's charges against him, Allen had zero history of the sort of child sexual abuse he was accused of. (Which is why I also discredit the idea that Trump was a serial harasser: until he ran for President, there was no significant history of accusations and settlements against him.)

    Very likely, Ronan Farrow believes what he does about his father sincerely, but he does so because he's been successfully manipulated by his mother. Such things happen.

    The larger point is that it took the motivated pursuit by someone like Ronan Farrow to smoke out the offenders in Hollywood, but such a person in the liberal media would be hard to find; certainly the politics of it would never recommend such a pursuit. Ronan Farrow happened to possess the required set of motives, but for very personal reasons. And in fact those motives are themselves hardly beyond reproach, having been manipulated into existence by his rather crazy mother.

    And it seems likely that Allen is not his biological father. Farrow certainly looks like a blonde, young Frank Sinatra.

    Read More
    • Replies: @candid_observer
    Ronan also looks exactly like a male, young Mia Farrow.

    I wonder if Ronan ever will ask for a DNA ancestry test -- he could settle the issue pretty clearly since he's either half Ashkenazi or half Sicilian.

    His rather crazy mother has made a big deal over the possibility that Ronan is Sinatra's child.

    I wonder if Ronan will ever have the courage to find out whether she's telling the truth.

    It would cost him, what, a few hundred bucks?

    , @Ian M.
    I had never looked up a picture of Ronan Farrow until I looked him up just now on wikipedia. In that picture anyway, his lips look Jewish.
    , @AnotherGuessModel
    Ok, but keep in mind he lightens his hair, often wears icy blue contact lenses, and has refined at least his nose with plastic surgery.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. Lagertha says:
    @Kylie
    But Arthur Miller was Jewish and obviously had a high opinion of WASP women, as evidenced by his marriage to Hollywood's most famous WASP intellectual, Marilyn Monroe.

    Gentlemen Prefer Blondes ;)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
    Gentlemen Prefer Blondes?

    Lucy Lawless, Charlotte Rampling, Jacqueline Bissett, Polly Walker, Carol Alt, Emmylou Harris, Joanna Cassidy, Emily DiDonato, Lynda Carter, McKenna Berkley.

    A lot of good looking women are not blonde. British horror movies with the deranged Anglo-Norman aristocrat and the raven-haired, light-eyed damsel in distress were always fun.

    Harvey Weinstein married a chiclet-toothed, fivehead WASP woman named Chilton and had three kids with her. That blonde Chilton New England WASP married Harvey for his money. Strangely enough, that blonde Chilton WASP lady divorced Weinstein and married an Italian guy who looks very nice in his picture in the Daily Mail. Chilton's new husband looks like a good Italian bloke who ain't poking where he shouldn't and behaves himself even when nobody is looking. That Chilton WASP lady must like the Mediterranean.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @education realist
    I'm not sure about employment in the movie industry overall, but on screen actresses in the 1930s eclipsed anything for the following 30 years, possibly more. Women held more of the top box office positions that decade than any other. The 70s is in second place, but it's distant. (not sure about box office for last decade or so).

    Also not sure what all this talk about Paltrow being Jewish. Her father was Jewish, but she wasn't really raised that way, and there's been talk lately about her converting--which wouldn't be necessary if she already was. Not that it matters; the obsession with things Jewish among the commenters here has always been perplexing.

    Winona Ryder's career didn't go places because she's a bit wispy and has very little movie star in her. She was in The Crucible, Alien Resurrection, Celebrity (Woody Allen pic) and Girl, Interrupted. All three pics with big names, big releases. She was very much the least interesting thing in those films, and her career fell off a cliff from her lack of star power.

    More interesting to me is how many of the women who have come forward this far come from acting families: Paltrow, Sorvino, Jolie, Arquette. Others were European. The third category are those who left acting in part because of that experience. Maybe the women who came from acting families weren't able to be shut down.

    BTW, Gretchen Mol just came forward and angrily denied all the rumors that she got her career by giving him sexual favors. Possible she's lying, but also possible that what everyone "knows" isn't true.

    the obsession with things Jewish among the commenters here has always been perplexing.

    A group that constitutes 2% to 3% of the U.S. population yet dominates this country’s (and, by extension, the world’s) politics, foreign policy, media, legal establishment, academia and investment banking.

    A group whose leadership has pushed and continues to push for the transformation of formerly white, Christian countries into multi-racial, multi-religious societies while simultaneously fighting tooth and nail for their own ethno-state.

    Yes, quite perplexing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    A group that constitutes 2% to 3% of the U.S. population yet dominates this country’s (and, by extension, the world’s) politics, foreign policy, media, legal establishment, academia and investment banking.

    American Jews do not 'dominate' any of these venues except in the space between your ears. They're most prominent in the sales-and-trading wing of the securities business. If you run down a list of the chief executives of the country's dozen or so most consequential financial firms, the only Jewish name you see is Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs.

    Sorry Hy Goldberg gave you a rotten performance review. You don't have to obsess about it for 20 years.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Hefner was given the rare "Free Speech Torch of Liberty" award by the ADL.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. Pat Boyle says:
    @neprof
    From what you describe, Paltrow would have been a perfect target for Weinstein. For him sex is secondary for his need to push ever further into the verboten. For him it's more about projection of power and who's the top dog in Hollywood.

    A Spielberg protege? Gotta make my mark on that.

    I think this analysis is pretty close to the mark. Handsome Harvey obviously wasn’t doing it just for straight up normal sex. Yes, he is remarkably ugly (“The face that sunk a thousand ships”) but even so had he wished it instead of having his assistant set up these elaborate scenarios so he could lure women into his rooms where he would appear in a loosely fitting bathrobe. He could have just had his assistant call up some service and have them send over a professional girl. But Harvey didn’t want a normal beautiful young prostitute who was well adjusted to being a whore. He wanted to treat a non-prostitute like a whore and make them like it.

    So Harvey is in some way a practitioner of BDSM sex. Most BDSM dominant men like to beat women. Many also enjoy humiliating them by having them do things most girls wouldn’t normally do. Harvey apparently liked to initiate young girls into some of the darker areas of human sexuality.

    So he was a monster, right?

    Well the fact that never seems to get mentioned in all the press accounts is that the majority of these girls must have enjoyed being humiliated. He did his little act for decades. There were probably hundreds of girls at one time or another. In the Bay Area you can’t spin a dead cat without hitting a feminist. I imagine it’s the same in Hollywood. If so, he must have encountered not just a lot of girls who were offended by his creepy antics but many who enjoyed what he made them do.

    People like to ignore the fact that as far as we know BDSM is more common than homosexuality. About two or three percent of men and women are gay but probably at least five percent enjoy some BDSM role. There are lots of submissive women out there. And if you don’t beat and humiliate them they will look for some man who will.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thea
    Quite a few of these actresses were essentially prostitutes. Some may have fooled themselves into believing it was for a higher purpose ( their art.)

    But they have to be pretty delusional( many are, see Rose & Ashley) to think this exchange of sex for a role was other than the oldest profession. Some were flattered by a powerful man's attention I'm sure but most realized it was just working on your back.

    , @AM

    So he was a monster, right?
     
    Yes. Just because women would follow him into Hell does not remove the truth of the ugliness that is his soul. That lots of women would go there with him only makes the situation that more sadder.
    , @StillCARealist
    " In the Bay Area you can’t spin a dead cat without hitting a feminist"

    quote of the day.

    But remember, there are scores of women who will do anything to get on TV (or a movie). Doesn't mean they liked it; probably they endured it and then ran home to a bottle of pills or alcohol. They can still be feminists during the day with their peeps and then do the favors on the sly to enhance what they imagine could be a glamorous career. These women are manipulable.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @Flip
    And it seems likely that Allen is not his biological father. Farrow certainly looks like a blonde, young Frank Sinatra.

    Ronan also looks exactly like a male, young Mia Farrow.

    I wonder if Ronan ever will ask for a DNA ancestry test — he could settle the issue pretty clearly since he’s either half Ashkenazi or half Sicilian.

    His rather crazy mother has made a big deal over the possibility that Ronan is Sinatra’s child.

    I wonder if Ronan will ever have the courage to find out whether she’s telling the truth.

    It would cost him, what, a few hundred bucks?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. Thea says:
    @candid_observer
    The irony of this, um, exposure of Harvey Weinstein is that it seems to have been driven by Rowan Farrow.

    I get the impression, though I don't know, that the NY Times pushed at the story to scoop The New Yorker. One would guess that Farrow would have hawked the story to the Times as well.

    But why did Farrow pursue the story so doggedly?

    Because he wants to lash out against his father, Woody Allen.

    But the ironic part is that, very likely in my opinion, Woody Allen is not guilty of the charge against him. I believe this for the simplest possible reason: until the time of Mia Farrow's charges against him, Allen had zero history of the sort of child sexual abuse he was accused of. (Which is why I also discredit the idea that Trump was a serial harasser: until he ran for President, there was no significant history of accusations and settlements against him.)

    Very likely, Ronan Farrow believes what he does about his father sincerely, but he does so because he's been successfully manipulated by his mother. Such things happen.

    The larger point is that it took the motivated pursuit by someone like Ronan Farrow to smoke out the offenders in Hollywood, but such a person in the liberal media would be hard to find; certainly the politics of it would never recommend such a pursuit. Ronan Farrow happened to possess the required set of motives, but for very personal reasons. And in fact those motives are themselves hardly beyond reproach, having been manipulated into existence by his rather crazy mother.

    Woody Allen married his adopted. Step daughter. Clearly he had deep issues. Having a crazy mother doesn’t make this easier to deal with but Ronan seems balanced considering his upbringing. You dad sleeping with your adopted sister has to be rough.

    Hollywood stood behind Polanski, why not Weinstein?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @whorefinder
    Not really palatable, since Weinstein at the time would have been trepidatious at a Paltrow Sr/Spielberg double team. You don't piss off a better-known producer and the most profitable, beloved, and artistic-Americanna director since John Ford simply for a shot at some skank tail.

    All makes me think either Gwyneth made it up, is deluded enough to believe her own hysterical need to be a victim, or such behavior was par for the course amongst producers/directors, which is why daddy Paltrow/Spielberg didn't consider this an affront.

    deluded enough to believe her own hysterical need to be a victim

    bingo

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. Lagertha says:
    @candid_observer
    The irony of this, um, exposure of Harvey Weinstein is that it seems to have been driven by Rowan Farrow.

    I get the impression, though I don't know, that the NY Times pushed at the story to scoop The New Yorker. One would guess that Farrow would have hawked the story to the Times as well.

    But why did Farrow pursue the story so doggedly?

    Because he wants to lash out against his father, Woody Allen.

    But the ironic part is that, very likely in my opinion, Woody Allen is not guilty of the charge against him. I believe this for the simplest possible reason: until the time of Mia Farrow's charges against him, Allen had zero history of the sort of child sexual abuse he was accused of. (Which is why I also discredit the idea that Trump was a serial harasser: until he ran for President, there was no significant history of accusations and settlements against him.)

    Very likely, Ronan Farrow believes what he does about his father sincerely, but he does so because he's been successfully manipulated by his mother. Such things happen.

    The larger point is that it took the motivated pursuit by someone like Ronan Farrow to smoke out the offenders in Hollywood, but such a person in the liberal media would be hard to find; certainly the politics of it would never recommend such a pursuit. Ronan Farrow happened to possess the required set of motives, but for very personal reasons. And in fact those motives are themselves hardly beyond reproach, having been manipulated into existence by his rather crazy mother.

    I think Ronan may be a crusader. However, I don’t think Woody is one of his targets…I think it is “liars & phonies,” industries full of hypocrites, like what Holden Caulfield objected to. Why?

    1. he was replaced with another newscaster that was openly gay in 2015; so naturally, he was going to diss MSNBC, as far as who got to break this story.

    2.It’s always been a rumor that his real father is Frank Sinatra, so yeah, maybe he wants to turn the focus on Hollywood from some primal grievance perspective towards people who keep their mouths shut about sexual predators in their midst; or alternatively, he wants to excoriate gossipers and rumor mongers, extortionist – shame the of people in Hollywood who pretend to be moral. I mean, if his dad is Frank, then, so what?

    Or maybe he wants to humiliate liberals who don’t actually believe in: “if you see something, say something; No means No.” All the college rape epidemic nonsense seems a little silly now, when all of Hollywood allows all these creepy men (a well ensconced fratty group of frat boys) to grope, demand blow jobs, rape, masturbate, demand massages from young women and me. All, that was missing from the Harvey story, is a glass table.

    3. which leads me to my last guess: someone he cares about deeply has been a victim of Hollywood fratty-frat boys.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lagertha
    haha, meant to write "from young women and men. #2, towards the end!
    , @Lagertha
    Also, wanted to add: Ronan is untouchable. No one can go after him to discredit him....his very existence is so complex; a full combination of Hollywood, NYC, media. And, all the gossip, sexual innuendo/intrigue, the fear of retribution, the silence of people who were complicit with the predators, the back-stabbing, threats and subjugation of weaker people within these vaunted places, just got ripped open like Pandora's Box.

    Harvey may not be the last to fall...I mean, Terry Crews, has accused a Hollywood exec of sexual harassment. More men are going to come forward, I suspect. It would be interesting if BLM starts looking into POC actors having had a tougher time getting roles...and, perhaps being expected to "do stuff." But, now I am being a Devil's Advocate! I just thought it would be so great if this whole debacle gets more and more out of control! The Clintons are probably freaking out - perhaps they will finally shut up and go away. Beer pong games are gonna be great at frat parties this month, bro!

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. Pat Boyle says:
    @Seth Largo
    In Day of the Locust, written in the 1930s by one Nathan Wallerstein (aka Nathanael West), the blonde goy starlet Faye Greener is portrayed as a fame-obsessed whore who wreaks havoc in men's lives with her charms. She says she can only love a man who has money or who can make her famous. Another Ellis Islander's low view of WASP women.

    When I was a sophomore at George Mason I had nothing to read one day. So I went to the school librarian and asked for a recommendation. He thought for a day or two and then recommended Day of the Locust.

    Are there any librarians anymore?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thea
    Well one wears in the news recently having a spat with Melania...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. Thea says:
    @education realist
    I'm not sure about employment in the movie industry overall, but on screen actresses in the 1930s eclipsed anything for the following 30 years, possibly more. Women held more of the top box office positions that decade than any other. The 70s is in second place, but it's distant. (not sure about box office for last decade or so).

    Also not sure what all this talk about Paltrow being Jewish. Her father was Jewish, but she wasn't really raised that way, and there's been talk lately about her converting--which wouldn't be necessary if she already was. Not that it matters; the obsession with things Jewish among the commenters here has always been perplexing.

    Winona Ryder's career didn't go places because she's a bit wispy and has very little movie star in her. She was in The Crucible, Alien Resurrection, Celebrity (Woody Allen pic) and Girl, Interrupted. All three pics with big names, big releases. She was very much the least interesting thing in those films, and her career fell off a cliff from her lack of star power.

    More interesting to me is how many of the women who have come forward this far come from acting families: Paltrow, Sorvino, Jolie, Arquette. Others were European. The third category are those who left acting in part because of that experience. Maybe the women who came from acting families weren't able to be shut down.

    BTW, Gretchen Mol just came forward and angrily denied all the rumors that she got her career by giving him sexual favors. Possible she's lying, but also possible that what everyone "knows" isn't true.

    I used to read Hollywood gossip sites and Gretchen Moll has long been singled out as having slept her way to top( as opposed to all other actresses.) no clue why she was singled out.

    Those same sites have long complained that the only reason starlets wear ugly Marchessa dresses was to kiss up to Harvey as his wife is the designer there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherGuessModel
    no clue why she was singled out.

    Because in the 90's she starred in a couple of Miramax productions and got lots of premature media hype about being the next Movie Star. The overhype led to persistent and ugly rumors that she did depraved sexual acts in exchange for movie roles and media promotion.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. Another explanation, is that in its infancy cinema wasn’t taken seriously by the best men.

    Later, when it became a viable route to social status and wealth, more competitive men muscled into the scene displacing women.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  150. Thea says:
    @Pat Boyle
    When I was a sophomore at George Mason I had nothing to read one day. So I went to the school librarian and asked for a recommendation. He thought for a day or two and then recommended Day of the Locust.

    Are there any librarians anymore?

    Well one wears in the news recently having a spat with Melania…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. Lagertha says:
    @Lagertha
    I think Ronan may be a crusader. However, I don't think Woody is one of his targets...I think it is "liars & phonies," industries full of hypocrites, like what Holden Caulfield objected to. Why?

    1. he was replaced with another newscaster that was openly gay in 2015; so naturally, he was going to diss MSNBC, as far as who got to break this story.

    2.It's always been a rumor that his real father is Frank Sinatra, so yeah, maybe he wants to turn the focus on Hollywood from some primal grievance perspective towards people who keep their mouths shut about sexual predators in their midst; or alternatively, he wants to excoriate gossipers and rumor mongers, extortionist - shame the of people in Hollywood who pretend to be moral. I mean, if his dad is Frank, then, so what?

    Or maybe he wants to humiliate liberals who don't actually believe in: "if you see something, say something; No means No." All the college rape epidemic nonsense seems a little silly now, when all of Hollywood allows all these creepy men (a well ensconced fratty group of frat boys) to grope, demand blow jobs, rape, masturbate, demand massages from young women and me. All, that was missing from the Harvey story, is a glass table.

    3. which leads me to my last guess: someone he cares about deeply has been a victim of Hollywood fratty-frat boys.

    haha, meant to write “from young women and men. #2, towards the end!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. Pat Boyle says:
    @candid_observer
    The irony of this, um, exposure of Harvey Weinstein is that it seems to have been driven by Rowan Farrow.

    I get the impression, though I don't know, that the NY Times pushed at the story to scoop The New Yorker. One would guess that Farrow would have hawked the story to the Times as well.

    But why did Farrow pursue the story so doggedly?

    Because he wants to lash out against his father, Woody Allen.

    But the ironic part is that, very likely in my opinion, Woody Allen is not guilty of the charge against him. I believe this for the simplest possible reason: until the time of Mia Farrow's charges against him, Allen had zero history of the sort of child sexual abuse he was accused of. (Which is why I also discredit the idea that Trump was a serial harasser: until he ran for President, there was no significant history of accusations and settlements against him.)

