Try as we might it’s impossible to avoid Harvey Weinstein.
Initial reports of a couple of instances of sexual harassment have now
metastasized into multiple reports of innumerable instances of sexual assault
and even rape. One will be forgiven for hoping that Weinstein be brought before
the bar of justice for his actions. We are well beyond improprieties. Many of
the actions seem more like felonies. Hopefully, prosecutors will no longer be
cowed by an entertainment mogul.
For the record Ronan Farrow’s long expose in the New Yorker
yesterday seems to have tipped the scales beyond the point of recovery. Farrow’s
article is clear and well-written. Congratulations to him. Of course, he is
also Woody Allen’s son… though no one seems to want to mention the point. For
the record, we also congratulate the New York Times for breaking the story.
True enough, as we and others have opined, the story's appearance
must have something to do with the fact that Weinstein is nearly washed up.
Still, the liberal outrage machine has taken a very big hit… and it was not
generated by Fox News.
Among the salient observations, the Weinstein debacle has
cast a serious pall on the virtue signaling of Hollywood celebrities. These
progressive icons, ever at the ready to chastise anyone on the other side of
the political divide with gross immorality, have now been exposed as
self-righteous hypocrites, perfectly willing to trade sex for power and to
allow a score of young actresses to be sexually abused by an entertainment
mogul. As happened in the case of Bill Clinton they condone sexual harassment when the perpetrator is one of their own. Progressive men are not just given a pass. They are given free access to young women... to do as they please. This much Harvey Weinstein understood.
Unable to defend members of their own community, self-righteous
feminists are in serious moral trouble. Of course, they do not know enough to
know how much trouble they’re in, but time will tell them.
Sarah Vine wrote in The Daily Mail:
The
Oscars this year were all about Trump-shaming, and yet a much worse specimen of
sexism was in their midst, lapping up the love. How dare Hollywood lecture the
world about morality.
So, let
us not forget the sickening hypocrisy of stars and executives, many of whom owe
their success to Mr Weinstein and who, until last week, were more than
delighted to sing the man’s praises, despite the fact his horrible behaviour
was an open secret.
You
don’t get to become quite as big a creep as Weinstein without a certain amount
of collusion.
And for
all the expressions of consternation and solidarity now emanating from
Hollywood’s A-list, what is surprising is that the collusion here is as much
female as it is male.
Christian Toto explained on his blog that Hollywood celebrities
have set themselves up as arbiters of virtue, especially of politically
correct virtue. They lecture us, Toto says, all the time, about how we should
feel, what we should believe, whose politics we should support… the list goes
on.
Toto wrote:
Stars
continue to lecture us on a near daily basis. They tell us how to vote, the
best ways to interpret the Second Amendment and how to oversee our immigration
laws. Yet they can’t keep their own house in order when it comes to sexual
harassment.
America
is watching. They see what’s going on and how the people who claim to care so
much didn’t act when their most vulnerable members needed them. Most stars also
refused to even
address the subject on the record. Others, like George Clooney, took
days to do so.
Late-night talk show hosts, who now in our decadent age seem
to be leading the national conversation about public policy have shown
themselves to be mealy-mouthed cowards. For all their talk about speaking truth
to power, when it came time to speak truth to the Weinstein power machine they
were struck dumb.
Toto was not surprised:
Stephen
Colbert, Seth Meyers and Jimmy Kimmel all pounce on the latest headlines. Yet
they stayed silent last week as the Weinstein scandal broke. The Daily Beast, a
reliably liberal outfit, chastized
them for their silence.
Finally
they weighed in on the subject this week, although Kimmel
and Colbert used the scandal to attack both the former movie mogul and
President Donald Trump.
Speaking
truth to power doesn’t involved being shamed into action. That’s precisely why
these Late Night comics finally did the right thing. The so-called moral
consciences took a knee at a lousy time.
And Holman Jenkins explained in the Wall Street Journal this
morning that Hollywood should be offended that Weinstein imagined that he could
buy their silence by campaigning against the NRA and giving money to Planned
Parenthood. After all, he knew the people; he knew the groups; he was connected with the most important Democratic politicians in the country. If he thought they would look the other way, he got that
impression somewhere:
If
Hollywood people are anything like normal people, they should be nearly as
offended by Mr. Weinstein’s presumptions about them as they are by his alleged bullying of women for sex.
Where does he get off assuming his colleagues can be so easily manipulated,
will so readily fall in line, just because he cites, as he did in his
recent self-defense, their shared liberal politics?
How can
somebody with his smarts be so heavy-handed and obvious as to think he can mint
an instant pass for his transgressions merely by alluding to his opposition to
the National Rifle Association and President Trump ?
Then
again, maybe we’re missing the real point. Mr. Weinstein was reminding liberal
elites that his trouble is their trouble, because they tolerated him for so
long. That’s why this scandal may have legs.
Jenkins added this salient point:
OK, hypocrisy is a price we pay for civilization. Politicians and Hollywood types especially are in the business of faking sincerity. Yet there is one thing about which the Hollywood-progressive nexus has been perfectly sincere: its conviction that its choice of political party is a testament to its own shining personal virtue. The Democrats’ celebrity enablers played a key role in fostering the inordinate self-righteousness of the modern progressive movement—which has reached ad absurdum proportions lately with the violent bullies of the Antifa movement.
