When Knights surrender their sword – the problem of effeminate men

[niceatheist]

Those women were afraid of something, and if they believed what you say to be true than they should have had no fear at all of Weinstein… Which was obviously not the case. If they had believed those groups would protect them, then what were they afriad of and why did it scare them?

Ask Paula Jones, Juanita Broderick, Kathleen Willy, and Kathy Shelton how quick feminists and progressives were to leap to their defense. You can’t ask Mary Jo Kopechne because she was drowned in a car.

Good grief. This obsession some have with the Clintons borders on the pathological.

Quit blaming victims, and quit blaming those who at least nominally try to defend victims. Whatever you think of feminists, at least they’re sympathetic to those women who men like Weinstein victimized. You’re just trying to use it further your own clear dislike of feminists and the Clintons.

 

[Lea101]

if anyone, male or female, is unwilling to stand up for victims, they’re just not decent human beings. No way around it.

 

[ChunkMonk]

Why would they have been afraid of their careers? Who would hurt their career? If the feminists, leftist media, and Hollywood progressives were going to “leap to their defense” then who could hurt their careers?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Why would they have been afraid of their careers? Who would hurt their career? If the feminists, leftist media, and Hollywood progressives were going to “leap to their defense” then who could hurt their careers?

They didn’t think those other groups were powerful enough to ensure their protection (obviously).

 

[ChunkMonk]

But once the news hit and thoae groups were forced to report on it, those women suddenly felt in the clear. Which means they think those groups are enough now.

What is really happening is that the report hit and those groups reluctantly cut Weinstein loose, and once he lost his protection, now it was safe to come out and accuse him… More than safe, now you get hero-points and sympathy for just making the accusation, proof no longer required. But before the NYT report hit, these allegations were apparently well-known and widespread. Until the media gave the go-ahead, his victims obviously felt like they had no back-up, but once the media gave the go-ahead, they feel no fear at all.

I believe Weinstein is probably a pervert, but I’m disposed to believe that. I think all of these Hollywood progressives and liberal men are perverts. I don’t know why the NYT decided to take down him in particular, but dollars to dimes says there are more of his type still out there but since they aren’t being cut loose yet, there’s no accusations being put forward. Which means these women do trust the media’s power to protect them and their careers… But they don’t trust the media to actually do so.

 

[Lea101]

Well, some women did try to tell others in the industry, but it’s kept hush. Ben Affleck, I think, was one of the ones who knew and apparently told a woman that he tried to tell Harvey to stop doing that.

If an actress (especially a D list one compared to someone with a large following) is blacklisted for showing up on set late, you can only imagine what would happen to them if they tried to take action as soon as it happened. Instead, they would have to depend on secretly leaking information to journalists or sadly keep quiet until the abuser is being attacked enough by the media for them to feel safe about opening up about their experiences without anyone trying to retaliate (since they would be labeled as a rape apologist or whatever the phrase is). They would be almost untouchable then.

Hollywood is corrupt, the people jumping to their defense that are genuine, are people outside of it. They couldn’t do anything before because they didn’t know. So obviously the victims depend on them. They were scared of the people in Hollywood for revealing something that could potentially destroy a lot of careers. Why would they be afraid of liberals or conservatives in general???

That being said, I’m disappointed in A list celebrities for not speaking out earlier, since their large fans and fame would have protected them from such backlash in Hollywood. Maybe that’s why some waited till now, to get some sort of power as backup.

What’s more disgusting, however, is the number of producers, directors, executives who had enough power to stop it but kept quiet because of greed.

 

[starshiptrooper]

I wonder if it was a distraction from something else the American people need to be aware of.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

But once the news hit and thoae groups were forced to report on it, those women suddenly felt in the clear. Which means they think those groups are enough now.

“Those groups” are of little consequence in this story, either pro or con. It appears you are just using the incident to push your anti-progressive agenda. There are plenty of legitimate ways to do that, so why waste your time on a totally inappropriate strategy?

What is really happening is that the report hit and those groups reluctantly cut Weinstein loose, and once he lost his protection, now it was safe to come out and accuse him.

Well, of course. That is common knowledge.

More than safe, now you get hero-points and sympathy for just making the accusation, proof no longer required.

Such considerations would never be a factor in a real victim’s decision-making. So I can only assume you are accusing some of these victims of faking their victim status. Unless you have some inside information, such assumptions are just blue sky speculation.

But before the NYT report hit, these allegations were apparently well-known and widespread.

“Rumored” would be more accurate.

'Until the media gave the go-ahead, his victims obviously felt like they had no back-up…

Still blue-skying it, I see.

I believe Weinstein is probably a pervert, but I’m disposed to believe that. I think all of these Hollywood progressives and liberal men are perverts.

It is not their liberal politics that corrupts them but their power.