    Very likely, Ronan Farrow believes what he does about his father sincerely, but he does so because he's been successfully manipulated by his mother. Such things happen.

    The larger point is that it took the motivated pursuit by someone like Ronan Farrow to smoke out the offenders in Hollywood, but such a person in the liberal media would be hard to find; certainly the politics of it would never recommend such a pursuit. Ronan Farrow happened to possess the required set of motives, but for very personal reasons. And in fact those motives are themselves hardly beyond reproach, having been manipulated into existence by his rather crazy mother.

    Why the mystery? It’s like the question of the Amerindian ancestry of Elizabeth Warren. You could just get a saliva drop from her or from Farrow’s mouth and do a DNA test. Sherlock Holmes in the 1880′s did a lot of inductive reasoning. Today detectives get DNA traces and look at the records from surveillance cameras. When I watch the real crime TV shows I’m always surprised at how plodding and stupid the police detectives are – but it doesn’t seem to matter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    When I watch the real crime TV shows I’m always surprised at how plodding and stupid the police detectives are – but it doesn’t seem to matter.

    No, you think of police detectives as plodding and stupid to begin with. It has nothing to do with the content of the programs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @StillCARealist
    he gave an interesting link to the founding of NOW. If you keep reading you'll see plenty of Jewish women highlighted. It started with Betty Friedan for goodness' sake.

    It's surprising how many of those old bats are still alive. Have any of them repented, I wonder?

    Pro-woman Phyllis Schlafly, for one, was a WASP.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @Seriously
    What we really need is people with influence like Mr. Weinstein, but who also prefer non-cisgender, non-white women. How can a WOC get ahead in the entertainment industry when privileged white males refuse to hit on them.
    The Oscars will remain white until moguls like Mr. Weinstein curb their privilege and grope the marginalized members of our society.

    Now you’re thinking intersectionally.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. Sean says:
    @kihowi
    The most interesting question is as usual not being asked.

    What does this say about women? There was no rape here. He didn't shackle anybody to a bed in a soundproof basement. These were all situations that could be walked away from at any time.

    That would mean no more chance at fame, of course, but that's exactly the trade-off that these women made. He was able to do this for such a long time because all those women at some level of consciousness bartered with their bodies.

    As with a lot of sexual politics, all the indignation is built on the assumption that women are imbeciles. That they did not understand what was up:

    a) before they met him. Were they the only people in the western world who didn't know about this aspect of Hollywood? Don't make me laugh.
    b) when they saw him. He drips sleaze. Nobody is this clueless.
    c) when he started putting the moves on them. He's obviously not a subtle man. You'd know.

    In real life, women are really good at knowing what kind of man they're dealing with.

    There was no rape here.

    Every rapist says that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @kihowi
    How dare you. I haven't raped anybody in years.
    , @Neil Templeton
    Of course. There is no institutional oppression in digital space.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. Thea says:
    @Pat Boyle
    I think this analysis is pretty close to the mark. Handsome Harvey obviously wasn't doing it just for straight up normal sex. Yes, he is remarkably ugly ("The face that sunk a thousand ships") but even so had he wished it instead of having his assistant set up these elaborate scenarios so he could lure women into his rooms where he would appear in a loosely fitting bathrobe. He could have just had his assistant call up some service and have them send over a professional girl. But Harvey didn't want a normal beautiful young prostitute who was well adjusted to being a whore. He wanted to treat a non-prostitute like a whore and make them like it.

    So Harvey is in some way a practitioner of BDSM sex. Most BDSM dominant men like to beat women. Many also enjoy humiliating them by having them do things most girls wouldn't normally do. Harvey apparently liked to initiate young girls into some of the darker areas of human sexuality.

    So he was a monster, right?

    Well the fact that never seems to get mentioned in all the press accounts is that the majority of these girls must have enjoyed being humiliated. He did his little act for decades. There were probably hundreds of girls at one time or another. In the Bay Area you can't spin a dead cat without hitting a feminist. I imagine it's the same in Hollywood. If so, he must have encountered not just a lot of girls who were offended by his creepy antics but many who enjoyed what he made them do.

    People like to ignore the fact that as far as we know BDSM is more common than homosexuality. About two or three percent of men and women are gay but probably at least five percent enjoy some BDSM role. There are lots of submissive women out there. And if you don't beat and humiliate them they will look for some man who will.

    Quite a few of these actresses were essentially prostitutes. Some may have fooled themselves into believing it was for a higher purpose ( their art.)

    But they have to be pretty delusional( many are, see Rose & Ashley) to think this exchange of sex for a role was other than the oldest profession. Some were flattered by a powerful man’s attention I’m sure but most realized it was just working on your back.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pat Boyle
    I'm sure you realize that in classical times (Greece and Rome) actors and actresses were indeed considered a form of prostitute. Sulla for example consorted with an male actor and everyone presumed that they were homosexual lovers. Sulla was a great man and a formidable political figure but his reputation was forever stained by his friendship with an actor.

    It was as if a prominent politician today were to consort with George Clooney or Ben Affleck.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. Sean says:
    @Abe

    In classical Rome, actors had essentially the same social standing as prostitutes.
     
    Right. When Byzantine Emperor Justinian married theater actress Theodora it was considered hugely scandalous, and almost certainly not without reason.

    As the actress said to the Bishop.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. Lagertha says:
    @Lagertha
    I think Ronan may be a crusader. However, I don't think Woody is one of his targets...I think it is "liars & phonies," industries full of hypocrites, like what Holden Caulfield objected to. Why?

    1. he was replaced with another newscaster that was openly gay in 2015; so naturally, he was going to diss MSNBC, as far as who got to break this story.

    2.It's always been a rumor that his real father is Frank Sinatra, so yeah, maybe he wants to turn the focus on Hollywood from some primal grievance perspective towards people who keep their mouths shut about sexual predators in their midst; or alternatively, he wants to excoriate gossipers and rumor mongers, extortionist - shame the of people in Hollywood who pretend to be moral. I mean, if his dad is Frank, then, so what?

    Or maybe he wants to humiliate liberals who don't actually believe in: "if you see something, say something; No means No." All the college rape epidemic nonsense seems a little silly now, when all of Hollywood allows all these creepy men (a well ensconced fratty group of frat boys) to grope, demand blow jobs, rape, masturbate, demand massages from young women and me. All, that was missing from the Harvey story, is a glass table.

    3. which leads me to my last guess: someone he cares about deeply has been a victim of Hollywood fratty-frat boys.

    Also, wanted to add: Ronan is untouchable. No one can go after him to discredit him….his very existence is so complex; a full combination of Hollywood, NYC, media. And, all the gossip, sexual innuendo/intrigue, the fear of retribution, the silence of people who were complicit with the predators, the back-stabbing, threats and subjugation of weaker people within these vaunted places, just got ripped open like Pandora’s Box.

    Harvey may not be the last to fall…I mean, Terry Crews, has accused a Hollywood exec of sexual harassment. More men are going to come forward, I suspect. It would be interesting if BLM starts looking into POC actors having had a tougher time getting roles…and, perhaps being expected to “do stuff.” But, now I am being a Devil’s Advocate! I just thought it would be so great if this whole debacle gets more and more out of control! The Clintons are probably freaking out – perhaps they will finally shut up and go away. Beer pong games are gonna be great at frat parties this month, bro!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. Ian M. says:
    @advancedatheist
    Funny how the Protestants became "atheistic" towards the saints that the Catholics worshiped, and yet nothing bad happened to them for their unbelief. Protestants could believe that these biblical and early Christian figures existed historically, led exemplary lives and deserved a spot in heaven; but they denied that these long-dead co-religionists had supernatural powers that mortal humans could access through prayer.

    Later figures in Western thought just carried this discounting of unseeable personalities to its logical conclusion.

    Later figures in Western thought just carried this discounting of unseeable personalities to its logical conclusion.

    I think a better handle for you might be ‘unthinkingatheist’. The ‘one god further’ objection and its variants has to be one of the most brain-dead and nonsensical objections to theism out there. Rather than being logical, it’s just a blatant non-sequitor:

    http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/04/one-god-further-objection.html

    It’s a manifestation of our chattering, canting age that a great many people evidently think this sort of shallow objection is some kind of devastating blow to theism rather than the showcasing of the intellectual destitution and philistinism of pop atheism it is. It would be similar to someone saying, “Earlier astronomers reduced the number of cycles needed to describe the Earth’s orbit (primary cycle plus epicycles). We just carry this to its logical conclusion and say that there is no cycle (orbit) at all!”

    By the way, Protestants believe that the saints exist. They just don’t pray to them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Which saints? The Toothfairy, Bigfoot, and Loch Ness kind or the actual historical persons? For millennia, the Church did not make the distinction.,
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. Sean says:
    @candid_observer
    The irony of this, um, exposure of Harvey Weinstein is that it seems to have been driven by Rowan Farrow.

    I get the impression, though I don't know, that the NY Times pushed at the story to scoop The New Yorker. One would guess that Farrow would have hawked the story to the Times as well.

    But why did Farrow pursue the story so doggedly?

    Because he wants to lash out against his father, Woody Allen.

    But the ironic part is that, very likely in my opinion, Woody Allen is not guilty of the charge against him. I believe this for the simplest possible reason: until the time of Mia Farrow's charges against him, Allen had zero history of the sort of child sexual abuse he was accused of. (Which is why I also discredit the idea that Trump was a serial harasser: until he ran for President, there was no significant history of accusations and settlements against him.)

    Very likely, Ronan Farrow believes what he does about his father sincerely, but he does so because he's been successfully manipulated by his mother. Such things happen.

    The larger point is that it took the motivated pursuit by someone like Ronan Farrow to smoke out the offenders in Hollywood, but such a person in the liberal media would be hard to find; certainly the politics of it would never recommend such a pursuit. Ronan Farrow happened to possess the required set of motives, but for very personal reasons. And in fact those motives are themselves hardly beyond reproach, having been manipulated into existence by his rather crazy mother.

    Blonde 12 year old, eh?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @Rosamond Vincy
    You'd think the failure of a marriage would be drastic enough to render Gwyneth a little less up herself, but apparently not. There have been reports by former classmates that Gynnie was a MeanGirl, so much of what you've posted rings true. She certainly exhibits all the classic signs of narcissism, while Winona (also blonde naturally, although most of her roles have been been brunette), has admitted that she was a short-haired tomboy who was presumed gay, pretty much ostracized at school, and after the success of Beetlejuice (which she hoped would finally earn her some approval from her peers), got bullied even more (as in punched and thrown against her locker, not just called nasty names).

    What makes me suspect Weinstein did try something--and despite Gwyneth's claims, had some success--is the fact that she got Shakespeare in Love and Winona didn't. Winona is simply the better actress. I've never seen her give a bad performance, and I've never seen Gwyneth give a fine one, except for Great Expectations, where she had to play a shallow, class-conscious bitch. The best Paltrow can manage is adequate. Try to imagine Shakespeare in Love if Gabriella Wilde or Amanda Seyfried had been the right age to play Lady Viola. The loan shark shakedowns and backstage rivalries were hilariously true, but Gwyneth dragged down the rest of the movie. I don't know how well Ryder does accents, but it can't be any worse than Paltrow's generic, one-size-fits-all "British" accent, which she uses for all Brit pix, regardless of the character's class, region, or time period. Her Emma isn't a patch on Kate Beckinsale's.

    It's unlikely that Daddy Paltrow bought her those film roles or the Oscars, because Asia Argento and Mira Sorvino weren't protected by family connections (or in Sorvino's case, by her own Oscar). After her success in Mighty Aphrodite and Edith Wharton miniseries The Buccaneers, Sorvino was relegated to one small or indy production after another. She kept on working, so her talent was valued, but she was blocked from the high-profile, high-budget projects. So why was a mediocre actress like Gwynnie shoved in the public's face while real talents like Winona and Mira were allowed to languish? What else could it be, but that Weinstein did his casting based on (forgive the crudeness) what he was allowed to shove?

    Winona is simply the better actress. I’ve never seen her give a bad performance

    I thought she was awful in Stranger Things, but then I thought the whole series was awful. I don’t understand its popularity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. AM says:
    @advancedatheist
    Funny how the Protestants became "atheistic" towards the saints that the Catholics worshiped, and yet nothing bad happened to them for their unbelief. Protestants could believe that these biblical and early Christian figures existed historically, led exemplary lives and deserved a spot in heaven; but they denied that these long-dead co-religionists had supernatural powers that mortal humans could access through prayer.

    Later figures in Western thought just carried this discounting of unseeable personalities to its logical conclusion.

    but they denied that these long-dead co-religionists had supernatural powers that mortal humans could access through prayer.

    Will any atheist ever get Catholicism right? sigh

    You pray to saints to have them to pray for you. They’re more like advocates on your behalf. Think of them as Heavenly specialist lawyers who work pro bono and are good examples all at the same time. They won’t take up your cause if it’s unworthy, and even then it only amplifies your petition. God/Christ/Holy Spirit actually fulfills the petition, but only if that would serve His purposes either for Creation or your life. (So no, not a mindless vending machine or Santa Claus. I imagine most “make me rich” prayers are quite rightly responded to as “No, and for your own good”)

    If the saints had supernatural powers, that would be idolatry and an extremely bad thing. Not even Mary has extraordinary powers – the best you can get is to ask her to pray for you too.

    Basically, the original Protestants had to lie about what Catholicism taught in order to gain any traction whatsoever. I’ve had long chats with Lutherans and Presbyterians online about several points of supposed disagreement, even showing them catechism and their answer, if they were was honest was “Oh, I didn’t know that”. There was no disagreement, just as in this case on the point of idolatry.

    (PS – You don’t have to pray to saints or rosaries to be a Catholic – just participate in Mass which about Christ and the Gospels. Catholics have you covered if the whole saint concept is too confusing and would lead to idolatry.)

    Later figures in Western thought just carried this discounting of unseeable personalities to its logical conclusion.

    Later figures in Western thought took them, like yourself to the logical conclusion of denying God, which is why Catholics fought the 30 Year’s War. They understood that any attempts to lie about smaller truths would lead to denying the ultimate truth. They just 500 years ahead of the curve.

    That said, it’s silly to blame Protestantism for our current woes. There’s lots of modern Catholics->atheists without that intermediate step. Most of the descendants of Protestants were only carrying out what they knew. Once the spirit of rebellion and lies are in the water, so to speak, there’s no magic in Catholicism that would stop it.

    Honestly, I have no idea, given the high quality of some of your other writings, what’s left in at least dropping your hostility to Christianity. “Advanced” atheist is a major factor causes the degeneracy around you. People behave better when they understand their behavior matters.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. @Lagertha
    Gentlemen Prefer Blondes ;)

    Gentlemen Prefer Blondes?

    Lucy Lawless, Charlotte Rampling, Jacqueline Bissett, Polly Walker, Carol Alt, Emmylou Harris, Joanna Cassidy, Emily DiDonato, Lynda Carter, McKenna Berkley.

    A lot of good looking women are not blonde. British horror movies with the deranged Anglo-Norman aristocrat and the raven-haired, light-eyed damsel in distress were always fun.

    Harvey Weinstein married a chiclet-toothed, fivehead WASP woman named Chilton and had three kids with her. That blonde Chilton New England WASP married Harvey for his money. Strangely enough, that blonde Chilton WASP lady divorced Weinstein and married an Italian guy who looks very nice in his picture in the Daily Mail. Chilton’s new husband looks like a good Italian bloke who ain’t poking where he shouldn’t and behaves himself even when nobody is looking. That Chilton WASP lady must like the Mediterranean.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherGuessModel
    "Blonde" is really a shorthand for northern European women's fine features and complexion. There are many beautiful women who don't fit that particular beauty standard, but all the women you name do.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. Ian M. says:
    @Flip
    And it seems likely that Allen is not his biological father. Farrow certainly looks like a blonde, young Frank Sinatra.

    I had never looked up a picture of Ronan Farrow until I looked him up just now on wikipedia. In that picture anyway, his lips look Jewish.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. AM says:
    @Flip
    Isn't that what marriage is all about? Women trade sex and children for resources and protection.

    Isn’t that what marriage is all about? Women trade sex and children for resources and protection.

    It can be that, if that’s what the two people wish.

    In the Catholic world, it’s a sacrament where the two of you tie yourselves together to drag each other over the finish line called Heaven. The economics of marriage, as you described, are a part of it. But it can be something more, if the two individuals wish it to be.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. Bill says:
    @advancedatheist

    Feminism is a WASP thing.
     
    Well, yeah, despite what some historically ignorant Alt Right people claim. You can't get any whiter than the first feminist coming out of the Enlightenment, the Englishwoman Mary Wollstonecraft.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Mary_Wollstonecraft_by_John_Opie_%28c._1797%29.jpg

    Always so pretty and feminine.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. Lagertha says:
    @Thea
    The best thing that could come this is Hollywood losing its cultural power. I'm afraid that instead we'll get some sort of lesson about abuse of power & feminism.

    No. It is unforgivable that so many women in Hollywood/NYC allowed this to go on. They’re like the German villagers who knew about the Holocaust, but said nothing – ok, I admit, that’s a bit extreme. But, as a woman, I am totally outraged that all these privileged women never spoke up years ago. It is so outrageous that they just kept their mouths shut – how many innocent teens/ YA have been molested as a result? It’s so blechhh!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. @Old fogey
    The entire movie industry today is "pornography lite" with women fully undressed and positioned with male actors into every aspect of sexual intercourse. To be an actress or female "actor" nowadays this is accepted as the norm. Why would not the producer expect to be able to "try them out" before casting them for such productions?

    The whole subject is ridiculous.

    When an actor (man or woman) auditions for a role in which nudity will be required, such as in most roles on Game of Thrones, does the director ask to see him/her naked? It seems like it would be a reasonable request.

    Simpsons quote:
    Renee: Really? You think I’m gorgeous?
    Moe: Yeah, well, the part that’s showin’. Guess you could have a lotta weird scars or a fake ass or somethin’.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. Sean says:
    @Anon
    Hefner dies and Harvey falls. What a coincidence.

    http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2017/10/harvey-weinstein-and-end-of-clinton-era.html

    http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2017/10/lessons-from-weinstein-debacle.html

    Hefner was given the rare “Free Speech Torch of Liberty” award by the ADL.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. Bill says:
    @Triumph104
    What you are proposing is called extortion. David Letterman was threatened with extortion and later admitted he had sex with several of his employees. The man who threatened him was sentenced to six months in Riker's Island.