In short, it has all given President Trump a reprieve. Those
who mounted the most vigorous and vicious attacks on him have now been
silenced. They were appalled by the way Trump spoke about women, and they put
themselves front and center in the Resistance against his boorish vulgarity.
Now they are exposed as enablers of a serial sexual predator. They all knew about it and they
did nothing about it. Thus, they allowed it to continue. They allowed Weinstein to
prey on more women. Their protestations of feminist virtue are ringing hollow these days.
The lesson I'm getting from this is that most women (and men) would prefer to keep quiet and get along even when faced by offensive behavior by men (or people) in power.
ReplyDeleteWhat's tricky to me about these large number of "harrowing accounts" is that memory itself is imperfect, so it would seem that we all should learn how to write "Comey memos" when we face someone abusing power, and document what happened immediately afterwards in case it is important later. At least that's as close as you can get to "objective" information least by corrupted by poor or mixed memories.
But of course an even more important aspect of writing down "just the facts" is writing down your own participation, your own hopefully eyes-wide-open decide to not only not directly call out the behavior, but perhaps even your willingness to participate, whether enabling by egging someone on in "locker room talk" that might be more than talk, or knowing you'd prefer to leave a job, but that money convinced you that you could handle what's going on long enough to get what you need.
And I've not read any of the details on anything, but if there was payoffs to keep quiet, I'd be somewhat interested to know the terms. Like that movie awhile ago where Robert Redford's character offer a couple $1 million if he can sleep with the wife, and you imagine many wealthy men discover they can "express their id" and if they sometimes go too far in some way, find out 99% do have a price to keep quiet. Or maybe some cases were never direct bribes for silence, but simply find unexpectedly good offers that seemed worth it, and perhaps even some of the standard "I can get the part if I sleep with him" sort of agreements, which is more of a self-victimization even if also abuse of power.
I suppose I can imagine how most will think, "I know this guy's a lecher, but I can handle this." And maybe 99% of the time women with this attitude don't consider themselves victims and do get what they want, except for the resentment for a society that creates extreme wealth in some men, who feel its perfectly natural to use others like this. So the hard question for me is how do you differentiate between the "players" and the "victims" who either got over their heads, OR just don't know their options to fight back. Is there a difference and does it matter?
Probably most coming forward now not for their own victimhood, but to make it impossible for Weinstein to deny what he's done to those who do consider themselves victims.
"How can somebody with his smarts be so heavy-handed and obvious as to think he can mint an instant pass for his transgressions merely by alluding to his opposition to the National Rifle Association and President Trump?"
ReplyDeleteToto, we aren't in Kansas anymore.
AO, you're naive as hell if you don't know that everyone has a price.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link. It's such an ugly scandal and I fear it will get far uglier before the proverbial smoke settles.
ReplyDeleteShorter AO : she shouldn't have worn that skirt to the meeting.
ReplyDeleteJack Fisher said... AO, you're naive as hell if you don't know that everyone has a price.
ReplyDeleteI figured 99% was good enough, but maybe it really is 100%. Perhaps the next time you meet a terrorist ready to blow himself up or someone in the process of going postal, you can ask him (or her) if a million dollars is enough to change course?
AO You're even more naive than I thought if you think money is the only or best lever.
ReplyDeleteEveryone does have their price, that's usually not a (the ) problem. Finding out that amount is the tricky part for people. Most people value themselves way too high. To say they are shocked at how cheap they really are is an understatement.
ReplyDeleteChristian Toto said
ReplyDelete"Thanks for the link. It's such an ugly scandal and I fear it will get far uglier before the proverbial smoke settles."
I have less fear, more hope.
Jack Fisher said... AO You're even more naive than I thought if you think money is the only or best lever.
ReplyDeleteMoney is certainly the easiest lever. I did forget about the 72 virgins argument - tough to up that one, although you never can be sure God will pay up.
I do have one correction - Woody Allen was never married to Mia Farrow, therefore, never a step-father for Ronan.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Ronan was the child of Andre Previn (although Mia has hinted that he may have been fathered by Old Blue Eyes, her former husband).
"I did forget about the 72 virgins argument..."
ReplyDeleteHugh Hefner said on his death bed: "I'm on my way. Best get there while there's still 72 left."
Harry the Hutt, R.I.H.
ReplyDeleteLinda Fox said... I do have one correction - Woody Allen was never married to Mia Farrow, therefore, never a step-father for Ronan. I believe that Ronan was the child of Andre Previn
ReplyDeleteYou're right they were not married, but Wikipedia seems to say Ronan was Allen's biological son.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronan_Farrow
---
He is the son of actress Mia Farrow and filmmaker Woody Allen. ... He was given the surname "Farrow" to avoid a family with "one child named Allen amidst two Farrows and six Previns."
---
Apparently, Farrow chose to throw the question of paternity into doubt after the Soon yi debacle. I have always assumed that Ronan is Woody Allen's biological son.
ReplyDelete