If Harvey Weinstein Is Guilty, Then All Men Must Share His Guilt
RSS
Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
From the NYT opinion section:
It’s like the SJW equivalent of in India when one Muslim youth rapes one Hindu girl, a hundred Hindus come and burn down the shacks of a thousand Muslims: collective guilt. Anglo Saxon notions of individual justice are out of date and, you know, kind of racist when you think about it.
Follow @steve_sailer
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
But it’s also a little like when a pope is caught participating in orgies and having his enemies murdered, then his loyal priests immediately start talking about how we’re all sinners and how an upright faithful husband and family father is the equivalent of this Borgia pope because once he also lusted in his heart.
Yet it was always only a matter of time before the Left started shifting and broadening the blame to excuse one (or rather, many more than one) of their own.
On the Charlie Rose comment thread, I observed that when a figure on our side is caught in flagrante, it’s an indictment of the entire Right, proof of our hypocrisy and general venality. But when it’s a lefty who’s come under fire, the behavior is merely indicative of broad currents in the entire society: everyone is to blame (and therefore no one *in particular* is to blame).Replies: @Anonymous
OT:
More self-flagellation from the NYT regarding the Ohio “neo-Nazi”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/26/reader-center/readers-accuse-us-of-normalizing-a-nazi-sympathizer-we-respond.html
Re-education in the Asian camp mode could be repurposed to stress the health benefits from all that forced labor. There have been ideas rotting in the fields, and now there is a work force to lend a hand.
The idea of “attempting to hold a public conversation” is just another way of attempting to reassert control of The Narrative by forcing some PC strictures down our collective throats.
Earth-to-Stephen Marche: There isn’t any “male misbehavior.” There is misbehavior by certain, specific males–who’ve been named. It’s not a mystery. It’s been going on for millennia. It’s called the power of dominance. Every political identity group, today, is attempting to assert power in the public arena and private sphere in the exact same way–by dominance.
It’s frequently unattractive. But so be it.
Old, bald profs with an overactive libido never seem to have trouble attracting ladies who will drop their panties for a better grade.
This article is also scientifically illiterate.
The male libido evolved in tango with the female libido and was shaped by it.
Women (and men) without a libido don’t have babies and are failed life-forms.
Absolutely.
You either have something to offer (YOUR OWN money, etc. or just plain ol' pussy magnetism) or you don't.
However, conniving abuse of authority positions (particularly in the old guy, young girl scenarios), acting as gatekeeper to OPM or just plain coercion are lines crossed in my book.
What about women who use sex for professional advancement. Do they make all women guilty of being whores?
How in the world is this not an Onion article or a badly mistimed April Fool article? It really is impossible to parody these people.
"I start with a man, then take away intellect and reason."Replies: @EriK
It's like laughing about a dog who jumps into a garbage bin and is stuck then - you laugh, but - you feel sorry, too... - - it's this kind of not really funny fun, it seems to me.
So yeah, maybe it's better not to parody this kind of articles - the satire could easily turn out to be sad in the end.
.
.
.
(Arrrgh).
IT sure would be nice if conservatives were forming some coherent antifeminist view to interpret these events that didn’t just entirely let the women off the hook and was investigating all the unfair advantages women used sex to obtain. How dumb do you have to be to blindly accept that not only did no woman ever initiate anything but that none ever never gained any advantage whatsoever and only ever did anything to prevent their careers from being harmed? I would have thought extraordinarily stupid but I guess it’s just the ordinary kind.
But as it is all I see are the left wing and mainstream conservative “men are evil” and the alt-right’s “jews are evil” views. Neither one is doing much to get at the truth of the matter.
The Left seems anxious to abolish families and make everyone an isolated ward of the state.
The other underlying suggestions here are to curb the power and influence of Hollywood and sports.
This article is also scientifically illiterate.
The male libido evolved in tango with the female libido and was shaped by it.
Women (and men) without a libido don't have babies and are failed life-forms.Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter, @Jack D
“Old, bald profs with an overactive libido never seem to have trouble attracting ladies who will drop their panties for a better grade.”
Absolutely.
You either have something to offer (YOUR OWN money, etc. or just plain ol’ pussy magnetism) or you don’t.
However, conniving abuse of authority positions (particularly in the old guy, young girl scenarios), acting as gatekeeper to OPM or just plain coercion are lines crossed in my book.
A “public conversation” means we lecture you while you listen and nod your head in agreement. Weinstein is being crucified for our sins.
Are men to think…
“So, if Jesus died for our sins, Harvey raped for our guilt?”
Uh… more than movie industry, the music industry has been giving us stuff like ugly rap and demented metal.
And speaking of libido, what’s to be done about Slut Culture and women expressing themselves by grinding?
Girls and Boys Gone Wild has been celebrated as emancipation and empowerment, but now…
Will these globbies ever make up their minds?
Articles like these only serve to obfuscate who exactly are committing these acts and what traits do they mostly share. The goal of these type of articles is also to start moving to exonerate people who have been named but still have some political use. Kevin Spacey will remain unpersoned but they will trip over themselves to use this article to explain why Al Franken did nothing wrong and should be excused from his behavior.
Well, sex and violence do seem to have a neurological connection in the male brain. E.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22209636/
Question, though: is there any data available on the representation of Jewish men among those convicted of sex offenses?
There, I fixed it for him.
How right you are, Reiner: the kind of phony moralism you describe is thoroughly contemptible.
Yet it was always only a matter of time before the Left started shifting and broadening the blame to excuse one (or rather, many more than one) of their own.