    In California and several other states it is illegal to record a conversation without the consent of all parties. Among other things, Los Angeles private investigator Anthony Pellicano was sent to prison for wiretapping Sylvester Stallone and Keith Carradine. He also extorted Ron Buckle, a supermarket billionaire. Michael Ovitz, the talent agent, had hired Pellicano to investigate Buckle so Pellicano turned around and told Buckle he wouldn't do the investigation if Buckle paid $100k to $250k.

    What you are proposing is called extortion.

    Sure, but if it is done through lawyers and on the behalf of a victim, it is called and out-of-court settlement and is perfectly legal.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. whorefinder says: • Website
    @Tracy

    Women have a greater capacity than men at self-delusion, hysteria, and group-think, as most people have found throughout the centuries. It is notable that the accusers in the Salem Witch Trials were all young girls.
     
    While I agree with your first sentence (speaking generally), to the second I have to say that it was a male judge and male jurors who convicted and sentenced the accused. As an aside, I saw an interesting documentary that made a good case for the idea that all that Salem business was due to ergot poisoning. I think this is the documentary I saw: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4BsOvkUjmc

    While I agree with your first sentence (speaking generally), to the second I have to say that it was a male judge and male jurors who convicted and sentenced the accused.

    A crying, hysterical female will naturally be believed by the vast majority of men who don’t know her—the White Knight instinct kicks in (watch for this at bars and clubs if a woman starts screaming and crying or yelling at some guy—all of a sudden a bunch of non-bouncer guys will try to protect her and attack the guy, despite not knowing what really just happened)

    One of the interesting quirks of legal history is that when juries were all male, rape convictions—and harsh punishments—were routine when the alleged victim testified, but when women started being put on juries, rape conviction rates went down. Women were much less likely to believe the crying hysterics of a fellow female on the stand, and understand many women either made up rape charges (to protect their honor, or to hurt a guy who hurt them) or were deluded enough to believe their own lies.

    As to the Salem Witch trials, I’ve lately come up with the notion that the minister at the center —Samuel Paris—was a huckster type who loved money, and whipped up the girls into a frenzy and then, using his impramterur as minister, gave their hysteria credence—all to increase his power and keep his job and increase wealth.

    Paris was the scion of a wealthy family who went into the ministry because he sensed it was more powerful than running his family estates, who was financially hurt in Barbados and had to move to Salem, who’d been fired before for not keeping a congregation, and who loved the finer things—-he went and found a very hot wife when it was considered unseemly for a minister to do so (supposed to go for the plain church mouse type), and he used church funds to buy very expensive trappings, such as gold candle stickholders (quite eyeopening for the strict Puritans).

    He sounds to me like a foppish huckster who desperately wanted to stay in the upper class but didn’t want to work hard for it (like the Kennedys), so chose a career that guaranteed fame and power without manual labor. Add to that the fact that Salem had been firing ministers every year, and Pairs sounds like a guy who needed something to keep his job and keep his privileged life going. When the girls started pretending to be possessed (and I think it was pretend), he used that as an excuse for a witch hunt, which drove up his congregation, made him famous, and convinced the girls they really were possessed.

    Think about it: without the minister vouching for their nonsense, the girls’ charges wouldn’t have gotten any traction. Holy men get people all the time thinking they are possessed. They usually tamp down on them and don’t buy most of them or lend them creedence. Paris did the opposite.

    That Abigail Williams (a cousin he took in) lived under his roof and she and his daughter were among the first “possessed” only adds to my hypothesis. He then convinced the local politicos to let him run the witchhunt by going after their enemies, so they let the madness reignand let him keep his job.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. SMK says: • Website
    @Jake
    "The rise of the Ellis Island immigrant populations helped delay feminism’s triumph that had once seemed imminent in WASP-dominated America. But that’s the kind of paradox likely to be met with blank stares in 2013."

    True.

    Feminism is a WASP thing. Just like demanding we all declare the Negro Numinous. And in each, the original WASP allies the Jews took over the particular WASP delusion/insanity and ran hog wild with it, at the expense of all other white Christians.

    The problem I have with this Steve blog is that it implies that -at least for Hollywood - the choices were WASP feminism or the casting couch.

    The women’s movement or feminism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries was a “Wasp thing” and more or less ended with the passage of the 19th Amendment and the repeal of prohibition. The “second wave” of feminism that emerged in 1970 and transformed our culture and institutions -usually defined as “radical feminism” or “women’s liberation- was a “Anglo”-Jewish movement, not a “Wasp thing,” since even those feminists, i.e, the hardcore ideologues, who aren’t Jewish are nearly all left-liberal atheists.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. AM says:
    @Pat Boyle
    I think this analysis is pretty close to the mark. Handsome Harvey obviously wasn't doing it just for straight up normal sex. Yes, he is remarkably ugly ("The face that sunk a thousand ships") but even so had he wished it instead of having his assistant set up these elaborate scenarios so he could lure women into his rooms where he would appear in a loosely fitting bathrobe. He could have just had his assistant call up some service and have them send over a professional girl. But Harvey didn't want a normal beautiful young prostitute who was well adjusted to being a whore. He wanted to treat a non-prostitute like a whore and make them like it.

    So Harvey is in some way a practitioner of BDSM sex. Most BDSM dominant men like to beat women. Many also enjoy humiliating them by having them do things most girls wouldn't normally do. Harvey apparently liked to initiate young girls into some of the darker areas of human sexuality.

    So he was a monster, right?

    Well the fact that never seems to get mentioned in all the press accounts is that the majority of these girls must have enjoyed being humiliated. He did his little act for decades. There were probably hundreds of girls at one time or another. In the Bay Area you can't spin a dead cat without hitting a feminist. I imagine it's the same in Hollywood. If so, he must have encountered not just a lot of girls who were offended by his creepy antics but many who enjoyed what he made them do.

    People like to ignore the fact that as far as we know BDSM is more common than homosexuality. About two or three percent of men and women are gay but probably at least five percent enjoy some BDSM role. There are lots of submissive women out there. And if you don't beat and humiliate them they will look for some man who will.

    So he was a monster, right?

    Yes. Just because women would follow him into Hell does not remove the truth of the ugliness that is his soul. That lots of women would go there with him only makes the situation that more sadder.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  175. @Pat Boyle
    I think this analysis is pretty close to the mark. Handsome Harvey obviously wasn't doing it just for straight up normal sex. Yes, he is remarkably ugly ("The face that sunk a thousand ships") but even so had he wished it instead of having his assistant set up these elaborate scenarios so he could lure women into his rooms where he would appear in a loosely fitting bathrobe. He could have just had his assistant call up some service and have them send over a professional girl. But Harvey didn't want a normal beautiful young prostitute who was well adjusted to being a whore. He wanted to treat a non-prostitute like a whore and make them like it.

    So Harvey is in some way a practitioner of BDSM sex. Most BDSM dominant men like to beat women. Many also enjoy humiliating them by having them do things most girls wouldn't normally do. Harvey apparently liked to initiate young girls into some of the darker areas of human sexuality.

    So he was a monster, right?

    Well the fact that never seems to get mentioned in all the press accounts is that the majority of these girls must have enjoyed being humiliated. He did his little act for decades. There were probably hundreds of girls at one time or another. In the Bay Area you can't spin a dead cat without hitting a feminist. I imagine it's the same in Hollywood. If so, he must have encountered not just a lot of girls who were offended by his creepy antics but many who enjoyed what he made them do.

    People like to ignore the fact that as far as we know BDSM is more common than homosexuality. About two or three percent of men and women are gay but probably at least five percent enjoy some BDSM role. There are lots of submissive women out there. And if you don't beat and humiliate them they will look for some man who will.

    ” In the Bay Area you can’t spin a dead cat without hitting a feminist”

    quote of the day.

    But remember, there are scores of women who will do anything to get on TV (or a movie). Doesn’t mean they liked it; probably they endured it and then ran home to a bottle of pills or alcohol. They can still be feminists during the day with their peeps and then do the favors on the sly to enhance what they imagine could be a glamorous career. These women are manipulable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pat Boyle
    His sexual practices were indeed unattractive to me but my point was that they seemed to be acceptable to many women.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. Tracy says: • Website
    @advancedatheist
    Funny how the Protestants became "atheistic" towards the saints that the Catholics worshiped, and yet nothing bad happened to them for their unbelief. Protestants could believe that these biblical and early Christian figures existed historically, led exemplary lives and deserved a spot in heaven; but they denied that these long-dead co-religionists had supernatural powers that mortal humans could access through prayer.

    Later figures in Western thought just carried this discounting of unseeable personalities to its logical conclusion.

    Catholics, too, didn’t and don’t think that Saints have supernatural powers. It’s the prayers of the Saints that are efficacious; they don’t have any inherent super-powers or anything.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. Art Deco says:
    @whorefinder
    Well, before the movie system coalesced into the Hollywood studio-monopolies, the wide-openness of the industry probably allowed for enterprising sorts to make their way based on talent and less on connections. Monopolies tend to encourage more politically-minded types and is all about ladder-climbing and is less about talent, hence all the lurid Hollywood tales about backbiting and rumor-mongering and secret-gay-lovers from the studio era.

    Mary Pickford could sell a movie based on her name alone, and there was no powerful studio needed to make the distribution happen---and there was none around to tear her down if she had a fight with the producers. (We forget how many of today's "troubled star"-type stories are fed to gossip rags by studios and directors and producers trying to blacken the name of a star who's crossed them).

    IIRC, the golden age of Hollywood gossip (Hedda Hopper, etc.) coincided with the rise of the studio-monopoly system---which makes sense, as gossip is a powerful weapon in a political-based system and, conversely, has much less power when an industry is wide open and new.

    Talkies made it much harder to run a mom-and-pop shop. Talkies created a need for microphones, synching, soundtracks,and more dedicated theater space for movies only (so the sound system could be set up), meaning more money, meaning only larger studios could control it. The rise of the musical probably killed off a lot of smaller studios over the long haul, as only a large studio could afford to produce the lavish musicals that dominated Hollywood from the 1930s to the early 1960s.

    And we also have the post-1920s rejection of "Wiemar republic" values. In the 1920s more than few Hollywood stars could be open-secret type homosexuals and get divorces and such. The Hays Code era of the studios tampered down on that, and thus probably turned off a lot of lesbian-enterprising types from hitching a ride.

    however, monopolies almost always naturally tend to rise due to someone dominating an industry, whether for good or for ill.

    Well, before the movie system coalesced into the Hollywood studio-monopolies,

    There was no monopoly. There were eight major studios. A motor for the migration of the film industry to Los Angeles was the formation of the Motion Picture Patents Trust in 1909. That actually was an attempt at monopoly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @whorefinder
    8 major studios to sell to hundreds of millions of people? You don't think that;s monopolistic? Buddy, in the early 1980s the fact that there were only 50 major media companies made a lot of people yell "monopoly" at the system---and now adays there's only 6.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. @Mr. Anon

    Plus Daddy Paltrow and Spielberg had to have known about Weinstein, and warned G. Paltrow about him. So unless it is acceptable for all Hollywood producers to do this, and G. Paltrow was sickly told by her family to play ball, or its fictitious.
     
    Maybe she thought it was safe to do business with Weinstein given that she was protected. Maybe her protectors thought the same thing. And maybe Weinstein had other ideas.

    Actually, I'm not surprised that people, either men or women, didn't come forward earlier to denounce Weinstein. What were they supposed to say: "This guy is a predator, at least so I have heard. Everyone knows it". There are libel laws in this country. They may be weaker than in the UK, but they still do exist. And Weinstein had the resources to use them.

    Moreover, being known as a trouble-maker / whistle-blower is usually never a good career move. Even if Weinstein didn't put it a bad word for you, or used his influence to harm your career, other producers still might not want to hire you, because you're a boat-rocker. They might be afraid of what you'd say about them. Who wants to hire a potential liability?

    Hollywood is a dirty business. It should surprise no one that a lot of people in it are dirty.

    An actor warned his actress friend about Weinstein, not knowing she was already having an affair with him. She told Weinstein, and the guy got a phone call saying he’d never work again.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. Art Deco says:
    @Pat Boyle
    Why the mystery? It's like the question of the Amerindian ancestry of Elizabeth Warren. You could just get a saliva drop from her or from Farrow's mouth and do a DNA test. Sherlock Holmes in the 1880's did a lot of inductive reasoning. Today detectives get DNA traces and look at the records from surveillance cameras. When I watch the real crime TV shows I'm always surprised at how plodding and stupid the police detectives are - but it doesn't seem to matter.

    When I watch the real crime TV shows I’m always surprised at how plodding and stupid the police detectives are – but it doesn’t seem to matter.

    No, you think of police detectives as plodding and stupid to begin with. It has nothing to do with the content of the programs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    No, you think of police detectives as plodding and stupid to begin with. It has nothing to do with the content of the programs.
     
    No, Art, we think of YOU as plodding and stupid.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. SMK says: • Website
    @Jake
    "The rise of the Ellis Island immigrant populations helped delay feminism’s triumph that had once seemed imminent in WASP-dominated America. But that’s the kind of paradox likely to be met with blank stares in 2013."

    True.

    Feminism is a WASP thing. Just like demanding we all declare the Negro Numinous. And in each, the original WASP allies the Jews took over the particular WASP delusion/insanity and ran hog wild with it, at the expense of all other white Christians.

    The problem I have with this Steve blog is that it implies that -at least for Hollywood - the choices were WASP feminism or the casting couch.

    To change the subject: How sad and off that Steve Sailer -who doesn’t believe that men and women and boys and girls are exactly the same apart from the inescapable differences in anatomy and, consequently, doesn’t support all or most of the feminist agendum- should use a word like “sexism” without quotation marks. As ‘racism” is used by left-liberals and “cucks” to demonize and ostracize and silence anyone who tells the truth about average negro intelligence, pandemic black criminality, black-on-white violence, etc., so “sexism” is used to demonize and ostracize and silence anyone who criticizes the dogmas of feminism and opposes the agenda and goals that derive from its regnant fantasy of undifferentiated equality.

    “Sexism” is not synonymous with true misogyny, that of Muslims and MRA’s, the misogynist lunatics of the soi-disant “men’s movement.” Even those who don’t hate women generally, who even love women generally, are “sexist” if they argue that the sexes are innately different in profound and significant ways. A “sexist is anyone who believes that generic disparities in sexual “roles” and behavior are natural and ineradicable in a free and private society in which feminist don’t enjoy absolute power, and thus realizes the that feminist ideology is inherently totalitarian; who opposes all or most of the feminist agendum: women in combat, the feminization of the military, police and fire departments, male prisons and the male housing units of jails, legal abortion (even if only in the third trimester, feminist-imposes sex-crime laws; the utopian vision of a society in which the sexes are equal in virtually all areas and aspects of life, a goal which could only be imposed by a totalitarian regime.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. Art Deco says:
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    But MODERN feminism (e.g. post 1960's) tends to be most decidedly non-WASP. Bella Abzug, Naomi Wolf, Gloria Steinem, and Betty Friedan, Boxer, Feinstein, are not WASPS. Perhaps they are, and some are just deceived. Anti-feminist Phyllis Schalfly, however, is a WASP. Certainly WASPS still hover around the periphery of the modern feminist movement, but all in all, the non-WASP influence over the feminist movement of today is firmly entrenched.

    In other words, for the past half century at least, Jews have definitely had a hand in directing and leading modern feminist movement.

    In other words, for the past half century at least, Jews have definitely had a hand in directing and leading modern feminist movement.

    NOW had two Jewish presidents during the period running from 1966 to 1977; none since. Steinem’s Jewish affiliation is tenuous; she grew up in Toledo and grew up poor because of the idiosyncratic incompetence of her mother and her father. Abzug’s a much better example, though much more of a generic red-haze type prior to 1979.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Uh, you do understand that NOW is not the be all and end all of the modern feminist movement. It has expanded since half a century ago.
    , @Johann Ricke

    No, you think of police detectives as plodding and stupid to begin with. It has nothing to do with the content of the programs.

     

    I think Pat is mistaking the imbecility of the perps for that of the detectives. The characteristic of "low cunning" mostly exists in novels. Workaday criminals aren't capable of it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  183. MBlanc46 says:
    @whorefinder
    Whenever I see one of those Reality TV shows starring has-been celebrities, or hear about some way-over-the-hill musician touring, I always think that the biggest addiction those dudes have isn't drugs or alcohol, it's the ease of sexual access that women give to celebrities. Those guys are just addicted to the fact that merely appearing on stage or on camera for a few hours total can make really hot, really good looking women go back to their hotel room without a word.

    Yep, fame and fortune are the way to attract women.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. MBlanc46 says:
    @Flip
    As Howard Stern said, what's the point of wealth and fame if it doesn't get you naked chicks?

    As is often the case, Howard has it right.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @anonymous
    So who's worse, Weinstein or feminist and Democratic party hero Bill Clinton? Let's lay out their respective track records side-by-side and see who wins.

    We don’t really know the track record of either.
    The facts may be horrifying in both cases.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. Passer by says:

    “The rise of the Ellis Island immigrant populations helped delay feminism’s triumph that had once seemed imminent in WASP-dominated America. ”

    Nope. First wave feminism was quite jewish too.

    There is a great article at Lasha Darkmoon, a white nationalist woman, – and it shows that a large number of first wave feminists were jewish women.

    Contrary to the common perception, many of the suffragettes in first wave feminism were wealthy Jewesses. Rich Jews such as Israel Zangwill and Edward Benays were generous patrons who helped to finance the suffragette movement.

    Jewish women were at the forefront of women’s action, holding leading, influential positions of presidency, vice presidency, treasury and began forming and heading leading suffrage associations internationally. They became the first ‘female’ appointed judges, magistrates and female ‘immigrants’ in countries which required citizen sponsors, gaining legal residence without those sponsorships

    https://www.darkmoon.me/2016/jewish-first-wave-feminists/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  187. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @schmenz
    I think author Scott Eyman, in an attempt to sell more copies of his book on MGM, went a bit overboard in his depiction of Louis Mayer as a lecherous old codger. True, Mayer was not a candidate for canonization but his supposed lack of morals has been widely exaggerated.

