The Sexual Harassment Bonfire Continues in the Wake of the Weinstein Scandal

Famed fashion photographer Terry Richardson has been banned from working for Condé Nast publications including Vogue, GQ and Vanity Fair. Richardson “has been dogged for years by allegations of sexual exploitation of models,” according to the Telegraph.

Last week, one of Hollywood’s top talent agencies fired Tyler Grasham, who had represented many child stars, after he was accused of sexually harassing and/or assaulting young men. Also last week, Nickelodeon fired Chris Savino, creator of the animated series The Loud House, over allegations of sexual harassment, with at least 12 accusers referencing “unwanted sexual advances as well as threats of retribution after the end of consensual relationships.” The Los Angeles Times published a long article Sunday about a long history of alleged sexual harassment by writer/director James Toback. Meanwhile in Silicon Valley, multiple women have made accusations of harassment against Robert Scoble, a well-known commentator on the tech industry.

In London, British GQ correspondent Rupert Myers was fired in the wake of a woman’s accusation of sexual harassment:

Myers, who deactivated his Twitter account after [Karen] Leaver started tweeting her story, is a known feminist who has written stories such as, “Men’s rights activist are cave dwelling idiots.” In the 2015 story, Myers wrote, “There is a new, global group dedicated to undermining significant social change. They wear the mask of an online avatar and use technology to harass, threaten and silence their targets. Their cause? To prevent steps towards the equality of men and women. They are the ‘Men’s rights activists.’”
Daily Caller reporter Ian Miles Cheong had harsh words for Myers, tweeting, “Male feminists who claim the moral high ground, who turn their noses up at the ‘misogynists’ below, are the very demons they claim to fight.”

Amid this inferno of career-ending accusations touched off by the Harvey Weinstein scandal, Professor Ann Althouse sounds a note of caution:

What are the rules for going out for drinks with a co-worker? . . .
Let’s not fling ourselves headlong into a new era of sexual repression. . . .
Without knowing more [about the accusations against Myers], I can’t think of what else to say except that conservatives who’ve been crying out about the lack of due process for men accused of sexual assault should not be gleefully enjoying this man’s loss of a job. That would be hypocritical, and your glee is based on the notion that Myers is a hypocrite. That’s double hypocrisy!

This is an important point. The destruction of Harvey Weinstein was a consequence of feminist rage over the election of Donald Trump, whose words and alleged behavior in this regard were so offensive to so many. There was also apparently a “boys will be boys” environment at Fox News. Certainly, there are many Republicans who have not been paragons of virtue, and there is a clear line between (a) conservatives enjoying some schadenfreude at the downfall of liberals who claimed to be champions of “women’s rights,” and (b) self-righteous hubris.

Professor Althouse’s mention of conservative concerns over due process rights in campus sexual assault cases gets right to the point, because many of those cases involve a “he-said/she-said” situation between two drunk students, where it is impossible to know what actually happened. Furthermore, as I pointed out after Vox Media executive Lockhart Steele was fired, we may be witnessing an incipient witch-hunt:

When a witch-hunt hysteria takes hold, differences between minor and major forms of witchcraft soon cease to matter. Amid a paranoid climate of suspicion, any accusation of witch-type behavior will suffice to have the target burned at the stake before sundown. . . .
A witch-hunt has no statute of limitations, nor any standard of due process and, as for evidence, who needs evidence? If a woman says her ex-boyfriend did awful things to her in 2007 or 1997, feminists will applaud her for her “courage” in “breaking the silence,” and nothing that the targeted scapegoat says in his own defense will save him.

In the case of Lockhart Steele, there was allegedly a pattern of bad behavior that had continued for many years, but Steele was reportedly protected by Vox because he “had too many shares” in the company to be fired. This parallels the Weinstein saga, where the Hollywood mogul abused his power as a serial harasser of women, a perpetrator with a well-established modus operandi that involved inviting women to his hotel rooms, soliciting massages, exposing himself, masturbating, etc.

Habitual offenders, abusers of power, and institutional protection of such behaviors — this is the proper focus of sexual harassment concerns. The way the BBC covered for Jimmy Savile, the way the Catholic Church dealt with pedophile priests by reassigning them to new parishes, the way Arkansas State Troopers were employed to protect Gov. Bill Clinton’s womanizing escapades — these were all newsworthy scandals.