On the Charlie Rose comment thread, I observed that when a figure on our side is caught in flagrante, it’s an indictment of the entire Right, proof of our hypocrisy and general venality. But when it’s a lefty who’s come under fire, the behavior is merely indicative of broad currents in the entire society: everyone is to blame (and therefore no one *in particular* is to blame).
So, should Harvey, after banging some actress, turn to me and ask:”Was it good for you too Joe?”
I’m starting to joke with friends that I’m one bad thought away from being put in a camp.
Earth-to-Stephen Marche: There isn't any "male misbehavior." There is misbehavior by certain, specific males--who've been named. It's not a mystery. It's been going on for millennia. It's called the power of dominance. Every political identity group, today, is attempting to assert power in the public arena and private sphere in the exact same way--by dominance.
It's frequently unattractive. But so be it.Replies: @boogerbently
On one hand, we can’t assume the guilt of the accused just on a womans “say so”. On the other, it would be nearly impossible (short of video, pics, witnesses) for a woman to PROVE. I think all employers who fired men on allegations alone need to be sued.
This will both act as a tremendous deterrent, and when there is an accusation, provide a record of the complete interaction. Which will be both enlightening, and I think in most cases--though not for the Weinstein types--not at all what women would have you believe.
I’ve had some lefty friends of mine–several weeks ago–state that they were sure to be next, as everyone else has been accused. Nearly a cross between exasperation at all the allegations, and the near-fashionable trend it was becoming to be accused.
Well, this white Canadian cuck has it half-right. Male libido is brutal. Men crave domination.
That is why “gender equality” is unachievable … Equality would require the wholesale extinction of the male sex drive. But the extinction of the male sex drive would entail the extinction of every other creative/destructive drive as well. It would mean the end of anything resembling civilization, a reversion to sexless amoebal life. More and more, of course, this is what Western societies resemble.
Men who cannot affirm who they are and what they desire are tired, useless stock living off the diminishing legacy of their forefathers. Extinction beckons.
It is an interesting (and challenging) thought experiment to contemplate what might happen to the media “take” on Weinstein or Spacey if they were to suddenly announce an intention to transition.
Yet it was always only a matter of time before the Left started shifting and broadening the blame to excuse one (or rather, many more than one) of their own.
On the Charlie Rose comment thread, I observed that when a figure on our side is caught in flagrante, it’s an indictment of the entire Right, proof of our hypocrisy and general venality. But when it’s a lefty who’s come under fire, the behavior is merely indicative of broad currents in the entire society: everyone is to blame (and therefore no one *in particular* is to blame).Replies: @Anonymous
Yet it was always only a matter of time before the Left started shifting and broadening the blame to excuse one (or rather, many more than one) of their own.
“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” (Book of rules = Feminism, Equality)
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” (Maybe Weinstein, Frankenstein & Spacey)
“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
This article is also scientifically illiterate.
The male libido evolved in tango with the female libido and was shaped by it.
Women (and men) without a libido don't have babies and are failed life-forms.Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter, @Jack D
Men and women always had a libido but civilization existed to tame it and channel that libido into the socially useful institution of marriage and family – husband and wife could hump like bunnies and it was all good, but sex outside of marriage was bad. But now we are back to pagan morality – it’s a given that females will sleep around as much as they want. The pill has divorced sex from “having babies” – they are two completely separate things. So instead we are reduced to ridiculous arguments about consent – females can sleep with dozens of men and keep photos of themselves on their phones that not long ago would have been too shocking to even be printed as pornography, but the moment she snaps her fingers and utters the magic words, a force field descends and females should be treated like Victorian virgins. This is called “having it both ways”.
There's a massive understanding fail in this whole "feminist"--i.e. the current--narrative. Tamed female sexuality is a necessary condition for "civilization" which requires male cooperation and male concentration on productive endeavors. Men can't be fighting and mate guarding and build civilization.
Of course, such argument zooms past the head of feminists because they believe if the government just snaps it's fingers we can have "equal pay" and promotions, the "glass ceiling" will shatter and women will all be sitting around their offices getting suitably fat paychecks for having meetings with each other. The food will be on the shelves, the power in the lines, the gas in pumps, the new houses on plot, the water in the taps and the toilet will flush ... all by themselves. And no one will come to take it away. What do men have to do with it?
We have allowed Western women to debauch themselves to African style sexual norms. An erosion toward an African level of civilization will be the inevitable result. (The white IQ, conscientiousness and behavior of a large section of whites is holding us back from an avalanche into the abyss, but we're certainly slipping down the slope.)
“If Harvey Weinstein Is Guilty, Then All Men Must Share His Guilt”
Please: Mr. Weinstein “died” for our sins – Carlos Slim’s Onion.
.5% of men have this level of influence but its the fault of all men while 52% percent of homicides are committed by 12% of the US pop but “you can’t judge a race”. Liberalism as schizophrenia.
That being said, you know who’s in that .5% and hasnt had anyone claim he was exposing himself? Our President.
The Unexamined Brutality of the Jewish Libido.
1. (((all men)))
2. Has anybody come up with a good easy-to-say term for the 2017 sex harassment thing? How do we refer to this happening/micro-zeitgeist overall? Mainstream or derisive answers are both cool.
Question, though: is there any data available on the representation of Jewish men among those convicted of sex offenses?Replies: @Father O'Hara, @Rosamond Vincy
Pal,there’s more than a little daylight between A)Commission, B)Arrest and C)Conviction. I imagine Jews are less represented in the latter two categories than the first.