    Also true, he was hated by many in the industry but mostly for issues of greed than anything else.

    To get a more balanced view of such men I suggest looking up Kevin Brownlow's superb documentaries about the great years of Hollywood (long, long gone, alas). In those documentaries, especially the one he did about Buster Keaton, he interviews close associates of Mayer which reveal a different man than one depicted by scandal mongers like Eyman.

    As for comparing Mayer to scum like Weinstein, it is ridiculous to even attempt to do so. Mayer was a flawed man; Weinstein is mere filth.

    Mayer talking about his reasons for casting 16 y/o Lana Turner:
    ”She looks like a woman with an itchy cunt.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Couldn't find a source for that quote- wonder how Lana Turner would've found good ole Harvey?
    https://www.thehairpin.com/2011/06/scandals-of-classic-hollywood-lana-turner-sweater-girl-gone-bad/
    , @schmenz
    Thanks for the reply (alas, no thanks for including the four-letter word). But a reliable source for that quote would be much appreciated.

    Thanks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. @Pat Boyle
    Your analysis of the sexes in music is strained. I don't know a damn thing about popular music but in serious music the pattern is clear. Everyone knows. Women simply don't have the requisite talent. There never was a female Mozart. Indeed no woman has ever been even a minor composer. Women are vital to sing in opera but there are no operas written by a woman.

    There were famous female novelists throughout the nineteenth century but no female composers. Female composers have been as rare as female mathematicians.

    Someone will probably cite some woman who wrote a symphony sometime, but you will never have heard of her. I have listened to music written by women - various people sponsor competitions and other venues for female composers. Their works are not unpleasant but not really good enough to interest anyone except an feminism advocate.

    So female composers are not only rare, they also suck? Will ya throw us a bone here?

    There is film score composer Rachel Portman, ironically a frequent composer under Miramax. Some of her soundtracks are dearly loved and established as modern classics. (The Human Stain soundtrack can bring me to tears.) Would you concede there is at least one prolific, popular, and critically acclaimed female composer?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pat Boyle
    Sure, sure. If you say she's good and she has actually has had published music performed. I will gladly admit she is the exception that proves the rule. I knew when I wrote my comment there would be someone who would have a plausible counter example. The commentariat of the iSteve blog seems to know everything.

    I salute you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. One wonders who the current crop of star actresses might be if we didn’t get so many of the ones who submitted to one creep or another on their way to the top.

    How much talent have we lost out on?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    One wonders who the current crop of star actresses might be if we didn’t get so many of the ones who submitted to one creep or another on their way to the top.
     
    I've often wondered why this or that particular actress never had a huge career, when some contemporary, of no greater talent, did. Elisabeth Rohm, for example. She's at least as pretty as any number of other actresses - prettier even - but never made it that big. She's not a great actress, but then - is Charlize Theron, really? Of course, maybe some women who go into acting just tire of it, or want to have kids and start a family. On the other hand, maybe they just have higher standards, and are unwilling to watch the producer take a shower.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. Beene says:

    Wow, 1915-1920, 5 years. What a great sampling from which to draw conclusions (and using the example of, what, 2 women?).

    And so you’re saying that Jews first killed feminism in the 1920s and then unduly resurrected it in the 1960s, which you criticize them for? It’s terribly confusing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  191. Wilkey says:

    My favorite take on the Weinstein scandal, from on article on ABC News;

    “The fact that men have traditionally held the lion’s share of powerful positions in the film and television industries is tremendously important in helping to construct and maintain an environment in which this type of behavior could not only occur but thrive.” – Martha Lauzen

    See where they’re trying to divert this? The real problem in Hollywood, as we all know, is that there’s not enough liberalism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  192. @Tiny Duck
    Harvey ceased to be Jewish when he did evil

    Evil =white Christian makes

    Harvey ceased to be Jewish when he did evil

    How funny. I was just thinking from now on all liberals, LGBTQs, SJWs, hypocrites, swindlers, liars, creeps, sleazebags, pervs should just be called Jews, regardless of actual race or ethnicity.

    Jew can even be used as a verb. Jewing somebody just means screwing somebody over, the past tense is “jewed”, as in Ashley Judd got jewed, meaning Ashley Judd got screwed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. kihowi says:
    @Sean

    There was no rape here.
     
    Every rapist says that.

    How dare you. I haven’t raped anybody in years.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. @education realist
    I'm not sure about employment in the movie industry overall, but on screen actresses in the 1930s eclipsed anything for the following 30 years, possibly more. Women held more of the top box office positions that decade than any other. The 70s is in second place, but it's distant. (not sure about box office for last decade or so).

    Also not sure what all this talk about Paltrow being Jewish. Her father was Jewish, but she wasn't really raised that way, and there's been talk lately about her converting--which wouldn't be necessary if she already was. Not that it matters; the obsession with things Jewish among the commenters here has always been perplexing.

    Winona Ryder's career didn't go places because she's a bit wispy and has very little movie star in her. She was in The Crucible, Alien Resurrection, Celebrity (Woody Allen pic) and Girl, Interrupted. All three pics with big names, big releases. She was very much the least interesting thing in those films, and her career fell off a cliff from her lack of star power.

    More interesting to me is how many of the women who have come forward this far come from acting families: Paltrow, Sorvino, Jolie, Arquette. Others were European. The third category are those who left acting in part because of that experience. Maybe the women who came from acting families weren't able to be shut down.

    BTW, Gretchen Mol just came forward and angrily denied all the rumors that she got her career by giving him sexual favors. Possible she's lying, but also possible that what everyone "knows" isn't true.

    I barely even know who Gretchen Mol is and have no opinion on her, but I suspect that gossip bloggers are as likely to be depraved liars as anyone else in Hollywood. Some people who pride themselves on their cynicism forget to apply that cynicism to the gossipmongers as well.

    Most of the sensationalistic books on Old Hollywood contained numerous lies (although the true stories were usually bad enough), so modern-day blogs likely take the same approach.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. @whorefinder

    What does this say about women? There was no rape here.
     
    Some of the accounts are rape or sexual assault. Some accounts are that he exposed himself to the women, masturbated in front of them without warning, or forcibly grabbed them and forcibly performed oral sex on them, or forced them to touch his privates. And the tales have all been how they met Harvey in a non-sexual places such as restaurants and offices.

    This isn't Cosby, where not a single story alleges rape or assault, but merely that the women, after flirting and cozying up to Cosby, and going back to his home/bedroom/hotel room, consensually took drugs he offered them and either "blacked out" or else have trouble remembering what happened. In none of the cases can they prove the encounters were nonconsensual.

    Weinstein is different; Lauren Sivian's account is just illustrative. She meets him in a restaurant, they talk and flirt a bit, he gets her to walk downstairs to the basement of the restaurant, and he just starts masturbating in front of her. That's sexual assault: exposure and lewd acts.

    But it does say something about how all the stereotypes of casting couches and desperate-for-fame actresses are pretty much true.

    This isn’t Cosby, where not a single story alleges rape or assault, but merely that the women, after flirting and cozying up to Cosby, and going back to his home/bedroom/hotel room, consensually took drugs he offered them and either “blacked out” or else have trouble remembering what happened. In none of the cases can they prove the encounters were nonconsensual.

    Cosby drugged and raped these women, that’s every bit as disgusting as what Weinstein did, maybe worse. There was nothing consensual about these women who were drugged then raped. From what I recall they were just meeting him in his dressing room. What you are saying is equivalent to blaming date rape victims who were drugged for being consensual and not remembering, seriously ridiculous.

    Read More
    • Replies: @whorefinder

    Cosby drugged and raped these women, that’s every bit as disgusting as what Weinstein did, maybe worse.
     
    Can you show me one instance that it any one woman had drugs forced upon them against their will? Every single tale I've heard involves the women consensually taking party drugs Cosby offers them. That's not drugging them. To claim that's drugging them means you have to blame every man who offers a lady a drink got her drunk against her will, which is nonsense.

    There was nothing consensual about these women who were drugged then raped.
     
    Not a single story I've heard shows any evidence Cosby forced himself on these women against their will. It's either they took drugs and they sleep with him, or they "black out" (conveniently) after consensually taking the drugs and the next morning they're naked. If a woman can't handle the drugs she willingly took, it's not rape; its the woman's bad judgment.

    From what I recall they were just meeting him in his dressing room.
     
    Um, what? I've heard stories about girls going back to Cosby's house, playing pool at his house, going to his hotel room, etc.


    What you are saying is equivalent to blaming date rape victims who were drugged for being consensual and not remembering
     
    If you willing take a substance you know will mess you up and then sleep with someone, it's not rape. Period. It's not Cosby's job to police a woman's limits; it's their own. Cosby acted lecherously and adulterously, but not criminally, at least not on the facts you're showing.

    And there is no such thing as "date rape". There is only rape: forcible intercourse. Everything else is a feminazi nonsense invention to try to drum up rape numbers and scare women and demonize men.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. theMann says:
    @kihowi
    The most interesting question is as usual not being asked.

    What does this say about women? There was no rape here. He didn't shackle anybody to a bed in a soundproof basement. These were all situations that could be walked away from at any time.

    That would mean no more chance at fame, of course, but that's exactly the trade-off that these women made. He was able to do this for such a long time because all those women at some level of consciousness bartered with their bodies.

    As with a lot of sexual politics, all the indignation is built on the assumption that women are imbeciles. That they did not understand what was up:

    a) before they met him. Were they the only people in the western world who didn't know about this aspect of Hollywood? Don't make me laugh.
    b) when they saw him. He drips sleaze. Nobody is this clueless.
    c) when he started putting the moves on them. He's obviously not a subtle man. You'd know.

    In real life, women are really good at knowing what kind of man they're dealing with.

    Well gee everybody, when you understand that women are amoral, irrational, and vicious, it becomes a lot easier to understand what is going on here.

    Weinstein my be an out of control little creep, but he didn’t create the situation he found himself in, he merely exploited what was already there with a little more aggressive fury than most. Give him his props for committing fully to the wickedness of his opportunities, most bad people are much weaker than that.

    There is no such thing as sexual morality where women are concerned, they simply seek status, approval, and power, and sex is the means to all those things. (As a mental exercise, figure out how much porn there is in America, how much of it involves hot women ages 18-36, and how many hot women there are in America ages 18-36. Seriously, that is the number of women willing to do porn for crying out loud.)

    The casting couch doesn’t exist because some men are exploiters, it exist because women have the power to choose, and a lot of them choose to give it up to an appalling physical creep like Weinstein, for status (actress), approval(roles), power(fame). Seriously, he never got kicked in the balls? Once even? Nobody comes off looking good here, and if you want to make a case for burning Hollywood to the ground, I won’t argue against it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Kabala
    Actually, the women who have come forward so far almost all claim to have refused his advances (whether truthfully or not, who knows).

    Also, the morals of neither sex are very good right now, but very few people are literally professional porn actors/actresses, so I am not quite sure what you were attempting to say there.
    , @Sean
    Weinstein is a 6 foot 300lb rapist. Women hitting men is in his movies, not the real world.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. @Flip
    And it seems likely that Allen is not his biological father. Farrow certainly looks like a blonde, young Frank Sinatra.

    Ok, but keep in mind he lightens his hair, often wears icy blue contact lenses, and has refined at least his nose with plastic surgery.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. Twitter just suspended Rose McGowan’s account for calling Ben Affleck a liar. Now there are calls for boycott of Twitter. I hope it takes off. I’m sick of their censorship. Same goes for Google and Facebook, all need to go die.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  199. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @anon
    Mayer talking about his reasons for casting 16 y/o Lana Turner:
    ''She looks like a woman with an itchy cunt.''

    Couldn’t find a source for that quote- wonder how Lana Turner would’ve found good ole Harvey?

    https://www.thehairpin.com/2011/06/scandals-of-classic-hollywood-lana-turner-sweater-girl-gone-bad/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. @Thea
    I used to read Hollywood gossip sites and Gretchen Moll has long been singled out as having slept her way to top( as opposed to all other actresses.) no clue why she was singled out.

    Those same sites have long complained that the only reason starlets wear ugly Marchessa dresses was to kiss up to Harvey as his wife is the designer there.

    no clue why she was singled out.

    Because in the 90′s she starred in a couple of Miramax productions and got lots of premature media hype about being the next Movie Star. The overhype led to persistent and ugly rumors that she did depraved sexual acts in exchange for movie roles and media promotion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. @Charles Pewitt
    Gentlemen Prefer Blondes?

    Lucy Lawless, Charlotte Rampling, Jacqueline Bissett, Polly Walker, Carol Alt, Emmylou Harris, Joanna Cassidy, Emily DiDonato, Lynda Carter, McKenna Berkley.

    A lot of good looking women are not blonde. British horror movies with the deranged Anglo-Norman aristocrat and the raven-haired, light-eyed damsel in distress were always fun.

    Harvey Weinstein married a chiclet-toothed, fivehead WASP woman named Chilton and had three kids with her. That blonde Chilton New England WASP married Harvey for his money. Strangely enough, that blonde Chilton WASP lady divorced Weinstein and married an Italian guy who looks very nice in his picture in the Daily Mail. Chilton's new husband looks like a good Italian bloke who ain't poking where he shouldn't and behaves himself even when nobody is looking. That Chilton WASP lady must like the Mediterranean.

    “Blonde” is really a shorthand for northern European women’s fine features and complexion. There are many beautiful women who don’t fit that particular beauty standard, but all the women you name do.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. Yada yada says:

    In other words, the (((locusts))) the destroyers, in the words of Maurice Samuel, ruin everything they lay their hands on. It’s deliberate. They rejected Logos. They are born rebels. They betrayed the very Son of God.

    Do us all a favor,Hebrews, catch the next flight to Tel Aviv and don’t call us, we’ll call you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Kabala
    Oh, good grief.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. @Irish Paleo
    Interesting thesis. Mr. Weinstein's travails represent an interesting cultural and political event. The question (as always) with these things is whether they constitute inflection points. To my mind, these are the key take-outs:

    1. For all the "past is a different country" talk about the evils of yesteryear compared to our progressive and enlightened present, two things are quite striking.

    One is that the most egregious allegations of sexual harassment (such as those against Weinstein) almost invariably involve (a) rape; (b) sexual assault; (c) common assault; or (d) behaviour consisting of the threat to engage in (a) - (c) above. All of these were both civilly and criminally actionable before the legislative draftsmen invented this new concept of sexual harassment, meaning that the latter is fundamentally a redundant concept other than for the purposes of of frivolous ("His coffee mug made me feel uncomfortable") and fundamentally abusive ("An ugly guy asked me out on a date and I'm offended") complaints.

    The other is that, for all the pretensions to liberalism, what feminists really seem to want is a return to the rules of engagement for male-female interactions that look, walk, talk and act a whole lot like good old fashioned social conservatism - and what is it they say about things that look, walk, talk and act like ducks? [Apologies if that offends Tiny Duck, but then, what doesn't?]

    2. While a critical mass of allegations levelled against Weinstein are at the serious (i.e. criminal/tortious) end of the sexual harassment spectrum, the same can't be said about the tidal wave of stories that it has prompted from Hollywood actresses complaining about "casting couch" culture. Implicit in these stories is that a wannabe starlet who is asked to temporarily engage in the world's oldest profession in order to gain lucrative access to a newer one can somehow be compared, in a practical or moral sense, to a victim of assault or threats thereof. By jumping on the bandwagon when allegations of the former arise, "victims" of the latter are implicitly suggesting that being asked to sleep with someone in return for a lucrative gig somehow equates to being assaulted. As usually happens during these feeding frenzies, the finger prints of third wave feminists (with their manic obsession with defining more and more routine sexual interaction as abuse) and the canny agents of over-the-hill Hollywood actresses (attention, attention, uber alles) are all over this one.

    3. Who are the victims of casting couch culture anyway? Certainly not the women (or men, for that matter) who sleep their way to the bigtime - for them it's just one of those bargaining decisions about whether the prize is worth the price. An obvious alternative answer is (a) those who refuse the overture and fail to get a break they deserved; and (b) those who never got offered the casting couch bargain at all. Fine, but how many of those are there? That brings me to the most consistent victims of the casting couch, namely film financiers like Steve Bannon and Steven Mnuchin. If they are fronting up money for a Harvey Weinstein to make a lucrative movie on their behalf, they are entitled to assume that the man they've entrusted with their money is looking after their bottom line and not Charlize Theron's bottom (no matter how pleasing the latter may be).

    4. It is this latter issue that makes me sceptical about how pervasive (or at least distortive) casting couch culture actually is. The likes of Weinstein make their money by spotting talent differentials which can be worth tens or even hundreds of millions of Dollars to investors. How plausible is it that these guys can get so rich whilst simultaneously making propositions to actresses which amount to "you can milk my investors, but only if you milk me first"? My suspicion about the casting couch is that those who understand it don't talk about it and that those who talk about it don't understand it.

    Look behind the stories and I suspect that 90% or more of the complaints are fabricated by people who came close but didn't make it and are now in bitter, excuse-making mode. As for the 10% that are true, it seems reasonable to surmise that because of the importance of sex appeal in making casting decisions, those most likely to make the cut in the first place are, themselves, more likely to be propositioned. Indeed, if you're a highly desirable starlet who makes it big having serviced a Weinstein or two in the foothills of your ascent, perhaps you feel bitter about having been convinced to do the deed in order to get a part that Mr. Bigshot Mogul probably would have had to give you anyway in order to make his money. In other words, given that the man who made the proposition in the first place probably has no choice but to deny it, perhaps the bit of the story that the accuser is leaving out is that, when invited onto the infamous couch, she didn't demur.

    5. Perhaps though, after the first few lucrative successes, as someone like Weinstein gets older, richer and fatter, triumphalism dulls his instincts and he starts to ignore such petty fripperies as voice timbre and acting range in favour of cruder and more one-dimensional metrics that lend themselves more readily to casting couch logic. For instance, was Weinstein's final reckoning some kind of revenge for his losing someone money by using an organ that was not his brain for thinking?