There is a danger, as Professor Althouse points out, that a witch-hunt hysteria could obliterate the distinction between such serious abuses and comparatively trivial incidents. Nevertheless, as we watch this bonfire immolate the careers of the famous and the obscure alike, everyone is put on notice that there is a zero-tolerance policy now in effect regarding “unwanted sexual advances.” As a father of teenagers, I’ve been cautioning my kids for years about this, especially when it comes to their online behavior. The Internet is dangerous. Online dating? No, never, period. “Sexting”? No, never, period. The fate of Anthony Weiner should serve as a scarecrow to warn young people against this stuff. And smart young people, now as always, should be instructed to pair up. Find a steady partner and avoid the hook-up carousel. My eldest three children married in their early 20s, and I expect my younger three to follow the same path. Whether or not our society is headed into “a new era of sexual repression,” as Professor Althouse warns, parents in every era have a duty to protect their own children — sons and daughters alike — by warning them against the perils and pitfalls of hedonism. Selah.



 

Dear @AnnaKendrick47 …

 

Most of my readers are grown-ups with jobs who vote Republican, so it is necessary for me to explain to them who Anna Kendrick is, and why she has nearly 7 million Twitter followers. She is an actress who was in some vampire movies and did a Disney movie and other stuff.

She is now 32 and incredibly rich. She lives in Hollywood, where she hates Republicans and hangs out with other rich people who hate Republicans. For example, Ms. Kendrick hung out with her fellow rich Republican-hater, Stephen Colbert, talking about her bestselling book, My Boyfriend Dumped Me and I Blame the Republican Party.

No, wait, let me check that title again . . .

 
Scrappy Little Nobody has been critically acclaimed (“funny” and “authentic”) because book critics, while seldom rich, usually hate Republicans, and also like to read books by good-looking women who write about having sex. (Book critics are seldom good-looking, and nobody wants to have sex with a book critic, no matter how much they hate Republicans.) Like most other Republican grown-ups, I’d never heard of Ms. Kendrick or her book until this morning when I stumbled upon a couple of quotes on a feminist Tumblr blog:

“I’m not interested in pretending to be a reluctant participant because you think girls who like sex are a turnoff. If you think girls are supposed to object to sex until they find themselves incapable of resisting your magic penis, f–k you.” (p. 103)

“Lesson for young men: If you want your eventual wife to be excited about [performing oral sex] for forty years, don’t create a generation of women who think enthusiasm for sex is a bad thing.” (p. 105)

These supposedly insightful quotes from Ms. Kendrick’s book are really nothing but recycled talking points from Jessica Valenti’s 2008 book, He’s a Stud, She’s a Slut, and 49 Other Double Standards Every Woman Should Know. Feminists expect us to believe that the world is full of men who have a problem with “girls who like sex.”

OK, guys: Show of hands?

Hmmm. No hands went up.

It seems that every guy reading this blog approves of “girls who like sex” and, contrary to Ms. Kendrick’s claims, all these guys “think enthusiasm for sex” is a good thing. So why the discrepancy? Perhaps it’s because the guys reading this blog are grown-ups who vote Republican.

Now that I think about it, however, I approved of “enthusiasm for sex” even when I was a young fool voting for Democrats. But maybe young fools have changed since the Mondale-Ferraro era, so I can’t speak for Ms. Kendrick’s experiences dating rich Republican-haters in Hollywood, including all the boyfriends who dumped her.

That’s basically Ms. Kendrick’s story. When she was 23, she started dating British director Edgar Wright, who was more than 10 years older than her, and who dumped her when she was 27. No one else has ever publicly admitted dating her. Given that it’s been more than four years since her last known boyfriend, it’s probably safe to surmise that Ms. Kendrick has a very bad reputation for reasons that may or may not have anything to do with her “enthusiasm for sex.”

Borderline personality? Bipolar? Obsessive-compulsive disorder? Look, I’m just a blogger, not a psychiatrist, and I’m not qualified to make a professional diagnosis beyond the simple word “crazy.”

Given that 66 million Americans voted for Hillary Clinton, this kind of craziness seems to be at epidemic levels, so she’s not alone. Unless you’re using the word “alone” to describe the fact that nobody wants to date Anna Kendrick, or at least no one is willing to admit dating her.

Who is responsible for creating “a generation of women who think enthusiasm for sex is a bad thing”? I dunno. Harvey Weinstein, maybe? But he’s just another rich Republican-hater, isn’t he? Actually, what we’re confronting is a generation of the Crazy Ex-Girlfriend type like Anna Kendrick, who’s been riding the carousel since 19 and now, at age 32, has nothing left to do but sell books about the sex she used to have.