Sounds backwards, doesn’t this theory go more like marriage exists to channel libido into the many useful White nice things that make up “civilization”?
Hair-splitting of the chicken-egg variety. Institution of marriage and family are part of what makes civilization possible. Civilization is comprised of complex dynamical relations with feedback loops that are self-reinforcing. The strengthening of marriage/family ties strengthens civilization; the weakening of marriage/family ties weakens civilization. IMO.
Hell hath no fury like a woman scored and scorned.
Tech is downstream of culture. If you don’t have a stable culture/family system you don’t get all the nice tech advancements.
Women have never in the past slept around as they pleased, not even in pagan times. You’ll probably have to go back to Homo Erectus times or even further to find a situation similiar to the current times.
Setting aside all the evil intent that the NYT had in publishing this piece, there is some truth to it. Male sexuality IS inherently aggressive. The man penetrates and the woman is penetrated. But the author doesn’t quite get it.
It is worth noting that the author is kind of a soy boy. Only a soft man like that could see things in such black and white terms: That men with their dangerous, violent, aggressive, and brutal sexual urges prey on helpless women who want nothing to do with rough men. The complicated truth (that women are sometimes turned on by masculine, aggressive men and usually repulsed by neutered, harmless men) would probably send Stephen Marche into a deep depression.
I’d rather share his gilt.
But I’d settle for his gelt.
But this is getting too close to “geld“, so I’ll stop…
What is so difficult to understand here? Everyone is entitled, nay, encouraged to explore their potential for self-actualiazation by having as much promiscuous sex with as many anonymous partners as they please, up to the point of requiring prophylactic anti-retroviral drugs and abortions. The completely predictable results of stunted relationships, illegitimate children and venereal disease are totally worth it. But, of course, these young people who encouraged to get a dozen strains of HPV before they are 21 are also told that they can withdraw consent at any point, up to and after the point they decide to raw dog another stranger. It makes perfect sense, you see… Casual sex has no negative consequences so no need to worry about it more than a handshake, unless of course you regret it, when it becomes the gravest crime imaginable in our society.
I get it! All men are guilty, so poor Harvey is being picked on, if we just focus on him. Evil bullies!
http://www.dailywire.com/news/23950/virgin-group-head-richard-branson-now-accused-emily-zanotti?utm
And the hits just keep on coming. LOL.
It’s kinda sad that no one at Unz.com is being charged with sexual harassment.
Not Derbyshire, not Sailer, not Reed, not Weissberg, not Karlin, not Saker.
Who are these? Choir boys? Too well behaved, too boring.
Go out and grab one for the Gipper.
Not Derbyshire, not Sailer, not Reed, not Weissberg, not Karlin, not Saker."
Maybe because the Unz squad is made up of such extraordinarily attractive and virile men, that they suffer the harassment and the stalking by hordes of frenzied women, not the other way around. And they resist the abuse and the unwanted advances with silent stoicism.
Conservatives are irresistible, lol!
But as it is all I see are the left wing and mainstream conservative "men are evil" and the alt-right's "jews are evil" views. Neither one is doing much to get at the truth of the matter.Replies: @bomag, @Autochthon
My right-wing tendencies tell me that we should have families and community support to guide and help each other avoid the various grooming gangs.
The Left seems anxious to abolish families and make everyone an isolated ward of the state.
The other underlying suggestions here are to curb the power and influence of Hollywood and sports.
Two legs good. Three legs bad.
Note that it is usually ‘male’ writers who write these things.
Then again, how many times has a ‘male feminist’ been outed as a predator?
It seem obvious that the author has something to hide.
What we need is Government by Eunuch.
Has that strangely prophetic satire ‘The Worm That Turned’ by the British comedy duo the ‘Two Ronnie’s’ ever been aired on US TV?
I remember from the ’76 election campaign that Jimmy Carter has “lusted in his heart.” Playboy interview IIRC – so Carter should be shamed and blamed along with Weinstein, Clinton, etc.
As the (rather appositely named) Sex Pistols might have said (too appositely in this case) ‘Never Mind The Bollocks’.
Continuing with theme of 1970s British pop culture, ignore all that nonsense guff and overblown verbiage by Marche. If you want to know the *real* truth behind the ‘battle of the sexes’ or even ‘life the universe and everything’, one could do no worse than look into that ‘warts ‘n’ all’ mirror which is 1970s British TV comedy. Such shows and entertainers as Benny Hill, Bernard Manning, ‘On the Buses,’ ‘The Two Ronnies’, ‘George and Mildred’ etc etc etc.
It is a bit like blaming young Germans for what some of their grandparents did to the Ashkenazi. Of course, the Germans never get blamed for doing the same to vast numbers of the Slavic peoples. In fact, the history books and media of the West skip over that part of the story. The same way they skip over who exactly were the Bolsheviks and who financed them.
Collective guilt is a wonderful way of getting away with stealing land and genocide in the Middle East.
Comparing Weinstock to most men is simply a way of helping him get away with rape, cultural terrorism and blackmail. The objective of this NYT article is very clear to anyone outside the MSM bubble.
As professional panty-waist wearer Stephen Marche might put it, ‘the male libido is a tyranny’.