    6. Much like the Bill Cosby revelations that suddenly came out after decades of silence, this story shows how politically incorrect a place reality truly is and how many of the furnishings of fantasy the advocates of PC have to use in order to comfortably live in that reality. Even at the most extreme end of Mr. Weinstein's alleged behaviour (none of which seems to have been on the uber-violent end of the spectrum), it just doesn't seem as if male sexual malfeasance, of itself, really causes all that much life changing trauma.

    Bear in mind that whether the allegations consist of actual assault or those of the "He turned up at the audition wearing a bathrobe" variety, none of the alleged victims seems to be claiming that he coerced their silence with "I'll kill you" or "I'll kill your family"-type threats. Rather, the threat that kept them silent was that going public would compromise their lucrative careers. What this implies is that the decision to stay shtum was not based on true terror but simply a pragmatic calculation that they'd be better off in the long run not upsetting the applecart. Indeed, how many of Weinstein's alleged victims thought that the threat of later going public would be a handy blackmail tool - one which lost its value once he was outed?

    The bottom line is that far from being lauded as "brave" and virtuous or as "survivors", the people who are now coming forward should actually be seen as having fed Weinstein's appetite and contributed to the gradual descent of his behaviour into manic compulsion by not having tackled him contemporaneously on it.

    7. The fact that the women in question feared adverse career consequences (in the most ostensibly progressive profession there is) for going public in the first place demonstrates (for the umpteenth time) that the elites are entirely insincere in professing to believe in the puritanical rules of engagement that they keep formulating and that the dictats of "equality", "diversity" and "respect" are really little more than cynical mechanisms designed to insinuate the administrative state into the lives of us normals. If you're actually part of the elite, there's no problem with buying your way out of any of the rules that, for instance, university fraternities must now observe.

    8. As usually happens in these scenarios, there will be some kind of new furore about sexual harassment which will affect the rest of society for more than it will the world of Hollywood from which it originated. It may be a passing storm or it may have longer-term consequences. It's hard to tell. One way or the other, as usual, the key drivers of whatever form the post-Weinstein reaction takes will be less attractive women who will seize on the opportunity to regulate workplaces in the belief that the more constrained the working environment is, the less opportunity the hot bitches will have to take advantage of male bosses who think with their Johnsons. Of course, it won't work (contrary to feminist mythology, the only thing that does is the now verboten art of slut-shaming). The more attractive women (who are, as usual, the true targets of each new wave of outrage) will end up (as usual) being the true beneficiaries, with more material for Ellen Pao-style blackmail litigation when office affairs don't yield the desired career progression. The big victims will be poorer, uglier men, whose non-abusive overtures will be most likely to cause offence and discomfort. Wealthier and more attractive men (the ostensible targets of the new rules) will escape the consequences as long as they: (a) keep paying protection money to the Democrats, NOW, NARAL and the Sierra Club; and (b) assiduously abide by the eleventh commandment (Thou shalt not get caught).

    9. There are, in spite of 8 above, a few reasons for guarded optimism arising out of this affair, which optimism might (in time) become much less guarded:

    (a) Compare this story to Cosby. I can remember being aware of the Cosby allegations as far back as 2004/5 and he was still America's uncle. The real reason why Cosby came a cropper when he did was that it was the dawn of the BLM era and the Afristocracy decided to use to the PC-wave unleashed by Obama's 2012 re-election campaign to exact revenge on Cosby for his "Poundcake" heresy. By contrast, Weinstein got destroyed despite the fact that he was still an establishment pet and the Dems had every interest in hushing the story up.

    (b) As an experienced insider of the kind that Cosby never really was, Weinstein thought that he could skillfully manoeuvre his way out of trouble. Firstly, unlike Cosby, who simply denied the allegations against him, Weinstein immediately confessed to the less serious ones and sought to reinforce the rules of his tribe by engaging in a Maoist self-criticism for transgressing them. Moreover, he even had the gall to say that he would atone for his misdeeds by writing some big cheques to the anti-gun lobby in the aftermath of Vegas. It failed. Ultimately, the progressive establishment couldn't control the angry feminist reaction and had to throw poor Harvey under the bus.

    (c) The damage done to the Dems' control of its coalition of the fringes (as laid bare by Trump's victory in 2016) has been deep. At the heart of the sexual politics of the Democratic Party is a chasmic faultline, namely the fact that their coalition includes Marcusian feminists whose obsession with perceived male violence and sexual predation is becoming more hysterical with every passing week, supporters who themselves include a disproportionate number of male sexual predators amongst their number (black football players, Hollywood moguls, Bill Clinton etc.) and others who harbour thinly veiled aspirations to inflict violence on women (Muslims, Trannies etc.). Weinstein shows how quickly these troops start turning the guns on each other (instead of Haven Monahan or George Zimmerman) and how increasingly sketchy is the centralised command and control over them.

    Watch this space...

    Great analysis!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. non-WASP moguls like Mayer in taking over the industry. They came from more patriarchal and ethnocentric backgrounds, and didn’t see much reason to respect shiksas.

    Steve, do you have some reason to believe that Mayer’s gentile contemporaries, or Weinstein’s, were any more chivalrous with “shiksa” actresses? Or are you just going to run with your Haim Monaheim?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    You mean Walt Disney?
    , @benjaminl
    I'm pretty sure that it's part of human nature, at least in the male lizard brain or whatever you want to call it, to see women from the outgroup as less like "this could be my daughter" and more like a prize to be won.

    This explains Romans and Sabines, white slave masters and black slave women, or any number of examples one could cite, but it would also predict that predominantly Jewish executives would be less careful around predominantly Gentile starlets. (It would also predict the converse as well, but that wasn't the situation apparently.)

    Anyway, I thought of this in the New Yorker piece, where one executive with a conscience mentioned "my daughter" to one of the victims.

    Not saying it's a total correlation, just one factor. There are many things that might make a man say "this could be my daughter," and one of them is if she belongs to his ethnic in-group. That's just human nature.


    https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/from-aggressive-overtures-to-sexual-assault-harvey-weinsteins-accusers-tell-their-stories

    Nestor told me that some people at the company did seem concerned. Irwin Reiter, a senior executive who had worked for Weinstein for almost three decades, sent her a series of messages via LinkedIn. “We view this very seriously and I personally am very sorry your first day was like this,” Reiter wrote. “Also if there are further unwanted advances, please let us know.” Last year, just before the Presidential election, he reached out again, writing, “All this Trump stuff made me think of you.” He described Nestor’s experience as part of Weinstein’s serial misconduct. “I’ve fought him about mistreatment of women 3 weeks before the incident with you. I even wrote him an email that got me labelled by him as sex police,” he wrote. “The fight I had with him about you was epic. I told him if you were my daughter he would have not made out so well.” (Reiter declined to comment for this article, but his lawyer, Debra Katz, confirmed the authenticity of the messages and said that Reiter had made diligent efforts to raise these issues, to no avail. Katz also noted that Reiter “is eager to coöperate fully with any outside investigation.”)
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. Pat Boyle says:
    @AnotherGuessModel
    So female composers are not only rare, they also suck? Will ya throw us a bone here?

    There is film score composer Rachel Portman, ironically a frequent composer under Miramax. Some of her soundtracks are dearly loved and established as modern classics. (The Human Stain soundtrack can bring me to tears.) Would you concede there is at least one prolific, popular, and critically acclaimed female composer?

    Sure, sure. If you say she’s good and she has actually has had published music performed. I will gladly admit she is the exception that proves the rule. I knew when I wrote my comment there would be someone who would have a plausible counter example. The commentariat of the iSteve blog seems to know everything.

    I salute you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. Pat Boyle says:
    @StillCARealist
    " In the Bay Area you can’t spin a dead cat without hitting a feminist"

    quote of the day.

    But remember, there are scores of women who will do anything to get on TV (or a movie). Doesn't mean they liked it; probably they endured it and then ran home to a bottle of pills or alcohol. They can still be feminists during the day with their peeps and then do the favors on the sly to enhance what they imagine could be a glamorous career. These women are manipulable.

    His sexual practices were indeed unattractive to me but my point was that they seemed to be acceptable to many women.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. Pat Boyle says:
    @Thea
    Quite a few of these actresses were essentially prostitutes. Some may have fooled themselves into believing it was for a higher purpose ( their art.)

    But they have to be pretty delusional( many are, see Rose & Ashley) to think this exchange of sex for a role was other than the oldest profession. Some were flattered by a powerful man's attention I'm sure but most realized it was just working on your back.

    I’m sure you realize that in classical times (Greece and Rome) actors and actresses were indeed considered a form of prostitute. Sulla for example consorted with an male actor and everyone presumed that they were homosexual lovers. Sulla was a great man and a formidable political figure but his reputation was forever stained by his friendship with an actor.

    It was as if a prominent politician today were to consort with George Clooney or Ben Affleck.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. @hyperbola
    I really come to detest such "social-science" houses of cards. If one goes back to the "original research" upon which these speculations are based, one finds that the original paper is from a faculty of law and the authors were not even capable of putting together a properly referenced bibliography. Those citations which can be deciphered seem to simply be circular repetitions of the same chants. The fact of the matter is that most such "research" relies on very few real sources of information, i.e. is best classified as speculation.

    Ancient literary sources are, comparatively speaking, rare.

    However, the extant ancient sources (incl. Aristotle, Plutarch, Polybius) that describe Spartan culture are generally in agreement. These sources are also very blunt – there’s really no need to “read between the lines” (unless you believe they were falsified by medieval scribes, or were all written with defamatory intentions).

    If Spartan polyandry and gender equality must be casually dismissed as merely speculative, then so must vast swathes of recorded ancient history (for example, only two ancient authors, Livy and Polybius, documented Hannibal’s invasion of Europe).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. @theMann
    Well gee everybody, when you understand that women are amoral, irrational, and vicious, it becomes a lot easier to understand what is going on here.


    Weinstein my be an out of control little creep, but he didn't create the situation he found himself in, he merely exploited what was already there with a little more aggressive fury than most. Give him his props for committing fully to the wickedness of his opportunities, most bad people are much weaker than that.


    There is no such thing as sexual morality where women are concerned, they simply seek status, approval, and power, and sex is the means to all those things. (As a mental exercise, figure out how much porn there is in America, how much of it involves hot women ages 18-36, and how many hot women there are in America ages 18-36. Seriously, that is the number of women willing to do porn for crying out loud.)


    The casting couch doesn't exist because some men are exploiters, it exist because women have the power to choose, and a lot of them choose to give it up to an appalling physical creep like Weinstein, for status (actress), approval(roles), power(fame). Seriously, he never got kicked in the balls? Once even? Nobody comes off looking good here, and if you want to make a case for burning Hollywood to the ground, I won't argue against it.

    Actually, the women who have come forward so far almost all claim to have refused his advances (whether truthfully or not, who knows).

    Also, the morals of neither sex are very good right now, but very few people are literally professional porn actors/actresses, so I am not quite sure what you were attempting to say there.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. AM says:

    Actually, the women who have come forward so far almost all claim to have refused his advances (whether truthfully or not, who knows).

    I have been working under the assumption that all the “But I refused to have sex with him” claims are actually “I had sex with him, too!”

    It makes you look like you’re a whore if you actually had sex with him. But these are all attention seekers, so passing up the chance to get attention would be difficult to ignore, as would comradery of being a victim. So if you slept with him to further your career, the most logical thing to say would be “I refused” or “I was raped”, depending on where your mind goes. Part of the club, but victim and attention, so yippee. Also, phew, avoided looking like a pathetic prostitute in the age of feminism.

    There’s no actual reason a successful resilient woman would need to need to in public claim refusing his advances. She was successful anyway and while it’s annoying, it’s hardly even jail worthy.

    For me, Paltrow’s claims of refusing him are particularly interesting – I’m starting to assume she slept with him for every gig.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivy
    Think of some protestations as a type of first mover advantage. Lay down some story, moan about it, watch it become the narrative, at least until displaced by facts. Those facts tend to be slippery in Tinseltown.

    Crisis management must be a growth industry these days. Do they work on retainer, paid out of residuals and a share of the back end?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. Hibernian says:
    @Abe

    Within the movie business itself, another reason for the swing away from feminism after WWI was the triumph of non-WASP moguls like Mayer in taking over the industry. They came from more patriarchal and ethnocentric backgrounds, and didn’t see much reason to respect shiksas.
     
    And it was hardly just the movie industry. WWII marked the end of ethnic America. After that the idea that one should live, marry, and socialize solely within one's own ethnic or confessional boundaries came to be seen as quaint and antiquated. And so what replaced various local, Old World-based mens' cultures but a lowest-common-denominator 'lad' culture centered around sports, popular music, pornography (from burlesque to PENTHOUSE), cars, and the crudest sorts of womanizing, now that Old World courtship rituals had lost all meaning. For some reason I credit the Bohunks with this race to the battle-of-the-sexes bottom, though based nothing more on how strong an impression John Belushi (Albanian) made with his role in ANIMAL HOUSE (sorry Slovaks, Bohemians, Czechs, Croats, Ukrainians, Galicians, Poles).

    But anyway, do a little sociological digging into any milieu between 1958 and 1990 considered even a bit 'old boys network' and you'll find a bunch 2nd and 3rd generation Greeks, Jews, Italians, Irish, etc. all egging each other on towards the most ludicrous extremes of macho, virile behavior. This is quite obvious in WOLF OF WALLSTREET, and it's not just cinematic exaggeration- Michael Lewis's LIARS POKER from over 20 years before conveys the exact same impression of what packing a trading floor of Long Island lunkheads will get you.

    Why are you using an anti-Bohemian ethnic slur to describe everyone from the Elbe to the Urals?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. Hibernian says:
    @MBlanc46
    You have to be a bit delusional to find this behavior shocking. Why do people think that men fight like hell for money and power? What is it that people think women chase men with money and power for?

    There’s a limit to the brazeness that you can get away with.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    Agreed. But the richer and famouser you are, the more you can get away with.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. Hibernian says:
    @education realist
    I'm not sure about employment in the movie industry overall, but on screen actresses in the 1930s eclipsed anything for the following 30 years, possibly more. Women held more of the top box office positions that decade than any other. The 70s is in second place, but it's distant. (not sure about box office for last decade or so).

    Also not sure what all this talk about Paltrow being Jewish. Her father was Jewish, but she wasn't really raised that way, and there's been talk lately about her converting--which wouldn't be necessary if she already was. Not that it matters; the obsession with things Jewish among the commenters here has always been perplexing.

    Winona Ryder's career didn't go places because she's a bit wispy and has very little movie star in her. She was in The Crucible, Alien Resurrection, Celebrity (Woody Allen pic) and Girl, Interrupted. All three pics with big names, big releases. She was very much the least interesting thing in those films, and her career fell off a cliff from her lack of star power.

    More interesting to me is how many of the women who have come forward this far come from acting families: Paltrow, Sorvino, Jolie, Arquette. Others were European. The third category are those who left acting in part because of that experience. Maybe the women who came from acting families weren't able to be shut down.

    BTW, Gretchen Mol just came forward and angrily denied all the rumors that she got her career by giving him sexual favors. Possible she's lying, but also possible that what everyone "knows" isn't true.

    Inre Paltrow: Reform Judaism recognizes patrilineal descent.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. Hibernian says:
    @Anonymous
    Southrons may be White, Protestant and Anglo-Saxon, but they're not WASPs.

    They’re Anglo-Celts.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. @education realist
    I'm not sure about employment in the movie industry overall, but on screen actresses in the 1930s eclipsed anything for the following 30 years, possibly more. Women held more of the top box office positions that decade than any other. The 70s is in second place, but it's distant. (not sure about box office for last decade or so).

    Also not sure what all this talk about Paltrow being Jewish. Her father was Jewish, but she wasn't really raised that way, and there's been talk lately about her converting--which wouldn't be necessary if she already was. Not that it matters; the obsession with things Jewish among the commenters here has always been perplexing.

    Winona Ryder's career didn't go places because she's a bit wispy and has very little movie star in her. She was in The Crucible, Alien Resurrection, Celebrity (Woody Allen pic) and Girl, Interrupted. All three pics with big names, big releases. She was very much the least interesting thing in those films, and her career fell off a cliff from her lack of star power.

    More interesting to me is how many of the women who have come forward this far come from acting families: Paltrow, Sorvino, Jolie, Arquette. Others were European. The third category are those who left acting in part because of that experience. Maybe the women who came from acting families weren't able to be shut down.

    BTW, Gretchen Mol just came forward and angrily denied all the rumors that she got her career by giving him sexual favors. Possible she's lying, but also possible that what everyone "knows" isn't true.

    The notorious Richard Gere of story of 40 years ago appears to have been made up by his rival Sylvester Stallone.

    One thing to keep in mind about Hollywood stories is that the source of many of them are some of the world’s greatest storytellers. If a guy who is talented enough that he will eventually earn both acting and screenwriting Oscar nominations is going around telling a defamatory story about you, a fair number of people are going to believe it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lagertha
    The Gere rumor was so vile and bizarre, that people actually believed it was true. Agree that he was railroaded by dumb envy & competition, and, eventually, the story died out. Of course, NYC in the 80's was crazy and everything was moving 100 miles an hour - sort of funny because we didn't have cell phones (some had those bricks) or social media! I miss the 80's - the fun is gone now, from NYC.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. @Rosamond Vincy
    You'd think the failure of a marriage would be drastic enough to render Gwyneth a little less up herself, but apparently not. There have been reports by former classmates that Gynnie was a MeanGirl, so much of what you've posted rings true. She certainly exhibits all the classic signs of narcissism, while Winona (also blonde naturally, although most of her roles have been been brunette), has admitted that she was a short-haired tomboy who was presumed gay, pretty much ostracized at school, and after the success of Beetlejuice (which she hoped would finally earn her some approval from her peers), got bullied even more (as in punched and thrown against her locker, not just called nasty names).

    What makes me suspect Weinstein did try something--and despite Gwyneth's claims, had some success--is the fact that she got Shakespeare in Love and Winona didn't. Winona is simply the better actress. I've never seen her give a bad performance, and I've never seen Gwyneth give a fine one, except for Great Expectations, where she had to play a shallow, class-conscious bitch. The best Paltrow can manage is adequate. Try to imagine Shakespeare in Love if Gabriella Wilde or Amanda Seyfried had been the right age to play Lady Viola. The loan shark shakedowns and backstage rivalries were hilariously true, but Gwyneth dragged down the rest of the movie. I don't know how well Ryder does accents, but it can't be any worse than Paltrow's generic, one-size-fits-all "British" accent, which she uses for all Brit pix, regardless of the character's class, region, or time period. Her Emma isn't a patch on Kate Beckinsale's.