She’s “funny”! She’s “authentic”! She’s as lonely as a book critic!

Like other feminist memoirs, including Jessica Valenti’s Sex Object, Ms. Kendrick’s book is essentially about revenge against the various men who have used and discarded her. All of her ex-boyfriends are shallow jerks who failed to appreciate her unique specialness. The problem in her relationships is never her, but them — or society’s patriarchal double standards, blah, blah, blah. But she’s “funny” and “authentic,” according to the kind of book critics whose job is to praise feminist memoirs. It is apparently impossible for any critic to criticize a feminist memoir; instead they’re just doing P.R. work, writing encomiums that can be excerpted on the cover of the paperback edition. None of those who have heaped praise on Ms. Kendrick’s book were the least bit skeptical about her absurd claim that young men are against women enjoying sex. To doubt any claim in a feminist memoir would be sexism, probably.

Actually, there is a double-standard at work here. Only women get paid to write memoirs about their sex lives. Simon & Schuster isn’t offering book deals to any of Ms. Kendrick’s ex-boyfriends. Critics probably wouldn’t praise Trust Me, Dude, That Bitch Is Crazy, or any of the other “funny” and “authentic” books her exes might write about her.

By the way, where are these ex-boyfriends of hers who “think girls who like sex are a turnoff,” and why haven’t they sued her for libel? She uses pseudonyms for them, but certainly her former roommates know who “Landon” is, for example, and if I were “Landon,” my lawyers would be dragging Anna Kendrick through a nightmare ordeal of litigation. On the other hand, it’s possible that Hollywood is full of guys stupid enough to say the things Ms. Kendrick claims “Landon” said to her, so that nobody can tell the difference between him and any number of similarly clueless Hollywood guys. Or maybe he’s a “composite,” like Obama’s white girlfriend in Dreams From My Father. Nobody cares.

Anyway, now you know who Anna Kendrick is, and it’s probably fun to imagine her, alone with her cats and her Xanax prescription, crying about the “nightmare” of Trump’s election. Maybe she should get in touch with Harvey Weinstein. He might want to discuss the idea of turning her book into a movie. Just a quick meeting at a hotel . . .

What? Too soon?



 

Harvey Weinstein Is the ‘Patriarchy,’ and Other Feminist Non Sequiturs

“Patriarchy is a system of structures and institutions created by men in order to sustain and recreate male power and female subordination.”
— Sneja Gunew, Feminist Knowledge: Critique and Construct, 1990

Lauren Duca is not very good at logical inferences, and her belief that the exposure of Harvey Weinstein provides a road map to “take down the patriarchy” is delusional, primarily because “patriarchy” itself is a paranoid conspiracy theory, a persecution fantasy. What are the “structures and institutions” by which “male power and female subordination” are sustained and recreated, how does one “take down” that system by “storytelling” and, most importantly, what will be the result if feminism’s destructive agenda succeeds? What “structures” and “institutions” will replace those that feminists destroy?

Nearly half a century has passed since the radical Women’s Liberation Movement emerged in the late 1960s. Why is it that Harvey Weinstein — an avowed “progressive” and a major donor to Hillary Clinton and other Democrats — got away with preying on young women for decades?

“I would be happy to give [Bill Clinton] a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their Presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”
— Nina Burleigh, 1998

Feminists are trapped in an abusive relationship with the Democrat Party, and the Hollywood establishment is part of the same political machine. So long as Harvey Weinstein was useful to Democrats, his predatory behavior was ignored by the “operatives with bylines” in the media. Da Tech Guy is almost certainly correct that if Hillary had won in 2016, Weinstein would not have been exposed in 2017.

Isn’t the Democrat Party a structure and an institution? Hasn’t male power in the Democrat Party been sustained by feminists’ voluntary subordination to the party’s agenda? If Hillary Clinton was willing to tolerate Harvey Weinstein’s behavior, in the same way she tolerated her own husband’s behavior, what does this tell us about the corrupt bargain between feminists and Democrats? Is it true — or was it true 20 years ago — that women owe a debt of gratitude to Democrats for “keeping abortion legal” and “keeping the theocracy off our backs”?