The facts about human reproduction are that the two gametes of the male and female unite to form the new individual. In passing we might remark that the ‘male libido’ plays a not insignificant role in all this, but if we assert (this will probably be challenged in these f*cked up times) that the male libido is instinctive and therefore genetically determined, then, we might further assert that a ‘component’ of the male libido is, necessarily, carried by the female partner within the gametes she contributes to the male child. Thus, the implication is that women carry that ‘nasty and awful’ putative male libido within their own very bodies.
To be fair, a large number of very prominent men are being caught in sexual scandals. It’s not just Harvey Weinstein.
It’s true that the overwhelming majority of men can’t be lumped in with guys like Weinstein, but that’s mostly because the average man has extremely limited wealth, power, and opportunity. Let’s say the average man was given millions of dollars, a powerful job in Hollywood, and constant interaction with many attractive women. How many would attempt to use the “casting couch” to their advantage? Probably a lot.
The average man doesn’t harass women much these days, but super powerful men (especially in entertainment-related industries like film/tv, music, and modeling/fashion) often do. Given how much moralizing they engage in, it’s interesting to see them getting exposed as hypocrites.
What the NYT article doesn’t mention is that many women engage in opportunistic sexual relations with powerful men in exchange for career advancement or money. For as long as women have been on the planet, they’ve been forming relationships with wealthy/powerful men in return for financial benefits. If Harvey Weinstein thought he could get away with harassing women, one reason is because many women willingly slept with him in return for movie roles.
If women stopped using sex as bartering currency, powerful men would be far less likely to harass them.
In fact, a common scenario is that an attractive young woman will pay special attention, or even flirt a bit, with a man who can provide her with opportunities; the man takes it as a green light to make a pass at her; and the woman will scream sexual harassment.Replies: @Anonymous, @Jack D
But if Bin Laden is guilty, are all muslims guilty too?
Male sexuality IS inherently aggressive. The man penetrates and the woman is penetrated. But the author doesn’t quite get it.
Dunno about that, at least for the reason you give. Could just as well say that the woman envelopes the man, and the man is enveloped. Or the woman grabs the man, and the man is grabbed.
Nah, these childless women require some serious force to enter. If they'd had a couple kids then they'd realize that violence is no longer part of the equation and intercourse is actually pleasurable all the way to the finish. Instead they have to endure discomfort or pain for most of the act and can't even get started without several drinks.
It sure would be nice if manospherists would acknowledge that these women are all nobodies being used to take out powerful communists and degrade the legitimacy of their regime.
I don’t cry into my pillow when hand grenades blow up among communists.
I don’t even cry when communists try to blame it all on men in general. That, too, is more grist for my mill.
I certainly don’t cry when the communist elite is forced to live by the rules it has been ignoring, and foisting onto the rest of us.
So far I like The Weinstein Thing.
Seems like innumeracy, when you consider that the same will probably be true of the non-Jews. But rightists serving up communist arguments when the conversation turns to The Chosen Ones is nothing new.
Seems like the New York Times is putting in strong competition for the Peak Guardian award.
Except that America responded to 9/11 (which was perpetrated by Saudi terrorists) by declaring war on Iraq. This war has killed over 1 million Iraqis. The war also has maimed, internally displaced, widowed, and orphaned millions more Iraqis.
At the time of the war in 2003, 75% of Americans supported military action. A more recent June 2015 poll found that 46% of Americans still supported the decision to invade Iraq (51% opposed). For whites, the figures are slightly higher.
If “Anglo Saxon notions of individual justice” are so prevalent among whites, then why have so many supported a nonsensical war that has killed and injured millions of innocent people? Explain that.
There’s also the U.S. war on Afghanistan, which was killed 200,000 Afghan civilians. One poll, conducted on a sample of 1,000 Afghans, found that 92% of Afghans never heard of 9/11.
Then there are the wars on Libya and Syria.
More recently, Saudi Arabia, the U.S., and the UK have blockaded Yemen and launched military strikes. 50,000 Yemeni children have died in the past year. 900,000 Yemenis have gotten cholera.
Do “Anglo Saxon notions of individual justice” dictate that our government has the right to butcher millions of random people who never harmed us? Do these notions dictate that it’s okay to destroy countries that had nothing to do with 9/11? Most Americans seem to believe the answer is yes.
It’s pretty remarkable how little public outrage exists over the massive fatalities that our government has inflicted in its Middle Eastern wars. Americans have reacted to this extreme carnage with a collective yawn. Even liberals don’t care.
What do Americans care about?
Americans get more angry over their football team losing than they do over the mass genocide that our government has inflicted overseas.
There is nothing high minded at all about the average American white.
It's true that the overwhelming majority of men can't be lumped in with guys like Weinstein, but that's mostly because the average man has extremely limited wealth, power, and opportunity. Let's say the average man was given millions of dollars, a powerful job in Hollywood, and constant interaction with many attractive women. How many would attempt to use the "casting couch" to their advantage? Probably a lot.
The average man doesn't harass women much these days, but super powerful men (especially in entertainment-related industries like film/tv, music, and modeling/fashion) often do. Given how much moralizing they engage in, it's interesting to see them getting exposed as hypocrites.
What the NYT article doesn't mention is that many women engage in opportunistic sexual relations with powerful men in exchange for career advancement or money. For as long as women have been on the planet, they've been forming relationships with wealthy/powerful men in return for financial benefits. If Harvey Weinstein thought he could get away with harassing women, one reason is because many women willingly slept with him in return for movie roles.
If women stopped using sex as bartering currency, powerful men would be far less likely to harass them.Replies: @sabril, @Jack D, @AnotherDad, @Seth Largo
I agree, and it’s fascinating how little attention has been given to the reciprocal problem of women who use sex and sex appeal to get ahead.