    It's unlikely that Daddy Paltrow bought her those film roles or the Oscars, because Asia Argento and Mira Sorvino weren't protected by family connections (or in Sorvino's case, by her own Oscar). After her success in Mighty Aphrodite and Edith Wharton miniseries The Buccaneers, Sorvino was relegated to one small or indy production after another. She kept on working, so her talent was valued, but she was blocked from the high-profile, high-budget projects. So why was a mediocre actress like Gwynnie shoved in the public's face while real talents like Winona and Mira were allowed to languish? What else could it be, but that Weinstein did his casting based on (forgive the crudeness) what he was allowed to shove?

    I too wondered what ever happened to Mira Sorvino; she seemed poised for stardom, and then mostly faded away.

    [Gwyneth Paltrow's] Emma isn’t a patch on Kate Beckinsale’s.

    Too true. We Calvinists have just watched the latter, and it’s very good, especially with the remarkably crisp Andrew Davies script. Paltrow was too cutesy as Emma; there has to be a thoughtless, almost nasty edge to her manipulations to do justice to the character.

    The 2008 Emma miniseries with Romola Garai is also very good — maybe overall more rewarding to watch than the 1996 Kate Beckinsdale version — mostly because of better development of secondary characters.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. @Yada yada
    In other words, the (((locusts))) the destroyers, in the words of Maurice Samuel, ruin everything they lay their hands on. It's deliberate. They rejected Logos. They are born rebels. They betrayed the very Son of God.

    Do us all a favor,Hebrews, catch the next flight to Tel Aviv and don't call us, we'll call you.

    Oh, good grief.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. Ivy says:
    @AM

    Actually, the women who have come forward so far almost all claim to have refused his advances (whether truthfully or not, who knows).
     
    I have been working under the assumption that all the "But I refused to have sex with him" claims are actually "I had sex with him, too!"

    It makes you look like you're a whore if you actually had sex with him. But these are all attention seekers, so passing up the chance to get attention would be difficult to ignore, as would comradery of being a victim. So if you slept with him to further your career, the most logical thing to say would be "I refused" or "I was raped", depending on where your mind goes. Part of the club, but victim and attention, so yippee. Also, phew, avoided looking like a pathetic prostitute in the age of feminism.

    There's no actual reason a successful resilient woman would need to need to in public claim refusing his advances. She was successful anyway and while it's annoying, it's hardly even jail worthy.

    For me, Paltrow's claims of refusing him are particularly interesting - I'm starting to assume she slept with him for every gig.

    Think of some protestations as a type of first mover advantage. Lay down some story, moan about it, watch it become the narrative, at least until displaced by facts. Those facts tend to be slippery in Tinseltown.

    Crisis management must be a growth industry these days. Do they work on retainer, paid out of residuals and a share of the back end?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lagertha
    There are a heck of a lot of "life coaches" in LA. What are they? Confused/weak people should just read stuff like iSteve, or read in general, and they would not need to pay a Life Coach. One of the most messed-up people I know (erratic in his career choices, along with untimely changes on his career path) is suddenly a Life Coach.

    You so have to do a piece on these Life Coaches, Steve. So many people here, could have a 3rd or 4th career, come out of retirement, to coach these messed up, confused people in LA! - or, entire studios of confused people. Maybe Gurus will evolve again.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. Hibernian says:
    @International Jew

    non-WASP moguls like Mayer in taking over the industry. They came from more patriarchal and ethnocentric backgrounds, and didn’t see much reason to respect shiksas.

     

    Steve, do you have some reason to believe that Mayer's gentile contemporaries, or Weinstein's, were any more chivalrous with "shiksa" actresses? Or are you just going to run with your Haim Monaheim?

    You mean Walt Disney?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    You mean Walt Disney?
     
    There was also Howard Hughes, who cultivated the image of being a ladies man. Although by a lot of accounts, he just wanted his name associated with various actresses and to be occasionally seen with them. Hanky-panky would have probably triggered a severe OCD reaction from him.
    , @International Jew
    The burden of proof is on Steve, since he's claiming that Jewish producers/directors are scoundrels more so than their gentile colleagues.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. Mr. Anon says:
    @Art Deco
    When I watch the real crime TV shows I’m always surprised at how plodding and stupid the police detectives are – but it doesn’t seem to matter.

    No, you think of police detectives as plodding and stupid to begin with. It has nothing to do with the content of the programs.

    No, you think of police detectives as plodding and stupid to begin with. It has nothing to do with the content of the programs.

    No, Art, we think of YOU as plodding and stupid.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. Mr. Anon says:
    @Hibernian
    You mean Walt Disney?

    You mean Walt Disney?

    There was also Howard Hughes, who cultivated the image of being a ladies man. Although by a lot of accounts, he just wanted his name associated with various actresses and to be occasionally seen with them. Hanky-panky would have probably triggered a severe OCD reaction from him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  222. Mr. Anon says:
    @candid_observer
    One wonders who the current crop of star actresses might be if we didn't get so many of the ones who submitted to one creep or another on their way to the top.

    How much talent have we lost out on?

    One wonders who the current crop of star actresses might be if we didn’t get so many of the ones who submitted to one creep or another on their way to the top.

    I’ve often wondered why this or that particular actress never had a huge career, when some contemporary, of no greater talent, did. Elisabeth Rohm, for example. She’s at least as pretty as any number of other actresses – prettier even – but never made it that big. She’s not a great actress, but then – is Charlize Theron, really? Of course, maybe some women who go into acting just tire of it, or want to have kids and start a family. On the other hand, maybe they just have higher standards, and are unwilling to watch the producer take a shower.

    Read More
    • Replies: @International Jew
    I've wondered the same thing: on the one hand, you see a lot of inept acting in movies and TV, on the other hand it's very very hard to support yourself as an actor/actress.

    Or maybe the talent pool is shallow. Nah.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. @Mr. Anon

    One wonders who the current crop of star actresses might be if we didn’t get so many of the ones who submitted to one creep or another on their way to the top.
     
    I've often wondered why this or that particular actress never had a huge career, when some contemporary, of no greater talent, did. Elisabeth Rohm, for example. She's at least as pretty as any number of other actresses - prettier even - but never made it that big. She's not a great actress, but then - is Charlize Theron, really? Of course, maybe some women who go into acting just tire of it, or want to have kids and start a family. On the other hand, maybe they just have higher standards, and are unwilling to watch the producer take a shower.

    I’ve wondered the same thing: on the one hand, you see a lot of inept acting in movies and TV, on the other hand it’s very very hard to support yourself as an actor/actress.

    Or maybe the talent pool is shallow. Nah.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  224. @Hibernian
    You mean Walt Disney?

    The burden of proof is on Steve, since he’s claiming that Jewish producers/directors are scoundrels more so than their gentile colleagues.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
    Hugh Hefner and Barbi Benton ((Barbara Klein))? Roger Ailes? Bill O'Reilly? The Kennedys?

    Exploiters come from all backgrounds. I can't even blame it all on men, because there are a few lesbian or bi women in theatre who will try the same thing on young actresses, although they are less likely to move from quid pro quo to all-out assault as Weinstein apparently did.

    Power tend to corrupt...Etc. Maybe what's really going on in these cases is a mixture of lust and ENVY. The victims are young and hot, and the perps are neither.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  225. @Art Deco
    In other words, for the past half century at least, Jews have definitely had a hand in directing and leading modern feminist movement.

    NOW had two Jewish presidents during the period running from 1966 to 1977; none since. Steinem's Jewish affiliation is tenuous; she grew up in Toledo and grew up poor because of the idiosyncratic incompetence of her mother and her father. Abzug's a much better example, though much more of a generic red-haze type prior to 1979.

    Uh, you do understand that NOW is not the be all and end all of the modern feminist movement. It has expanded since half a century ago.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    It has expanded since half a century ago.

    There's academic women's studies (notable for having professors but no students), there are organizations of a certain bent which pre-dated NOW, e.g. AAUW. Organized feminism's not that important as women of a certain disposition have worked their way into institutions. Eleanor Smeal was far more prominent in her time than whoever it is running NOW today.
    , @Mr. Anon

    Uh, you do understand that NOW is not the be all and end all of the modern feminist movement. It has expanded since half a century ago.
     
    Art Deco "knows" a great many things. He understands very few.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  226. @Tracy

    Anti-feminist Phyllis Schalfly, however, is a WASP.
     
    Mrs. Schlafly was Catholic.

    Some always did think she was a little bit WACC-Y (white anglo-celtic Catholic).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  227. Lagertha says:
    @Steve Sailer
    The notorious Richard Gere of story of 40 years ago appears to have been made up by his rival Sylvester Stallone.

    One thing to keep in mind about Hollywood stories is that the source of many of them are some of the world's greatest storytellers. If a guy who is talented enough that he will eventually earn both acting and screenwriting Oscar nominations is going around telling a defamatory story about you, a fair number of people are going to believe it.

    The Gere rumor was so vile and bizarre, that people actually believed it was true. Agree that he was railroaded by dumb envy & competition, and, eventually, the story died out. Of course, NYC in the 80′s was crazy and everything was moving 100 miles an hour – sort of funny because we didn’t have cell phones (some had those bricks) or social media! I miss the 80′s – the fun is gone now, from NYC.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  228. @Ian M.

    Later figures in Western thought just carried this discounting of unseeable personalities to its logical conclusion.
     
    I think a better handle for you might be 'unthinkingatheist'. The 'one god further' objection and its variants has to be one of the most brain-dead and nonsensical objections to theism out there. Rather than being logical, it's just a blatant non-sequitor:

    http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/04/one-god-further-objection.html

    It's a manifestation of our chattering, canting age that a great many people evidently think this sort of shallow objection is some kind of devastating blow to theism rather than the showcasing of the intellectual destitution and philistinism of pop atheism it is. It would be similar to someone saying, "Earlier astronomers reduced the number of cycles needed to describe the Earth's orbit (primary cycle plus epicycles). We just carry this to its logical conclusion and say that there is no cycle (orbit) at all!"

    By the way, Protestants believe that the saints exist. They just don't pray to them.

    Which saints? The Toothfairy, Bigfoot, and Loch Ness kind or the actual historical persons? For millennia, the Church did not make the distinction.,

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ian M.
    I'm not sure exactly what your point is. That certain legends and later accretions grew up around the cult of the saints, or that maybe St. Christopher didn't actually exist? If so, what is this supposed to prove?

    Does the non-existence of phlogiston cast doubt on the whole scientific enterprise?

    Does Washington and the cherry tree being a myth mean we shouldn't honor George Washington? Supposing King Arthur didn't exist, does that mean the English shouldn't honor King Edward I?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  229. Lagertha says:
    @Ivy
    Think of some protestations as a type of first mover advantage. Lay down some story, moan about it, watch it become the narrative, at least until displaced by facts. Those facts tend to be slippery in Tinseltown.

    Crisis management must be a growth industry these days. Do they work on retainer, paid out of residuals and a share of the back end?

    There are a heck of a lot of “life coaches” in LA. What are they? Confused/weak people should just read stuff like iSteve, or read in general, and they would not need to pay a Life Coach. One of the most messed-up people I know (erratic in his career choices, along with untimely changes on his career path) is suddenly a Life Coach.

    You so have to do a piece on these Life Coaches, Steve. So many people here, could have a 3rd or 4th career, come out of retirement, to coach these messed up, confused people in LA! – or, entire studios of confused people. Maybe Gurus will evolve again.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivy
    Life coaches with less ambition and physical conditioning (read, lazier) devolve into psychics. Either one seems like a waypoint on some downward spiral trip. The theory, if there needs to be one: Why not get paid to string along the gullible, from the comfort of one's den, in PJs?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  230. whorefinder says: • Website
    @Another Realist

    This isn’t Cosby, where not a single story alleges rape or assault, but merely that the women, after flirting and cozying up to Cosby, and going back to his home/bedroom/hotel room, consensually took drugs he offered them and either “blacked out” or else have trouble remembering what happened. In none of the cases can they prove the encounters were nonconsensual.
     
    Cosby drugged and raped these women, that's every bit as disgusting as what Weinstein did, maybe worse. There was nothing consensual about these women who were drugged then raped. From what I recall they were just meeting him in his dressing room. What you are saying is equivalent to blaming date rape victims who were drugged for being consensual and not remembering, seriously ridiculous.

    Cosby drugged and raped these women, that’s every bit as disgusting as what Weinstein did, maybe worse.

    Can you show me one instance that it any one woman had drugs forced upon them against their will? Every single tale I’ve heard involves the women consensually taking party drugs Cosby offers them. That’s not drugging them. To claim that’s drugging them means you have to blame every man who offers a lady a drink got her drunk against her will, which is nonsense.

    There was nothing consensual about these women who were drugged then raped.

    Not a single story I’ve heard shows any evidence Cosby forced himself on these women against their will. It’s either they took drugs and they sleep with him, or they “black out” (conveniently) after consensually taking the drugs and the next morning they’re naked. If a woman can’t handle the drugs she willingly took, it’s not rape; its the woman’s bad judgment.

    From what I recall they were just meeting him in his dressing room.

    Um, what? I’ve heard stories about girls going back to Cosby’s house, playing pool at his house, going to his hotel room, etc.

    What you are saying is equivalent to blaming date rape victims who were drugged for being consensual and not remembering

    If you willing take a substance you know will mess you up and then sleep with someone, it’s not rape. Period. It’s not Cosby’s job to police a woman’s limits; it’s their own. Cosby acted lecherously and adulterously, but not criminally, at least not on the facts you’re showing.

    And there is no such thing as “date rape”. There is only rape: forcible intercourse. Everything else is a feminazi nonsense invention to try to drum up rape numbers and scare women and demonize men.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Kabala
    You can believe or not believe whatever you want, especially with actions so far beyond the statute of limitations, but many of the claims do involve drinks that the women say they did not know were spiked. In a few cases the women claim to have escaped once they realized their drink was drugged. Most actions took place at his home, but some elsewhere.

    You can read a mind-numbing list here (if you can bear it - I gave up about halfway through): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Cosby_sexual_assault_allegations
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  231. whorefinder says: • Website
    @Mr. Anon

    Plus Daddy Paltrow and Spielberg had to have known about Weinstein, and warned G. Paltrow about him. So unless it is acceptable for all Hollywood producers to do this, and G. Paltrow was sickly told by her family to play ball, or its fictitious.
     
    Maybe she thought it was safe to do business with Weinstein given that she was protected. Maybe her protectors thought the same thing. And maybe Weinstein had other ideas.

    Actually, I'm not surprised that people, either men or women, didn't come forward earlier to denounce Weinstein. What were they supposed to say: "This guy is a predator, at least so I have heard. Everyone knows it". There are libel laws in this country. They may be weaker than in the UK, but they still do exist. And Weinstein had the resources to use them.

    Moreover, being known as a trouble-maker / whistle-blower is usually never a good career move. Even if Weinstein didn't put it a bad word for you, or used his influence to harm your career, other producers still might not want to hire you, because you're a boat-rocker. They might be afraid of what you'd say about them. Who wants to hire a potential liability?

    Hollywood is a dirty business. It should surprise no one that a lot of people in it are dirty.

    Yeah, the current crop of feminazism did Harvey in. The SJWs of Hollywood–including Weinstein– let that nonsense into the Hollywood sphere, and it turned and bit him on the backside.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  232. whorefinder says: • Website
    @Art Deco
    Well, before the movie system coalesced into the Hollywood studio-monopolies,

    There was no monopoly. There were eight major studios. A motor for the migration of the film industry to Los Angeles was the formation of the Motion Picture Patents Trust in 1909. That actually was an attempt at monopoly.

    8 major studios to sell to hundreds of millions of people? You don’t think that;s monopolistic? Buddy, in the early 1980s the fact that there were only 50 major media companies made a lot of people yell “monopoly” at the system—and now adays there’s only 6.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    No, that's not monopolistic. You can call it oligopolistic. Oligopoly is not monopoly. It's a fairly unremarkable market structure in this economy. And, of course, it referred only to film production. Radio, magazines, newspapers, book publishing, and recording were all important media at that time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  233. @International Jew
    The burden of proof is on Steve, since he's claiming that Jewish producers/directors are scoundrels more so than their gentile colleagues.

    Hugh Hefner and Barbi Benton ((Barbara Klein))? Roger Ailes? Bill O’Reilly? The Kennedys?

    Exploiters come from all backgrounds. I can’t even blame it all on men, because there are a few lesbian or bi women in theatre who will try the same thing on young actresses, although they are less likely to move from quid pro quo to all-out assault as Weinstein apparently did.

    Power tend to corrupt…Etc. Maybe what’s really going on in these cases is a mixture of lust and ENVY. The victims are young and hot, and the perps are neither.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  234. @Sean

    There was no rape here.
     
    Every rapist says that.

    Of course. There is no institutional oppression in digital space.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  235. MEH 0910 says:

    Quentin Tarantino Breaks Silence on Harvey Weinstein: ‘Stunned and Heartbroken’

    Longtime Harvey Weinstein collaborator Quentin Tarantino has broken his silence regarding the explosive sexual harassment allegations surrounding the mogul via a tweet from Amber Tamblyn Thursday night.

    The actress posted a statement on friend Tarantino’s behalf, which reads, “For the last week, I’ve been stunned and heartbroken about the revelations that have come to light about my friend for 25 years Harvey Weinstein. I need a few more days to process my pain, emotions, anger and memory and then I will speak publicly about it.”

    The Weinstein Company produced all of Tarantino’s films since “Pulp Fiction,” most recently “The Hateful Eight,” “Inglourious Basterds,” and “Django Unchained,” which is the company’s highest-grossing film. Weinstein and Tarantino are close friends — Weinstein threw an engagement party for Tarantino in September.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  236. @Art Deco
    In other words, for the past half century at least, Jews have definitely had a hand in directing and leading modern feminist movement.

    NOW had two Jewish presidents during the period running from 1966 to 1977; none since. Steinem's Jewish affiliation is tenuous; she grew up in Toledo and grew up poor because of the idiosyncratic incompetence of her mother and her father. Abzug's a much better example, though much more of a generic red-haze type prior to 1979.