While we’re asking questions, how about this one: Why did Bill Clinton take 26 flights on a private plane dubbed “The Lolita Express,” which “was reportedly outfitted with a bed where passengers had group sex with young girls”? The owner of that plane, Jeffrey Epstein, was convicted and sent to prison “for solicitation and procurement of minors for prostitution. He allegedly had a team of traffickers who procured girls as young as 12 to service his friends on ‘Orgy Island,’ an estate on Epstein’s 72-acre island, called Little St. James, in the U.S. Virgin Islands.”

If Lauren Duca wants to engage in “storytelling,” why isn’t she telling any stories about Bill Clinton’s travels aboard “The Lolita Express”?

Feminists like Lauren Duca aren’t very good at logical inferences, however. Their partisan loyalty to Democrats leads them to conflate the “patriarchy” — their delusional idée fixe — with the Republican Party. Believing that legal abortion is the summum bonum of public policy, and that the GOP represents the forces of “theocracy” which would criminalize abortion, feminists believe that women’s “progress” is synonymous with the success of the Democrat Party.

Like an anti-Semite muttering about “Zionists,” the feminist who sees herself (and all women) oppressed by “patriarchy” has abandoned facts and logic for the sake of a simplistic theory that offers her a demonized scapegoat as an all-purpose explanation for her problems. The essential message of American feminism can be expressed as a syllogism:

  1. Men are evil;
  2. Abortion is good;
    and therefore
  3. Vote Democrat!

Am I the only one who understands why this is a formula for madness? If feminists believe that electing Democrats is the solution to their problems, perhaps they should ask the families of the 53 women shot to death in Chicago this year what electing Democrats has done for them. Hillary Clinton got 75% of the vote in the Democrat fiefdom of Cook County, Illinois, and former Clinton/Obama staffer Rahm Emanuel is mayor of Chicago, one of the most dangerous places in America.

Cynthia Trevillion, a 64-year-old math teacher, was murdered Friday night in Chicago, the victim of a drive-by shooting. Early this morning, Chicago police found a 26-year-old woman dead on her front porch, shot through the head. Of course, the vast majority (81%) of those shot to death in Chicago are males, including one recent case in which a man made the fatal mistake of bringing a knife to a gunfight:

Police say the fatal shooting of 25-year-old Pleasure Cardell Singleton Jr. was a case of self-defense, and the woman who shot him will not be charged.
The woman shot Singleton after he stabbed her multiple times . . . in a domestic fight in his West Side Lawndale neighborhood home, Chicago Police said.
About 4:05 p.m. Oct. 5, Singleton, a father of three, was shot in the chest after he stabbed the 25-year-old woman multiple times in the 4000 block of West 21st Street, police said.
The woman was taken in serious condition to Mount Sinai Hospital, and Singleton was pronounced dead at the scene at 4:48 p.m., authorities said.

Perhaps “storytelling” can “take down the patriarchy,” as Lauren Duca says, but a bullet through the chest is also quite effective. However, it seems that feminists are not interested in telling stories about the daily death toll in Chicago, just as they weren’t interested in telling stories about Harvey Weinstein’s predatory behavior until after Hillary — a beneficiary of Weinstein’s support — lost the presidential election.

1998: Gwyneth Paltrow, Hillary Clinton and Harvey Weinstein.

2017: Huma Abedin, Harvey Weinstein and Hillary Clinton.

Harvey Weinstein’s behavior was an “open secret” in Hollywood for decades. Where was Lauren Duca’s feminist “storytelling” all those years? Why wasn’t it necessary to “take down the patriarchy” when Bill Clinton was assaulting Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, et al.?

“Rape culture is a complex set of beliefs that encourage male sexual aggression and supports violence against women. It is a society where violence is seen as sexy and sexuality as violent. In a rape culture, women perceive a continuum of threatened violence that ranges from sexual remarks to sexual touching to rape itself. A rape culture condones physical and emotional terrorism against women as the norm.”
— Emilie Buchwald, Transforming a Rape Culture, 1994

“We need to defend Planned Parenthood and women’s rights.”
— Harvey Weinstein, Feb. 26, 2017

Does Harvey Weinstein believe violence is sexy? Isn’t it true that Bill Clinton engaged in behavior within the “continuum” of sexual violence? Hasn’t the feminist strategy of “Vote Democrat” helped foster the climate of “physical and emotional terrorism against women”? And why have feminists like Lauren Duca been unwilling to engage in “storytelling” if it might undermine the political interests of the Democrat Party?

Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.