In fact, a common scenario is that an attractive young woman will pay special attention, or even flirt a bit, with a man who can provide her with opportunities; the man takes it as a green light to make a pass at her; and the woman will scream sexual harassment.
I recently saw the film "Me and Orson Welles". It was made around 10 years ago so naturally it does not fit the current Narrative. One of the key elements of the plot is that naive male lead falls in love with an ambitious female production assistant but she realizes that he cannot offer her anything but love and she is better off sleeping her way to the top, first with Orson Welles and then with David Selznick. She rejects romance in favor of career advancement and willingly sleeps with these guys without a second thought. The movie very frankly portrays this but you notice that in the current environment ZERO stories like this have come out. Weinstein started dating his current wife (the one that dropped him like a hot potato when he was accused) when he was 52 and she was 28. The concept of "Gold Digger" has been abolished from our vocabulary - we don't even have a word for that anymore.Replies: @Frau Katze
Makes me think of the Jack Nicholson line from As good as it Gets, where he plays an author of women’s romance novels, and he is told by a young woman that his stories touch her heart (and she makes a motion with her hands to that effect … awww!), and she asks how he gets women so well:
“I start with a man, then take away intellect and reason.”
"I start with a man, then I take away reason and accountability"Replies: @The Alarmist
In fact, a common scenario is that an attractive young woman will pay special attention, or even flirt a bit, with a man who can provide her with opportunities; the man takes it as a green light to make a pass at her; and the woman will scream sexual harassment.Replies: @Anonymous, @Jack D
During the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky scandal I often thought if Bill Clinton happened to be a gardener, in overalls and cap, sweeping leaves off the Whitehouse lawn, would Monica have even have looked twice at him let alone ‘allowed’ herself to be ‘seduced’ by him?
Why should all men feel ashamed because Weinstein lived like a pig? It’d be similarly weird to say all Jews or ugly fat old shrek-a-like baldies should feel ashamed because Weinstein is like that, too.
Weinstein should feel ashamed, but he won’t, because he’s a sociopath.
The people who should feel ashamed are the people who let Weinstein do what he did, while they knew about it, but were afraid of losing their position or salary if they exposed him. These people remind me of the typical muslim terrorist neighbours and family who after the n-th massacre claim “he was a really nice guy, never heard or saw anything weird”
Speaking of inquisitions: Denzel Washington recently observed black incarceration is not due to “the system” but, rather, domestic environments and childrearing (or the lack thereof…).
Will he be unpersoned by Negroes the way Bill Cosby was for similar remarks some years ago?
But as it is all I see are the left wing and mainstream conservative "men are evil" and the alt-right's "jews are evil" views. Neither one is doing much to get at the truth of the matter.Replies: @bomag, @Autochthon
Some of the trouble is down to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis: the words for these antics and the females who perpetrate them have been prohibited, forgotten, or both: adventuress, slut, tart, slattern, gold-digger, strumpet, interloper, homewrecker, hussy. Hussy was enormously popular in my childhood; from middle school on we all knew what it meant and called out the girls who were starting to be hussies by using their nascent powers inappropriately as hussies; and it wasn’t our fathers who taught us the words and phenomena, but, rather, our mothers, just as a community’s moral women, not it’s men, must be the one’s to police such behaviours socially so as to defend their turf, as it were; but unbridled promiscuity and Daddy Gubmint make that passé….
It's true that the overwhelming majority of men can't be lumped in with guys like Weinstein, but that's mostly because the average man has extremely limited wealth, power, and opportunity. Let's say the average man was given millions of dollars, a powerful job in Hollywood, and constant interaction with many attractive women. How many would attempt to use the "casting couch" to their advantage? Probably a lot.
The average man doesn't harass women much these days, but super powerful men (especially in entertainment-related industries like film/tv, music, and modeling/fashion) often do. Given how much moralizing they engage in, it's interesting to see them getting exposed as hypocrites.
What the NYT article doesn't mention is that many women engage in opportunistic sexual relations with powerful men in exchange for career advancement or money. For as long as women have been on the planet, they've been forming relationships with wealthy/powerful men in return for financial benefits. If Harvey Weinstein thought he could get away with harassing women, one reason is because many women willingly slept with him in return for movie roles.
If women stopped using sex as bartering currency, powerful men would be far less likely to harass them.Replies: @sabril, @Jack D, @AnotherDad, @Seth Largo
That’s the missing element from all of these accusations. If Harvey or Charlie had tried their patented ask for a massage/promise you a job seduction technique ten times and gotten shot down ten times, then at some point they would have thrown in the towel on this method. But over the years it must have worked well enough for them that they kept doing it. All the women who said yes are (just as much as “men” are) responsible for the behavior of these predators. Where are these women’s confessions?
Well said Jack.
There’s a massive understanding fail in this whole “feminist”–i.e. the current–narrative. Tamed female sexuality is a necessary condition for “civilization” which requires male cooperation and male concentration on productive endeavors. Men can’t be fighting and mate guarding and build civilization.
Of course, such argument zooms past the head of feminists because they believe if the government just snaps it’s fingers we can have “equal pay” and promotions, the “glass ceiling” will shatter and women will all be sitting around their offices getting suitably fat paychecks for having meetings with each other. The food will be on the shelves, the power in the lines, the gas in pumps, the new houses on plot, the water in the taps and the toilet will flush … all by themselves. And no one will come to take it away. What do men have to do with it?