    No, you think of police detectives as plodding and stupid to begin with. It has nothing to do with the content of the programs.

    I think Pat is mistaking the imbecility of the perps for that of the detectives. The characteristic of “low cunning” mostly exists in novels. Workaday criminals aren’t capable of it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  237. benjaminl says:
    @International Jew

    non-WASP moguls like Mayer in taking over the industry. They came from more patriarchal and ethnocentric backgrounds, and didn’t see much reason to respect shiksas.

     

    Steve, do you have some reason to believe that Mayer's gentile contemporaries, or Weinstein's, were any more chivalrous with "shiksa" actresses? Or are you just going to run with your Haim Monaheim?

    I’m pretty sure that it’s part of human nature, at least in the male lizard brain or whatever you want to call it, to see women from the outgroup as less like “this could be my daughter” and more like a prize to be won.

    This explains Romans and Sabines, white slave masters and black slave women, or any number of examples one could cite, but it would also predict that predominantly Jewish executives would be less careful around predominantly Gentile starlets. (It would also predict the converse as well, but that wasn’t the situation apparently.)

    Anyway, I thought of this in the New Yorker piece, where one executive with a conscience mentioned “my daughter” to one of the victims.

    Not saying it’s a total correlation, just one factor. There are many things that might make a man say “this could be my daughter,” and one of them is if she belongs to his ethnic in-group. That’s just human nature.

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/from-aggressive-overtures-to-sexual-assault-harvey-weinsteins-accusers-tell-their-stories

    Nestor told me that some people at the company did seem concerned. Irwin Reiter, a senior executive who had worked for Weinstein for almost three decades, sent her a series of messages via LinkedIn. “We view this very seriously and I personally am very sorry your first day was like this,” Reiter wrote. “Also if there are further unwanted advances, please let us know.” Last year, just before the Presidential election, he reached out again, writing, “All this Trump stuff made me think of you.” He described Nestor’s experience as part of Weinstein’s serial misconduct. “I’ve fought him about mistreatment of women 3 weeks before the incident with you. I even wrote him an email that got me labelled by him as sex police,” he wrote. “The fight I had with him about you was epic. I told him if you were my daughter he would have not made out so well.” (Reiter declined to comment for this article, but his lawyer, Debra Katz, confirmed the authenticity of the messages and said that Reiter had made diligent efforts to raise these issues, to no avail. Katz also noted that Reiter “is eager to coöperate fully with any outside investigation.”)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  238. @whorefinder

    Cosby drugged and raped these women, that’s every bit as disgusting as what Weinstein did, maybe worse.
     
    Can you show me one instance that it any one woman had drugs forced upon them against their will? Every single tale I've heard involves the women consensually taking party drugs Cosby offers them. That's not drugging them. To claim that's drugging them means you have to blame every man who offers a lady a drink got her drunk against her will, which is nonsense.

    There was nothing consensual about these women who were drugged then raped.
     
    Not a single story I've heard shows any evidence Cosby forced himself on these women against their will. It's either they took drugs and they sleep with him, or they "black out" (conveniently) after consensually taking the drugs and the next morning they're naked. If a woman can't handle the drugs she willingly took, it's not rape; its the woman's bad judgment.

    From what I recall they were just meeting him in his dressing room.
     
    Um, what? I've heard stories about girls going back to Cosby's house, playing pool at his house, going to his hotel room, etc.


    What you are saying is equivalent to blaming date rape victims who were drugged for being consensual and not remembering
     
    If you willing take a substance you know will mess you up and then sleep with someone, it's not rape. Period. It's not Cosby's job to police a woman's limits; it's their own. Cosby acted lecherously and adulterously, but not criminally, at least not on the facts you're showing.

    And there is no such thing as "date rape". There is only rape: forcible intercourse. Everything else is a feminazi nonsense invention to try to drum up rape numbers and scare women and demonize men.

    You can believe or not believe whatever you want, especially with actions so far beyond the statute of limitations, but many of the claims do involve drinks that the women say they did not know were spiked. In a few cases the women claim to have escaped once they realized their drink was drugged. Most actions took place at his home, but some elsewhere.

    You can read a mind-numbing list here (if you can bear it – I gave up about halfway through): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Cosby_sexual_assault_allegations

    Read More
    • Replies: @whorefinder
    Add the caveat that most women who think their drinks are "spiked" aren't drugged at all. They are either being hysterical or having a bad reaction to the alcohol. In the 1990s the panic over date rape drugs proved to be a huge dud---something like 95% of the people who thought they were drugged (mostly women) weren't drugged at all, they just had a weak night with alcohol--either they drank more than they remember or it mixed with medications they were already taking. (Date rape drugs were common in the gay community, but usually used openly to enhance a night out, and then a few gays overdosed and had sex that they couldn't remember and they spread the panic to straights, as they did with AIDS).

    Women love to blame bad behavior on anything but themselves. Claiming a drink was "spiked" is just one more avenue. Most of these women are trying to justify years and decades afterwards why they slept with creepy Cosby. They were bunch of stars-in-their-eyes groupies or starlets on the make wanting Cosby to help them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  239. Ian M. says:
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Which saints? The Toothfairy, Bigfoot, and Loch Ness kind or the actual historical persons? For millennia, the Church did not make the distinction.,

    I’m not sure exactly what your point is. That certain legends and later accretions grew up around the cult of the saints, or that maybe St. Christopher didn’t actually exist? If so, what is this supposed to prove?

    Does the non-existence of phlogiston cast doubt on the whole scientific enterprise?

    Does Washington and the cherry tree being a myth mean we shouldn’t honor George Washington? Supposing King Arthur didn’t exist, does that mean the English shouldn’t honor King Edward I?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Don't miss the obvious. If such saints did not exist, or if their lives were greatly embellished, then this is called lying in the cause. Much like legendary Hollywood filmmaker John Ford's dictum "If the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

    Uh, Plantagenet Edward I (1239-1307) is not the same historical person as Briton King Arthur (ca.450-600?). The better analogy would be is that if William the Conqueror did not exist, perhaps one shouldn't honor Edward I.

    Suppose one believes in Santa Claus on the word of their parents. A little later as childhood passes they discover that Santa Claus (as he is generally portrayed in popular culture at large) was made up. The thing is, if they can't believe or trust on faith regarding Santa Claus, then what else have they been told that is a fairytale?

    Honor historical persons for what they have actually achieved and accomplished, not for the embellishments and fairytales that were later added. In other words skip the icing and just eat the cake.

    I think that Last Real Calvinist would sympathize when I state that unlike Roman Catholicism, Protestants, for the most part, don't have this problem with the lives of saints that have been embellished and oftentimes made up in the service of promoting a certain point of view within Christendom.

    When relating the histories of Christian historical persons, stick with the known facts, and just the facts. That way one won't be accused of lying later on to the children. Fairytales about "historical persons" = disillusionment and walking away from the faith since one can no longer trust the institution putting out the fairytales (e.g. "If they can lie about certain saints lives, what else have they been lying about regarding the faith?").
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  240. schmenz says:
    @anon
    Mayer talking about his reasons for casting 16 y/o Lana Turner:
    ''She looks like a woman with an itchy cunt.''

    Thanks for the reply (alas, no thanks for including the four-letter word). But a reliable source for that quote would be much appreciated.

    Thanks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Can't remember the source.
    Hollywood Babylon 2 is my best guess.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  241. Brutusale says:
    @KunioKun
    I wonder if this ever happens with homosexuals

    Don’t know about homosexuals, but good-looking straight actors are still groped by studio execs.

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/12/entertainment/james-van-der-beek-grabbed/index.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  242. Brutusale says:
    @Rosamond Vincy
    Maybe he has standards after all.

    No it’s not standards, it’s more along the lines of not wiping your butt with used toilet paper!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  243. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Moshe
    Ctrl+F = Jew

    Every comment is pure and lovely. Jews who view you guys with suspicion are just paranoid. Your world views, particularly regarding the place of "the jew" in the world shows why any distaste for you guys is unfounded and based on ancient ridiculous Jewish phobias.

    Not a comment here with the word "jew" was sane.

    Oh, and the most pertinent bit of information about the article on Spy vs Spy isn't anything to do with Russia, or that Israel informed the United States about Russia, or really anything else. The most logical summary of that article about Kaspersky is the speculation that somehow the sneaky Jew was doing disgusting things for his demonic reasons.

    It's Amoral Jews all the way down

    Just wait til you see the over-representation in pedogate…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  244. Brutusale says:
    @inertial
    28 women who co-founded NOW:

    Ada Allness, Mary Evelyn Benbow, Gene Boyer, Analoyce Clapp, Kathryn Clarenbach, Catherine Conroy, Caroline Davis, Mary Eastwood, Edith Finlayson, Betty Friedan, Dorothy Haener, Anna Roosevelt Halstead, Lorene Harrington, Mary Lou Hill, Esther Johnson, Nancy Knaak, Min Matheson, Helen Moreland, Dr. Pauli Murray (later Rev.), Ruth Murray, Inka O’Hanrahan, Pauline A. Parish, Eve Purvis, Edna Schwartz, Mary-Jane Ryan Snyder, Gretchen Squires, Betty Talkington and Dr. Caroline Ware.
     

    My first boss was Lou Burke. My first paycheck was signed by Louis K. Berkowitz.

    My second boss was Mike Karess. Paycheck was signed by Myron Karess.

    Not so much now, but back in the day many of the Tribe, indeed many non-Anglo ethnics, believed in protective camouflage.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  245. @Thomas

    They came from more patriarchal and ethnocentric backgrounds, and didn’t see much reason to respect shiksas. As I wrote then:

    The rise of the Ellis Island immigrant populations helped delay feminism’s triumph that had once seemed imminent in WASP-dominated America. But that’s the kind of paradox likely to be met with blank stares in 2013.
     
    With yet another patriarchal, Semitic-originating religion and culture seeing its membership expanding fast in the Western world, history may be repeating itself a century later.

    Slightly off-topic: Holy moly, you were right about Marilyn Manson. Compared to Weinstein, he really was a step up.

    How did Harvey have time to eat all those meals he clearly had, let alone do any actual business? Even if some of the accusations are “me, too! Let ME on the bandwagon,” it sounds like that’s all he ever did.

    In South Park terms:

    You don’t eat or sleep or mow the lawn
    You just maul your starlets all day long

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  246. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    Under the now infamous Tablet article, an announcement:

    COMMENTING CHARGES
    Daily rate: $2
    Monthly rate: $18
    Yearly rate: $180

    WAIT, WHY DO I HAVE TO PAY TO COMMENT?
    Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life …
     
    It’s like a snip from McSweeney’s, only vaguely anti-Semitic.

    In other news, Dr. Seuss’s characters are getting a lot of notice these days. Or is the image below left a rare Richard Scarry?

    https://twitter.com/CONTENTINOPLE/status/916829421570584577

    Alas for Erika Bauer fans, the victims aren’t all Aryan maidens. The Coreys (Haim and Feldman) were neither maidens nor Aryan. Haim didn’t survive to blow the whistle–although Feldman has been trying to do so for years, disregarded like another Cassandra.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  247. Sean says:
    @theMann
    Well gee everybody, when you understand that women are amoral, irrational, and vicious, it becomes a lot easier to understand what is going on here.


    Weinstein my be an out of control little creep, but he didn't create the situation he found himself in, he merely exploited what was already there with a little more aggressive fury than most. Give him his props for committing fully to the wickedness of his opportunities, most bad people are much weaker than that.


    There is no such thing as sexual morality where women are concerned, they simply seek status, approval, and power, and sex is the means to all those things. (As a mental exercise, figure out how much porn there is in America, how much of it involves hot women ages 18-36, and how many hot women there are in America ages 18-36. Seriously, that is the number of women willing to do porn for crying out loud.)


    The casting couch doesn't exist because some men are exploiters, it exist because women have the power to choose, and a lot of them choose to give it up to an appalling physical creep like Weinstein, for status (actress), approval(roles), power(fame). Seriously, he never got kicked in the balls? Once even? Nobody comes off looking good here, and if you want to make a case for burning Hollywood to the ground, I won't argue against it.

    Weinstein is a 6 foot 300lb rapist. Women hitting men is in his movies, not the real world.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  248. Art Deco says:
    @whorefinder
    8 major studios to sell to hundreds of millions of people? You don't think that;s monopolistic? Buddy, in the early 1980s the fact that there were only 50 major media companies made a lot of people yell "monopoly" at the system---and now adays there's only 6.

    No, that’s not monopolistic. You can call it oligopolistic. Oligopoly is not monopoly. It’s a fairly unremarkable market structure in this economy. And, of course, it referred only to film production. Radio, magazines, newspapers, book publishing, and recording were all important media at that time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  249. Art Deco says:
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Uh, you do understand that NOW is not the be all and end all of the modern feminist movement. It has expanded since half a century ago.

    It has expanded since half a century ago.

    There’s academic women’s studies (notable for having professors but no students), there are organizations of a certain bent which pre-dated NOW, e.g. AAUW. Organized feminism’s not that important as women of a certain disposition have worked their way into institutions. Eleanor Smeal was far more prominent in her time than whoever it is running NOW today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Uh, yes. And many of these feminist organizations have an over-representation of Jewish Americans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  250. Art Deco says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    the obsession with things Jewish among the commenters here has always been perplexing.
     
    A group that constitutes 2% to 3% of the U.S. population yet dominates this country's (and, by extension, the world's) politics, foreign policy, media, legal establishment, academia and investment banking.

    A group whose leadership has pushed and continues to push for the transformation of formerly white, Christian countries into multi-racial, multi-religious societies while simultaneously fighting tooth and nail for their own ethno-state.

    Yes, quite perplexing.

    A group that constitutes 2% to 3% of the U.S. population yet dominates this country’s (and, by extension, the world’s) politics, foreign policy, media, legal establishment, academia and investment banking.

    American Jews do not ‘dominate’ any of these venues except in the space between your ears. They’re most prominent in the sales-and-trading wing of the securities business. If you run down a list of the chief executives of the country’s dozen or so most consequential financial firms, the only Jewish name you see is Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs.

    Sorry Hy Goldberg gave you a rotten performance review. You don’t have to obsess about it for 20 years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @whorefinder
    ROFL. Art Deco, you can try your little George-Soros-paid-for disinformation campaign, but we ain't falling for it, baby. Back to the Daily Kos, kid!
    , @Mr. Anon

    They’re most prominent in the sales-and-trading wing of the securities business. If you run down a list of the chief executives of the country’s dozen or so most consequential financial firms, the only Jewish name you see is Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs.
     
    You are, as usual, completely full of s**t

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_D._Fink

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Cohn_(investment_banker)

    What about former VPs, former chairman (and current stock-holders), Presidents, COOs, CFOs, etc? As if the CEO is the only person who counts.

    What about 33% of the Supreme Court? 8-10% of the Senate, etc.?

    You are nothing but a dissembling liar.
    , @Mr. Anon

    They’re most prominent in the sales-and-trading wing of the securities business. If you run down a list of the chief executives of the country’s dozen or so most consequential financial firms, the only Jewish name you see is Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs.
     
    I can tell you don't lie for a living. You're not very good at it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_D._Fink

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Cohn_(investment_banker)

    To name only a few. And what VPs, former chairman (and current stock-holders), Presidents, COOs, CFOs, etc? As if the CEO is the only person who counts.

    What about 33% of the Supreme Court? 8-10% of the Senate, etc.? That sounds like "disparate impact" to me.

    You really are a pathetic clown, Art.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  251. MBlanc46 says:
    @Hibernian
    There's a limit to the brazeness that you can get away with.

    Agreed. But the richer and famouser you are, the more you can get away with.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  252. whorefinder says: • Website
    @James Kabala
    You can believe or not believe whatever you want, especially with actions so far beyond the statute of limitations, but many of the claims do involve drinks that the women say they did not know were spiked. In a few cases the women claim to have escaped once they realized their drink was drugged. Most actions took place at his home, but some elsewhere.

    You can read a mind-numbing list here (if you can bear it - I gave up about halfway through): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Cosby_sexual_assault_allegations

    Add the caveat that most women who think their drinks are “spiked” aren’t drugged at all. They are either being hysterical or having a bad reaction to the alcohol. In the 1990s the panic over date rape drugs proved to be a huge dud—something like 95% of the people who thought they were drugged (mostly women) weren’t drugged at all, they just had a weak night with alcohol–either they drank more than they remember or it mixed with medications they were already taking. (Date rape drugs were common in the gay community, but usually used openly to enhance a night out, and then a few gays overdosed and had sex that they couldn’t remember and they spread the panic to straights, as they did with AIDS).

    Women love to blame bad behavior on anything but themselves. Claiming a drink was “spiked” is just one more avenue. Most of these women are trying to justify years and decades afterwards why they slept with creepy Cosby. They were bunch of stars-in-their-eyes groupies or starlets on the make wanting Cosby to help them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  253. whorefinder says: • Website
    @Art Deco
    A group that constitutes 2% to 3% of the U.S. population yet dominates this country’s (and, by extension, the world’s) politics, foreign policy, media, legal establishment, academia and investment banking.

    American Jews do not 'dominate' any of these venues except in the space between your ears. They're most prominent in the sales-and-trading wing of the securities business. If you run down a list of the chief executives of the country's dozen or so most consequential financial firms, the only Jewish name you see is Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs.

    Sorry Hy Goldberg gave you a rotten performance review. You don't have to obsess about it for 20 years.

    ROFL. Art Deco, you can try your little George-Soros-paid-for disinformation campaign, but we ain’t falling for it, baby. Back to the Daily Kos, kid!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    For a long time, I couldn't figure out if Art Deco was a habitual liar, or just stupid.

    But I have now come to the conclusion that he is a stupid liar.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  254. @Harry Baldwin
    Lena Dunham must be one of the few Hollywood actresses Weinstein never thought of hitting on.

    Speaking of which:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4978864/Lena-Dunham-editor-chief-Glamour.html

    Most comments speculate that this is an Onion story. The woman has no experience editing a magazine, and as for fashion sense, while many style icons have overcome personal deficiencies with a knack for what is chic, Dunham unerringly gravitates to the frumpy. I no longer believe she’s just tone-deaf to fashion; it’s her message of hostility to the world. There are pictures of her at red carpet events where someone has clearly styled her: soft make-up, hair arranged, clothing with lines that lengthen her rather lumpy body.
    Example 1:

    Within hours, she will appear looking as awful as possible:
    Example 2:

    I sincerely believe she thinks the public doesn’t deserve to look at attractive women.