I don’t know why the NYT decided to take down him in particular

Decisions like this are usually made when a prospective story reaches critical mass.

but dollars to dimes says there are more of his type still out there but since they aren’t being cut loose yet, there’s no accusations being put forward.

The media reports this story. They do not make this story. They “cut someone loose” when there is enough evidence that allegations might be true. The allegations precede the news story, which often brings more allegations.

Which means these women do trust the media’s power to protect them and their careers…

It is not so much the media itself that they trust but the public that is informed by the media.

 

[HarryStotle]

Good grief. This obsession some have with the Clintons borders on the pathological.

Quit blaming victims, and quit blaming those who at least nominally try to defend victims. Whatever you think of feminists, at least they’re sympathetic to those women who men like Weinstein victimized. You’re just trying to use it further your own clear dislike of feminists and the Clintons.

Nope. It stands as a deadly serious and unresolved issue. To say nothing of the host of allegations (not just one or two small things) that hang over the Clintons. As long as these stay unresolved, they will remain in public consciousness. What remains unresolved is the question of why the Clinton’s could possibly have gotten away with so much and have remained unscathed. I guess Weinstein having done what he did for so long and remained untouched, so to speak, is a reminder that that same phenomenon might just be true with the Clintons.

Provide a complete explanation of why the cultural elites are so immune to discovery and why those around them are so afraid to speak the truth and you will resolve the issue. Have at it.

The fact that so many were intimidated and silenced by the purveyors of success in the Weinstein case means that something very like that intimidation could be true with the Clintons. Besides, Harvey’s behaviour is so reminiscent of

Spoiler

Bill’s

that there is an almost reflexive remembrance.

 

[HarryStotle]

I wonder if it was a distraction from something else the American people need to be aware of.

This dawned on me, too.

If Weinstein is the sociopath he appears to be and the cultural elites are as depraved as they appear to be, then this exposure or notoriety may just be a big sting played on the people. It isn’t like these pampered elites care one way or another what the riff raff thinks about them. Weinstein and friends may be reveling in the entire affair as one big public production to get the masses worked up. Kind of like performance art or reality TV kicked up a level.

I really don’t think that the elites who have imbued themselves in this level of depravity really care what their public thinks of them. The loss of money might count for something, but hubris being what it is, they likely think that will be recouped in short order. He does have lots of wealthy friends and they can afford to bankroll him big time for this role in the “production.”

The question would be why and what is being covered up?

Soros moving $18 billion to the Open Society Project is .

 

[ChunkMonk]

I wonder if it was a distraction from something else the American people need to be aware of.

I’ve had the same thought. There is a reason why this is coming out now and why this has legs, and it ain’t because the good people at NYT found Jesus and decided to be moral people.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Another possibility is that this could be an attempt by certain Democrats to get rid of the Clintons.

After Hillary’s blatant cheating and incompetence in the last election, the Democrats need to get rid of them before they tarnish the brand any further. Unfortunately for them, Hillary Clinton is not going quietly into the night.

Outing a creep who donated to them is guilt by association. Throw the information we are getting about who was actually colluding with the Russians and you have a potent 1-2 combo.

 

[exnihilo]

From the article

For the past 50 years, every major institution has been captured by the radical secular left. The media, Hollywood, TV, universities, public schools, theater, the arts, literature — they relentlessly promote the false gods of sexual hedonism and radical individualism. Conservatives have ceded the culture to the enemy.

I wouldn’t say captured. I’d say they have owned it for the last century. What changed is they were able to be more overt. Hollywood has been sleazy since the beginning. But the American people wouldn’t put up with sleaziness on display. The difference is now we will. The fix isn’t Hollywood but us.

an effeminate man refuses to detach himself from concupiscible pleasures to endure the pain of pursuing something greater than himself

True. We are a very effeminate society. I don’t exclude myself. If men aren’t willing to sacrifice for something greater then you’ll get something awful. That is where we are now. We as a society will sacrifice all honor and principle for comfort. Despite our technological advantage we won’t last long.

 

[GLam1761]

I, for one, am a pacifist, b/c my parents raised me
to be AGAINST using force to advance my cause.
That being said, it agree that we men should rise
up to challenges and “fight” on the side of upright-
ness and justice, may God raise up men who are
willing to take up this challenge!!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Without denying the fact that men should stand up for the protection of Truth and defend those in need of help, the title of the article is still offensive. It identifies cowardice as a specifically feminine trait by calling these cowards “effeminate men.” Of the men who knew about Harvey Weinstein and did nothing and said nothing, probably a good number of them were cigar-smoking, tattoo wearing, macho men who were anything but effeminate. And a good number of women are more like Éowyn than Blanche DuBois. (Look it up!)

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Indeed. I tend to give the side-eye to attempts at promoting a so-called good that spend so much time bashing the other side. And I say so-called because what it also suggests is that there is one way, or a very narrow vision of what it is, to be a man or boy.