We have allowed Western women to debauch themselves to African style sexual norms. An erosion toward an African level of civilization will be the inevitable result. (The white IQ, conscientiousness and behavior of a large section of whites is holding us back from an avalanche into the abyss, but we’re certainly slipping down the slope.)
I strongly suspect it worked extremely well. If you are an average guy, it’s easy not to realize just how sexually aggressive women can be towards a man if she perceives that he has something she wants, whether it be looks, money, connections, whatever.
In fact, I would guess that with a lot of women, Harvey Weinstein didn’t have to initiate anything.
Women hate to admit to themselves or others that — consciously or subconsciously — they make use of sex in this way. And our gynocentric society refuses to take notice.
You could say that the empress is not naked but she’s wearing a very short dress and a sexy bra & panty set.
Women in the workplace should be required to wear bodycams–front and rear.
This will both act as a tremendous deterrent, and when there is an accusation, provide a record of the complete interaction. Which will be both enlightening, and I think in most cases–though not for the Weinstein types–not at all what women would have you believe.
That is why "gender equality" is unachievable ... Equality would require the wholesale extinction of the male sex drive. But the extinction of the male sex drive would entail the extinction of every other creative/destructive drive as well. It would mean the end of anything resembling civilization, a reversion to sexless amoebal life. More and more, of course, this is what Western societies resemble.
Men who cannot affirm who they are and what they desire are tired, useless stock living off the diminishing legacy of their forefathers. Extinction beckons.Replies: @AnotherDad
Very well said Old Left.
It's true that the overwhelming majority of men can't be lumped in with guys like Weinstein, but that's mostly because the average man has extremely limited wealth, power, and opportunity. Let's say the average man was given millions of dollars, a powerful job in Hollywood, and constant interaction with many attractive women. How many would attempt to use the "casting couch" to their advantage? Probably a lot.
The average man doesn't harass women much these days, but super powerful men (especially in entertainment-related industries like film/tv, music, and modeling/fashion) often do. Given how much moralizing they engage in, it's interesting to see them getting exposed as hypocrites.
What the NYT article doesn't mention is that many women engage in opportunistic sexual relations with powerful men in exchange for career advancement or money. For as long as women have been on the planet, they've been forming relationships with wealthy/powerful men in return for financial benefits. If Harvey Weinstein thought he could get away with harassing women, one reason is because many women willingly slept with him in return for movie roles.
If women stopped using sex as bartering currency, powerful men would be far less likely to harass them.Replies: @sabril, @Jack D, @AnotherDad, @Seth Largo
Very important point. Well said Johnny.
Too much trust in their gov’t.
FWIW, I’m of mostly British stock, and I was loudly opposed to the war from the time the rumors started. I suppose I did waver once the “you break it you bought it” stage was reached, since at that point the gov’t had a duty to stabilize the country it had destabilized.
Guess Afghanistan shoulda given up OBL when they had the chance.
IIRC, it’s “reason and accountability.”
Guess the United States shouldn'ta been doing what it was doing in the Middle East prior to 9/11.
And a “beep beep beep” function when backing up.
Question, though: is there any data available on the representation of Jewish men among those convicted of sex offenses?Replies: @Father O'Hara, @Rosamond Vincy
Any teen girl who’s had more than one makeout session can tell you that guys vary both in skill and aggression. I never noticed a religious pattern with guys who grew up in America, but I wouldn’t get in a cuddle session with either a Muslim or an Israeli. I once danced with an Israeli at Webster Hall, and he backed me all over the dance floor with gratuitous pelvic thrusts. Since we were not doing the “Time Warp,” I felt he was being just a little bit invasive.
It's true that the overwhelming majority of men can't be lumped in with guys like Weinstein, but that's mostly because the average man has extremely limited wealth, power, and opportunity. Let's say the average man was given millions of dollars, a powerful job in Hollywood, and constant interaction with many attractive women. How many would attempt to use the "casting couch" to their advantage? Probably a lot.
The average man doesn't harass women much these days, but super powerful men (especially in entertainment-related industries like film/tv, music, and modeling/fashion) often do. Given how much moralizing they engage in, it's interesting to see them getting exposed as hypocrites.
What the NYT article doesn't mention is that many women engage in opportunistic sexual relations with powerful men in exchange for career advancement or money. For as long as women have been on the planet, they've been forming relationships with wealthy/powerful men in return for financial benefits. If Harvey Weinstein thought he could get away with harassing women, one reason is because many women willingly slept with him in return for movie roles.
If women stopped using sex as bartering currency, powerful men would be far less likely to harass them.Replies: @sabril, @Jack D, @AnotherDad, @Seth Largo
And the hits just keep on coming. LOL.
It's kinda sad that no one at Unz.com is being charged with sexual harassment.
Not Derbyshire, not Sailer, not Reed, not Weissberg, not Karlin, not Saker.
Who are these? Choir boys? Too well behaved, too boring.
Go out and grab one for the Gipper.Replies: @Rosamond Vincy, @BB753
Actually, Derb is having a spot of trouble with redundancies Thandie, Randy, Tristram Shandy, and Ghandi.
I’m still amused by the fact that the sports industry has remained untouched by the feeding frenzy. If Kobe were accused today, would he still be given the benefit of the doubt? Or would his career have been over?
Warning: Graphic!
Nah, these childless women require some serious force to enter. If they’d had a couple kids then they’d realize that violence is no longer part of the equation and intercourse is actually pleasurable all the way to the finish. Instead they have to endure discomfort or pain for most of the act and can’t even get started without several drinks.