    Read More
    • Replies: @whorefinder
    I'm convinced that Girls, which made Lena Dunham's name, was a front for her mother to write/produce the show for her. There simply is no way HBO would give one of their extremely-highly-coveted TV slots to a 24 year old sewer troll, even if she had made one movie that nobody saw.

    I mean, freakin' established producers with 20 of years of hit series and movies are being turned down by HBO all the time. Yet they would take a chance on this young lumpkin? Yeah, right.

    But an established 50-something artist like her mom? Yes, especially when she can get her daughter to act as the front and therefore generate "buzz" that the series is based on a wunderkind's first-hand view of the life of 20-something sluts in Brookyln. A J.T. Leroy moment. Or Roxanne.

    So I would not be surprised if this is another front job.

    And this is before we remember Lena Dunham raped her own sister and made up a rape hoax about her own college life. This woman is a psychopath.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  255. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @schmenz
    Thanks for the reply (alas, no thanks for including the four-letter word). But a reliable source for that quote would be much appreciated.

    Thanks.

    Can’t remember the source.
    Hollywood Babylon 2 is my best guess.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  256. Mr. Anon says:
    @Art Deco
    A group that constitutes 2% to 3% of the U.S. population yet dominates this country’s (and, by extension, the world’s) politics, foreign policy, media, legal establishment, academia and investment banking.

    American Jews do not 'dominate' any of these venues except in the space between your ears. They're most prominent in the sales-and-trading wing of the securities business. If you run down a list of the chief executives of the country's dozen or so most consequential financial firms, the only Jewish name you see is Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs.

    Sorry Hy Goldberg gave you a rotten performance review. You don't have to obsess about it for 20 years.

    They’re most prominent in the sales-and-trading wing of the securities business. If you run down a list of the chief executives of the country’s dozen or so most consequential financial firms, the only Jewish name you see is Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs.

    You are, as usual, completely full of s**t

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_D._Fink

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Cohn_(investment_banker)

    What about former VPs, former chairman (and current stock-holders), Presidents, COOs, CFOs, etc? As if the CEO is the only person who counts.

    What about 33% of the Supreme Court? 8-10% of the Senate, etc.?

    You are nothing but a dissembling liar.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  257. Mr. Anon says:
    @whorefinder
    ROFL. Art Deco, you can try your little George-Soros-paid-for disinformation campaign, but we ain't falling for it, baby. Back to the Daily Kos, kid!

    For a long time, I couldn’t figure out if Art Deco was a habitual liar, or just stupid.

    But I have now come to the conclusion that he is a stupid liar.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  258. @Ian M.
    I'm not sure exactly what your point is. That certain legends and later accretions grew up around the cult of the saints, or that maybe St. Christopher didn't actually exist? If so, what is this supposed to prove?

    Does the non-existence of phlogiston cast doubt on the whole scientific enterprise?

    Does Washington and the cherry tree being a myth mean we shouldn't honor George Washington? Supposing King Arthur didn't exist, does that mean the English shouldn't honor King Edward I?

    Don’t miss the obvious. If such saints did not exist, or if their lives were greatly embellished, then this is called lying in the cause. Much like legendary Hollywood filmmaker John Ford’s dictum “If the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”

    Uh, Plantagenet Edward I (1239-1307) is not the same historical person as Briton King Arthur (ca.450-600?). The better analogy would be is that if William the Conqueror did not exist, perhaps one shouldn’t honor Edward I.

    Suppose one believes in Santa Claus on the word of their parents. A little later as childhood passes they discover that Santa Claus (as he is generally portrayed in popular culture at large) was made up. The thing is, if they can’t believe or trust on faith regarding Santa Claus, then what else have they been told that is a fairytale?

    Honor historical persons for what they have actually achieved and accomplished, not for the embellishments and fairytales that were later added. In other words skip the icing and just eat the cake.

    I think that Last Real Calvinist would sympathize when I state that unlike Roman Catholicism, Protestants, for the most part, don’t have this problem with the lives of saints that have been embellished and oftentimes made up in the service of promoting a certain point of view within Christendom.

    When relating the histories of Christian historical persons, stick with the known facts, and just the facts. That way one won’t be accused of lying later on to the children. Fairytales about “historical persons” = disillusionment and walking away from the faith since one can no longer trust the institution putting out the fairytales (e.g. “If they can lie about certain saints lives, what else have they been lying about regarding the faith?”).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  259. @Art Deco
    It has expanded since half a century ago.

    There's academic women's studies (notable for having professors but no students), there are organizations of a certain bent which pre-dated NOW, e.g. AAUW. Organized feminism's not that important as women of a certain disposition have worked their way into institutions. Eleanor Smeal was far more prominent in her time than whoever it is running NOW today.

    Uh, yes. And many of these feminist organizations have an over-representation of Jewish Americans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  260. Ivy says:
    @Lagertha
    There are a heck of a lot of "life coaches" in LA. What are they? Confused/weak people should just read stuff like iSteve, or read in general, and they would not need to pay a Life Coach. One of the most messed-up people I know (erratic in his career choices, along with untimely changes on his career path) is suddenly a Life Coach.

    You so have to do a piece on these Life Coaches, Steve. So many people here, could have a 3rd or 4th career, come out of retirement, to coach these messed up, confused people in LA! - or, entire studios of confused people. Maybe Gurus will evolve again.

    Life coaches with less ambition and physical conditioning (read, lazier) devolve into psychics. Either one seems like a waypoint on some downward spiral trip. The theory, if there needs to be one: Why not get paid to string along the gullible, from the comfort of one’s den, in PJs?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lagertha
    ;) ...zzzzzzz.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  261. Mr. Anon says:
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Uh, you do understand that NOW is not the be all and end all of the modern feminist movement. It has expanded since half a century ago.

    Uh, you do understand that NOW is not the be all and end all of the modern feminist movement. It has expanded since half a century ago.

    Art Deco “knows” a great many things. He understands very few.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  262. Mr. Anon says:
    @Art Deco
    A group that constitutes 2% to 3% of the U.S. population yet dominates this country’s (and, by extension, the world’s) politics, foreign policy, media, legal establishment, academia and investment banking.

    American Jews do not 'dominate' any of these venues except in the space between your ears. They're most prominent in the sales-and-trading wing of the securities business. If you run down a list of the chief executives of the country's dozen or so most consequential financial firms, the only Jewish name you see is Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs.

    Sorry Hy Goldberg gave you a rotten performance review. You don't have to obsess about it for 20 years.

    They’re most prominent in the sales-and-trading wing of the securities business. If you run down a list of the chief executives of the country’s dozen or so most consequential financial firms, the only Jewish name you see is Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs.

    I can tell you don’t lie for a living. You’re not very good at it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_D._Fink

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Cohn_(investment_banker)

    To name only a few. And what VPs, former chairman (and current stock-holders), Presidents, COOs, CFOs, etc? As if the CEO is the only person who counts.

    What about 33% of the Supreme Court? 8-10% of the Senate, etc.? That sounds like “disparate impact” to me.

    You really are a pathetic clown, Art.

    Read More
    • Replies: @whorefinder
    Art Deco's not a very good troll, and is in fact laughably bad, as you have demonstrated. Media Matters really needs to train them better.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  263. whorefinder says: • Website
    @Rosamond Vincy
    Speaking of which:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4978864/Lena-Dunham-editor-chief-Glamour.html

    Most comments speculate that this is an Onion story. The woman has no experience editing a magazine, and as for fashion sense, while many style icons have overcome personal deficiencies with a knack for what is chic, Dunham unerringly gravitates to the frumpy. I no longer believe she's just tone-deaf to fashion; it's her message of hostility to the world. There are pictures of her at red carpet events where someone has clearly styled her: soft make-up, hair arranged, clothing with lines that lengthen her rather lumpy body.
    Example 1: https://media.glamour.com/photos/5943f8ae8bb2814937a78bc3/1:1/w_352/GettyImages-671286224.jpg

    Within hours, she will appear looking as awful as possible:
    Example 2:
    https://images.hellogiggles.com/uploads/2017/10/11091230/lena-700x525.jpg

    I sincerely believe she thinks the public doesn't deserve to look at attractive women.

    I’m convinced that Girls, which made Lena Dunham’s name, was a front for her mother to write/produce the show for her. There simply is no way HBO would give one of their extremely-highly-coveted TV slots to a 24 year old sewer troll, even if she had made one movie that nobody saw.

    I mean, freakin’ established producers with 20 of years of hit series and movies are being turned down by HBO all the time. Yet they would take a chance on this young lumpkin? Yeah, right.

    But an established 50-something artist like her mom? Yes, especially when she can get her daughter to act as the front and therefore generate “buzz” that the series is based on a wunderkind’s first-hand view of the life of 20-something sluts in Brookyln. A J.T. Leroy moment. Or Roxanne.

    So I would not be surprised if this is another front job.

    And this is before we remember Lena Dunham raped her own sister and made up a rape hoax about her own college life. This woman is a psychopath.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
    There have always been character actors (as distinct from romantic leads), but Dunham thinks she's entitled to invent her own category, rather than accept typecasting as actors have done for as long as there have been theatres.

    I wonder how many female fans she has who "like" her mostly because they can look at her and think, "At least I look better than THAT."

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  264. whorefinder says: • Website
    @Mr. Anon

    They’re most prominent in the sales-and-trading wing of the securities business. If you run down a list of the chief executives of the country’s dozen or so most consequential financial firms, the only Jewish name you see is Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs.
     
    I can tell you don't lie for a living. You're not very good at it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_D._Fink

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Cohn_(investment_banker)

    To name only a few. And what VPs, former chairman (and current stock-holders), Presidents, COOs, CFOs, etc? As if the CEO is the only person who counts.

    What about 33% of the Supreme Court? 8-10% of the Senate, etc.? That sounds like "disparate impact" to me.

    You really are a pathetic clown, Art.

    Art Deco’s not a very good troll, and is in fact laughably bad, as you have demonstrated. Media Matters really needs to train them better.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  265. Lagertha says:
    @Ivy
    Life coaches with less ambition and physical conditioning (read, lazier) devolve into psychics. Either one seems like a waypoint on some downward spiral trip. The theory, if there needs to be one: Why not get paid to string along the gullible, from the comfort of one's den, in PJs?

    ;) …zzzzzzz.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  266. @whorefinder
    I'm convinced that Girls, which made Lena Dunham's name, was a front for her mother to write/produce the show for her. There simply is no way HBO would give one of their extremely-highly-coveted TV slots to a 24 year old sewer troll, even if she had made one movie that nobody saw.

    I mean, freakin' established producers with 20 of years of hit series and movies are being turned down by HBO all the time. Yet they would take a chance on this young lumpkin? Yeah, right.

    But an established 50-something artist like her mom? Yes, especially when she can get her daughter to act as the front and therefore generate "buzz" that the series is based on a wunderkind's first-hand view of the life of 20-something sluts in Brookyln. A J.T. Leroy moment. Or Roxanne.

    So I would not be surprised if this is another front job.

    And this is before we remember Lena Dunham raped her own sister and made up a rape hoax about her own college life. This woman is a psychopath.

    There have always been character actors (as distinct from romantic leads), but Dunham thinks she’s entitled to invent her own category, rather than accept typecasting as actors have done for as long as there have been theatres.

    I wonder how many female fans she has who “like” her mostly because they can look at her and think, “At least I look better than THAT.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @whorefinder

    I wonder how many female fans she has who “like” her mostly because they can look at her and think, “At least I look better than THAT.”
     
    Quite frankly, she doesn't have that many female fans, period. Less than a million people---heck, less, than 800,000 people---would tune in to Girls. That's literally less than the population of the place it was set in (Brooklyn). Reruns of RuPaul's Drag Race out drew that crap.

    Nobody watched the show, but critics got in an echo chamber and talked her up.Her books sold a pittance but the "right" people read it. She's skated by on the strength of her social connections and the "right" people liking her, not on actual success. In other words, she has great networking going on to talk her up, but other than other ugly left wing critics, nobody likes her stuff.

    She's likely pure agitprop. Likely a CIA promotion, for whatever America-wrecking reason they promoted Gloria Steinem (who has stated that she worked with the CIA early in her career). Or her parents got her the best agent around who has earned every penny by giving Lena "Sewer Troll" Dunham the fame she doesn't deserve.

    I am reminded of the actually goodlooking Jessica Biel, who for years had all of her movies mega-hyped and her name announced above the title; she seemed like a star. Then someone noticed her movies kept flopping and no one outside the paparazzi knew/cared who she was; you'll notice they quickly stopped giving her plum roles and promotion. She's gone to become Mrs. Justin Timberlake, which I think suits her just fine.

    Talk is cheap; results matter. And Lena Dunham hasn't produced any results.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  267. whorefinder says: • Website
    @Rosamond Vincy
    There have always been character actors (as distinct from romantic leads), but Dunham thinks she's entitled to invent her own category, rather than accept typecasting as actors have done for as long as there have been theatres.

    I wonder how many female fans she has who "like" her mostly because they can look at her and think, "At least I look better than THAT."

    I wonder how many female fans she has who “like” her mostly because they can look at her and think, “At least I look better than THAT.”

    Quite frankly, she doesn’t have that many female fans, period. Less than a million people—heck, less, than 800,000 people—would tune in to Girls. That’s literally less than the population of the place it was set in (Brooklyn). Reruns of RuPaul’s Drag Race out drew that crap.

    Nobody watched the show, but critics got in an echo chamber and talked her up.Her books sold a pittance but the “right” people read it. She’s skated by on the strength of her social connections and the “right” people liking her, not on actual success. In other words, she has great networking going on to talk her up, but other than other ugly left wing critics, nobody likes her stuff.

    She’s likely pure agitprop. Likely a CIA promotion, for whatever America-wrecking reason they promoted Gloria Steinem (who has stated that she worked with the CIA early in her career). Or her parents got her the best agent around who has earned every penny by giving Lena “Sewer Troll” Dunham the fame she doesn’t deserve.

    I am reminded of the actually goodlooking Jessica Biel, who for years had all of her movies mega-hyped and her name announced above the title; she seemed like a star. Then someone noticed her movies kept flopping and no one outside the paparazzi knew/cared who she was; you’ll notice they quickly stopped giving her plum roles and promotion. She’s gone to become Mrs. Justin Timberlake, which I think suits her just fine.

    Talk is cheap; results matter. And Lena Dunham hasn’t produced any results.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
    Gloria Steinem, at least was quite pretty when she was young.

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/02/29/10/318DAAB200000578-3468553-image-m-6_1456741501338.jpg

    Pretty enough that she went undercover as a Playboy Bunny.

    https://i.pinimg.com/736x/e3/7d/1e/e37d1ef21db5686f1ba42c4a9885ba60--gloria-steinem-quotes-womens-rights.jpg

    (NOT a centerfold, and yes, with "undercover" the jokes just write themselves don't they?), and a young and pretty Kirstie Alley played her in a TV movie:

    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5d/0a/34/5d0a344bf6a94e9510594464177966ee.jpg

    And of course there are performers who more go more less pretty depending on what the role requires: Charlize Theron, Robert DeNiro and Jared Leto (both of whom have gone dangerously fat or thin for roles).

    Does Dunham even play anything but herself? And if that is her only role, can she make it work the way John Wayne or Gracie Allen did (i.e., it was always the same character, but people liked it well enough that they wanted to see it again and again)?

    If you are right and this is only an engineered fad that didn't work, then we'll see the back of her--or better yet, no part of her soon enough. But in the meantime, she's going to kill Glamour--a magazine that once had Linda Evangelista and Paulina Porizkova on its covers, and gave career/relationship advice that was significantly less tacky than Cosmo's.

    Worst of all, they may try to replace her with someone just as awful.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  268. @whorefinder

    I wonder how many female fans she has who “like” her mostly because they can look at her and think, “At least I look better than THAT.”
     
    Quite frankly, she doesn't have that many female fans, period. Less than a million people---heck, less, than 800,000 people---would tune in to Girls. That's literally less than the population of the place it was set in (Brooklyn). Reruns of RuPaul's Drag Race out drew that crap.

    Nobody watched the show, but critics got in an echo chamber and talked her up.Her books sold a pittance but the "right" people read it. She's skated by on the strength of her social connections and the "right" people liking her, not on actual success. In other words, she has great networking going on to talk her up, but other than other ugly left wing critics, nobody likes her stuff.

    She's likely pure agitprop. Likely a CIA promotion, for whatever America-wrecking reason they promoted Gloria Steinem (who has stated that she worked with the CIA early in her career). Or her parents got her the best agent around who has earned every penny by giving Lena "Sewer Troll" Dunham the fame she doesn't deserve.

    I am reminded of the actually goodlooking Jessica Biel, who for years had all of her movies mega-hyped and her name announced above the title; she seemed like a star. Then someone noticed her movies kept flopping and no one outside the paparazzi knew/cared who she was; you'll notice they quickly stopped giving her plum roles and promotion. She's gone to become Mrs. Justin Timberlake, which I think suits her just fine.

    Talk is cheap; results matter. And Lena Dunham hasn't produced any results.

    Gloria Steinem, at least was quite pretty when she was young.

    Pretty enough that she went undercover as a Playboy Bunny.

    (NOT a centerfold, and yes, with “undercover” the jokes just write themselves don’t they?), and a young and pretty Kirstie Alley played her in a TV movie:

    And of course there are performers who more go more less pretty depending on what the role requires: Charlize Theron, Robert DeNiro and Jared Leto (both of whom have gone dangerously fat or thin for roles).

    Does Dunham even play anything but herself? And if that is her only role, can she make it work the way John Wayne or Gracie Allen did (i.e., it was always the same character, but people liked it well enough that they wanted to see it again and again)?

    If you are right and this is only an engineered fad that didn’t work, then we’ll see the back of her–or better yet, no part of her soon enough. But in the meantime, she’s going to kill Glamour–a magazine that once had Linda Evangelista and Paulina Porizkova on its covers, and gave career/relationship advice that was significantly less tacky than Cosmo’s.

    Worst of all, they may try to replace her with someone just as awful.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?