 

[niceatheist]

But once the news hit and thoae groups were forced to report on it, those women suddenly felt in the clear. Which means they think those groups are enough now.

What is really happening is that the report hit and those groups reluctantly cut Weinstein loose, and once he lost his protection, now it was safe to come out and accuse him… More than safe, now you get hero-points and sympathy for just making the accusation, proof no longer required. But before the NYT report hit, these allegations were apparently well-known and widespread. Until the media gave the go-ahead, his victims obviously felt like they had no back-up, but once the media gave the go-ahead, they feel no fear at all.

I believe Weinstein is probably a pervert, but I’m disposed to believe that. I think all of these Hollywood progressives and liberal men are perverts. I don’t know why the NYT decided to take down him in particular, but dollars to dimes says there are more of his type still out there but since they aren’t being cut loose yet, there’s no accusations being put forward. Which means these women do trust the media’s power to protect them and their careers… But they don’t trust the media to actually do so.

So far as I can tell, what happened is that his brother Bob Weinstein apparently ratted on him to the New York Times. It also looks like the company has had financial problems for over a year, so I’m thinking this was a big middle finger by one brother to another.

At any rate, Weinstein wielded a very great amount of power in Hollywood as one of the film industry’s most important producers, so he could ruin careers, and some of the victims are saying just that, that their refusal to bend to him lead to their careers faltering. I don’t understand why you have such contempt for the women.

 

[niceatheist]

starshiptrooper:

I wonder if it was a distraction from something else the American people need to be aware of.

This dawned on me, too.

If Weinstein is the sociopath he appears to be and the cultural elites are as depraved as they appear to be, then this exposure or notoriety may just be a big sting played on the people. It isn’t like these pampered elites care one way or another what the riff raff thinks about them. Weinstein and friends may be reveling in the entire affair as one big public production to get the masses worked up. Kind of like performance art or reality TV kicked up a level.

I really don’t think that the elites who have imbued themselves in this level of depravity really care what their public thinks of them. The loss of money might count for something, but hubris being what it is, they likely think that will be recouped in short order. He does have lots of wealthy friends and they can afford to bankroll him big time for this role in the “production.”

The question would be why and what is being covered up?

Soros moving $18 billion to the Open Society Project is .

I’m seeing a lot of people in glass houses throwing stones here. Let’s not forget the Catholic Church’s own problems with abuse, and the way it tried to bury it for many years. This is the nature of institutional abuse, whether it be a church, a school, or yes, even Hollywood.

 

[HarryStotle]

I’m seeing a lot of people in glass houses throwing stones here. Let’s not forget the Catholic Church’s own problems with abuse, and the way it tried to bury it for many years. This is the nature of institutional abuse, whether it be a church, a school, or yes, even Hollywood.

Except those other institutions (church and school) have not aided and abetted the abuse in terms of producing a consistent stream of propaganda promoting, normalizing or otherwise idealizing the abuse of sex. Hollywood has turned out a tsunami of material glorifying sex, promoting indulgence in all kinds of aberrant and illicit passions and idealizing sexual conquests, generally.

If you can point out when and where a church or school has done that, we can then speak of “glass houses.”

This is not the “nature of institutional abuse” unless the institution intentionally or, at least tacitly, promotes the abuse. That it merely happens or if, in a state of uncertainty, the institution fails to deal adequately with the abuse, that might imply negligence. It doesn’t, however, imply complicity. Hollywood and the popular media have clearly been complicit, not merely covering it up, but ignoring and “going along” because of the opportunity to be a part of the lucre-producing Faustian bargain and the profit they receive from it.

The Catholic Church, specifically, mostly acted in good faith seeking professional advice for best dealing with abusers and was given wrong advice at a time when the treatment of pedophilia was not at all clear – and still isn’t today. There may have been some priests and bishops who were complicit, but they ought to be tried as independent agents who were solely responsible for what they did by abusing their position and authority. The entire Church is not blameworthy for what some did who were clearly contravening what the Church explicitly teaches regarding sexual behaviour.

Hollywood personae not only engage in frivolous sexual behaviour, but promote it, aggrandize it, glorify it and profit enormously from it.

 

[HarryStotle]

And a good number of women are more like Éowyn than Blanche DuBois. (Look it up!)

It seems to undercut your point just a bit that you had to resort to two fictional women to prove a point about what real women are like.

Could you, at least, use real life individuals to “keep it real” in a discussion about what the reality of a situation actually is?

I often get the impression that every public person is merely a caricature or poster board cutout, so I get that you would have a difficult time finding examples of two real women, but, at least, give it the old school-girl try. Even just for the sake of restoring my faith in humanity.

On second thought, never mind, I wouldn’t want you to end up on the short end of a doxing attack or slander conviction. (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)