Then again, how many times has a 'male feminist' been outed as a predator?
It seem obvious that the author has something to hide.Replies: @AndrewR
To paraphrase a tweet on twitter I saw: “male feminists” being outed as sexual predators is the 2010s version of anti-gay “family values” Republicans being outed as homosexual
At the time of the war in 2003, 75% of Americans supported military action. A more recent June 2015 poll found that 46% of Americans still supported the decision to invade Iraq (51% opposed). For whites, the figures are slightly higher.
If "Anglo Saxon notions of individual justice" are so prevalent among whites, then why have so many supported a nonsensical war that has killed and injured millions of innocent people? Explain that.
There's also the U.S. war on Afghanistan, which was killed 200,000 Afghan civilians. One poll, conducted on a sample of 1,000 Afghans, found that 92% of Afghans never heard of 9/11.
Then there are the wars on Libya and Syria.
More recently, Saudi Arabia, the U.S., and the UK have blockaded Yemen and launched military strikes. 50,000 Yemeni children have died in the past year. 900,000 Yemenis have gotten cholera.
Do "Anglo Saxon notions of individual justice" dictate that our government has the right to butcher millions of random people who never harmed us? Do these notions dictate that it's okay to destroy countries that had nothing to do with 9/11? Most Americans seem to believe the answer is yes.
It's pretty remarkable how little public outrage exists over the massive fatalities that our government has inflicted in its Middle Eastern wars. Americans have reacted to this extreme carnage with a collective yawn. Even liberals don't care.
What do Americans care about?
https://twitter.com/Mangan150/status/934948016259133440
Americans get more angry over their football team losing than they do over the mass genocide that our government has inflicted overseas.
There is nothing high minded at all about the average American white.Replies: @AndrewR, @anonymous, @Jim Don Bob
My hourly reaction allotment has been used up but I agree wholeheartedly. Most white nationalists and fellow travelers seem to operate from the bizarre and obviously false assumption that whites tend to be morally superior to other groups. Perhaps this is a somewhat understandable reaction to the common leftist narrative that whites are uniquely evil, but it’s still laughably stupid.
At the time of the war in 2003, 75% of Americans supported military action. A more recent June 2015 poll found that 46% of Americans still supported the decision to invade Iraq (51% opposed). For whites, the figures are slightly higher.
If "Anglo Saxon notions of individual justice" are so prevalent among whites, then why have so many supported a nonsensical war that has killed and injured millions of innocent people? Explain that.
There's also the U.S. war on Afghanistan, which was killed 200,000 Afghan civilians. One poll, conducted on a sample of 1,000 Afghans, found that 92% of Afghans never heard of 9/11.
Then there are the wars on Libya and Syria.
More recently, Saudi Arabia, the U.S., and the UK have blockaded Yemen and launched military strikes. 50,000 Yemeni children have died in the past year. 900,000 Yemenis have gotten cholera.
Do "Anglo Saxon notions of individual justice" dictate that our government has the right to butcher millions of random people who never harmed us? Do these notions dictate that it's okay to destroy countries that had nothing to do with 9/11? Most Americans seem to believe the answer is yes.
It's pretty remarkable how little public outrage exists over the massive fatalities that our government has inflicted in its Middle Eastern wars. Americans have reacted to this extreme carnage with a collective yawn. Even liberals don't care.
What do Americans care about?
https://twitter.com/Mangan150/status/934948016259133440
Americans get more angry over their football team losing than they do over the mass genocide that our government has inflicted overseas.
There is nothing high minded at all about the average American white.Replies: @AndrewR, @anonymous, @Jim Don Bob
Look at how many people regard Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama as a wonderful person yet he and Clinton worked to bring about the brutal war in Syria. Most Americans don’t even think about dead foreigners let alone care about it one way or another. They’re mostly focused on domestic things. Point out these contradictions and see people go silent, get glazed eyes, rationalize or recite the party line by heart. People will then start avoiding you.
And the hits just keep on coming. LOL.
It's kinda sad that no one at Unz.com is being charged with sexual harassment.
Not Derbyshire, not Sailer, not Reed, not Weissberg, not Karlin, not Saker.
Who are these? Choir boys? Too well behaved, too boring.
Go out and grab one for the Gipper.Replies: @Rosamond Vincy, @BB753
“It’s kinda sad that no one at Unz.com is being charged with sexual harassment.
Not Derbyshire, not Sailer, not Reed, not Weissberg, not Karlin, not Saker.”
Maybe because the Unz squad is made up of such extraordinarily attractive and virile men, that they suffer the harassment and the stalking by hordes of frenzied women, not the other way around. And they resist the abuse and the unwanted advances with silent stoicism.
Conservatives are irresistible, lol!
See? It really did drive you insaaaaane!
Do we have to kneel on chairs in rows, with big-character placards hung round our necks?
In fact, a common scenario is that an attractive young woman will pay special attention, or even flirt a bit, with a man who can provide her with opportunities; the man takes it as a green light to make a pass at her; and the woman will scream sexual harassment.Replies: @Anonymous, @Jack D
The even MORE common pattern is that the woman accepts the pass (which she has after all signalled she is receptive to), enters into a relationship with the man and receives benefits at and outside of the workplace as a result of the relationship and the other co-workers (especially the males) quietly seethe at the favoritism. We just saw an extreme version of that in Zimbabwe where Big Man Mugabe was manipulated by his former secretary/current wife to get rid of his chosen successor (who came up through the ranks) and replace him with her. Ellen Pao also tried the “get promoted by sleeping with the boss” ploy but it didn’t work – the guy didn’t leave his family for her and he didn’t promote her, whereupon she sued. But if it had gone the other way, we would have never heard about it.
I recently saw the film “Me and Orson Welles”. It was made around 10 years ago so naturally it does not fit the current Narrative. One of the key elements of the plot is that naive male lead falls in love with an ambitious female production assistant but she realizes that he cannot offer her anything but love and she is better off sleeping her way to the top, first with Orson Welles and then with David Selznick. She rejects romance in favor of career advancement and willingly sleeps with these guys without a second thought. The movie very frankly portrays this but you notice that in the current environment ZERO stories like this have come out. Weinstein started dating his current wife (the one that dropped him like a hot potato when he was accused) when he was 52 and she was 28. The concept of “Gold Digger” has been abolished from our vocabulary – we don’t even have a word for that anymore.
The whole thing is just weird. She acts like she’s his mother.
Yes. Next question.
Not the way he would have liked
"I start with a man, then take away intellect and reason."Replies: @EriK
IIRC the quote was actually
“I start with a man, then I take away reason and accountability”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmFMFzXN0js
FWIW, I'm of mostly British stock, and I was loudly opposed to the war from the time the rumors started. I suppose I did waver once the "you break it you bought it" stage was reached, since at that point the gov't had a duty to stabilize the country it had destabilized.Guess Afghanistan shoulda given up OBL when they had the chance.IIRC, it's "reason and accountability."Replies: @Opinionator
Guess Afghanistan shoulda given up OBL when they had the chance.
Guess the United States shouldn’ta been doing what it was doing in the Middle East prior to 9/11.
That would depend. If he were a humble, obsequious gardener, probably not. But if he had natural snotty confidence, he could pull off the “Alfie” routine.
And THAT is why some actresses are not jumping on the “me-too” bandwagon and Supporting the Sisterhood, etc. Because they almost certainly have lost roles to the ones who DID go along with it, and they are quite rightly indignant about having to compete with any audition other than a monologue or a cold reading.
"I start with a man, then I take away reason and accountability"Replies: @The Alarmist
Good catch … couldn’t fact check myself while at the office. I got the gesture thing only half right:
Lol, of course not. And if I’m not mistaken, Monica initiated the relationship by offering to show Bill Clinton her panties which were riding over the top of her jeans. Any man, let alone an overweight middle aged man, has to be pretty elite before girls will flirt that shamelessly with him.
I almost feel a bit awkward when I laugh about this kind of texts – I do at times even feel guilty a little bit.
It’s like laughing about a dog who jumps into a garbage bin and is stuck then – you laugh, but – you feel sorry, too… – – it’s this kind of not really funny fun, it seems to me.
So yeah, maybe it’s better not to parody this kind of articles – the satire could easily turn out to be sad in the end.
.
.
.
(Arrrgh).
At the time of the war in 2003, 75% of Americans supported military action. A more recent June 2015 poll found that 46% of Americans still supported the decision to invade Iraq (51% opposed). For whites, the figures are slightly higher.
If "Anglo Saxon notions of individual justice" are so prevalent among whites, then why have so many supported a nonsensical war that has killed and injured millions of innocent people? Explain that.
There's also the U.S. war on Afghanistan, which was killed 200,000 Afghan civilians. One poll, conducted on a sample of 1,000 Afghans, found that 92% of Afghans never heard of 9/11.
Then there are the wars on Libya and Syria.
More recently, Saudi Arabia, the U.S., and the UK have blockaded Yemen and launched military strikes. 50,000 Yemeni children have died in the past year. 900,000 Yemenis have gotten cholera.
Do "Anglo Saxon notions of individual justice" dictate that our government has the right to butcher millions of random people who never harmed us? Do these notions dictate that it's okay to destroy countries that had nothing to do with 9/11? Most Americans seem to believe the answer is yes.
It's pretty remarkable how little public outrage exists over the massive fatalities that our government has inflicted in its Middle Eastern wars. Americans have reacted to this extreme carnage with a collective yawn. Even liberals don't care.
What do Americans care about?
https://twitter.com/Mangan150/status/934948016259133440
Americans get more angry over their football team losing than they do over the mass genocide that our government has inflicted overseas.
There is nothing high minded at all about the average American white.Replies: @AndrewR, @anonymous, @Jim Don Bob
Cite please. Mother Jones and her ilk do not count.
Since Trump’s election, NYT is barely readable. Strong competitor for Peak Left Stupid.
I recently saw the film "Me and Orson Welles". It was made around 10 years ago so naturally it does not fit the current Narrative. One of the key elements of the plot is that naive male lead falls in love with an ambitious female production assistant but she realizes that he cannot offer her anything but love and she is better off sleeping her way to the top, first with Orson Welles and then with David Selznick. She rejects romance in favor of career advancement and willingly sleeps with these guys without a second thought. The movie very frankly portrays this but you notice that in the current environment ZERO stories like this have come out. Weinstein started dating his current wife (the one that dropped him like a hot potato when he was accused) when he was 52 and she was 28. The concept of "Gold Digger" has been abolished from our vocabulary - we don't even have a word for that anymore.Replies: @Frau Katze
I wonder about French President Macron, married to his former teacher. Did she seduce him?
The whole thing is just weird. She acts like she’s his mother.