 

Hollywood Burning: Rose McGowan Goes Nuclear on Amazon/Weinstein Link

 

 

We’re at DefCon One now:

Rose McGowan is claiming that Amazon optioned a television series from her only to kill it while still in development after she voiced her concern about a possible move the company was making to bailout ‘Weinstein.’
‘I told the head of your studio that HW raped me. Over & over I said it. He said it hadn’t been proven. I said I was the proof,’ said McGowan on Thursday in a tweet directed at company founder Jeff Bezos.
‘I had already sold a script I wrote to your studio, it was in development. When I heard a Weinstein bailout was in the works.’
She then added: ‘I forcefully begged studio head to do the right thing. I was ignored. Deal was done. Amazon won a dirty Oscar.’
‘HW’ is apparently a reference to Harvey Weinstein, whose representative Sallie Hofmeister has said that he client ‘unequivocally denies … any allegations of non-consensual contact.’
An hour after she posted her tweets, Amazon got hit with sexual harassment allegations of their own after an employee said in an interview that Roy Price made unwanted sexual advances towards her at a work event.
‘You will like my dick,’ Price allegedly told his lesbian co-worker just hours after meeting her for the first time.
Amazon did not respond to repeated requests for comment, but Price was put on leave by the company on Thursday.

You can read the Price story at The Hollywood Reporter. The reference to a “dirty Oscar” was in regard to Casey Affleck’s Best Actor award for Manchester by the Sea. Two women have accused Affleck of sexual harassment. Is every man in Hollywood a harasser?

This seems strange, really. Think of being a powerful, big-money guy in a business that is a magnet for good-looking women. There should be no shortage of consensual opportunities for a guy like that, so what’s up with the crude approaches and outright assault? Are these guys just egomaniacs with an insatiable need for gratification? What is the key word in the phrase “unwanted sexual advances”? Unwanted.

OK, so how can a guy know if his “sexual advance” is unwanted, prior to the moment he actually makes the advance? This is an obvious problem, and the only way to avoid it is either (a) never to make any “sexual advances” at all, or (b) to make your opening move in an innocuous manner. That is to say, you don’t begin by making a crudely sexual remark — as Roy Price is accused of doing — nor do you corner a woman in a hotel room, grab her and demand sexual favors, which is the alleged modus operandi of Harvey Weinstein. It makes no sense.

Meanwhile, Tippi Hedren — who starred in Alfred Hitchcock’s 1963 classic The Birds — says she turned down Hitchcock’s advances and he made good on his threat to “ruin” her career in Hollywood.

It’s difficult to imagine Alfred Hitchcock as a sexual predator, but who knows? True or not, what’s the point of making such an accusation against a guy after he’s been dead for 37 years? This is just sad.

Yet the bonfire begun by the Weinstein scandal won’t end in Hollywood — there are now email lists circulating of alleged sexual predators in the news media. This won’t end until they burn it all down.

 

The Harvey Weinstein Democrat Bonfire

 

Just five months ago, Harvey Weinstein was hanging out with Hillary Clinton at Planned Parenthood’s 100th anniversary gala:

At the celebration, Planned Parenthood awarded former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton the Champion of the Century Award. According to The Hollywood Reporter, Weinstein gave Clinton a standing ovation at the event where she insisted on the “morality” of “reproductive health care” (aka abortion) and stressed “trusting and valuing women.” . . .
According to Artnet editor Sarah Cascone, Weinstein also purchased artwork by British painter Cecily Brown at a charity auction at the gala for $100,000. . . .
According to Planned Parenthood’s most recently published annual report, the organization performed 328,348 abortions and received $554.6 million in “government health services grants and reimbursements” for the year 2015-2016.

Democrats loved Harvey Weinstein, until they hated him:

Hillary Clinton on Tuesday said she was “shocked and appalled” in the wake of sexual harassment allegations against Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, speaking publicly for the first time about the longtime Democratic donor five days after it first emerged that multiple women had accused him of harassment over the course of decades.
“I was shocked and appalled by the revelations about Harvey Weinstein,” Clinton said in a statement. “Their courage and support of others is critical in helping to stop this kind of behavior.”
A high-profile donor in the Democratic Party, Weinstein has contributed more $20,000 to Clinton’s campaigns since she ran for U.S. Senate in New York in 1999, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

 

Weinstein has given an estimated $2 million to Democrats over the past 25 years, but his money won’t help him anymore:

Last week, the New York Times, in a powerful report by Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey, revealed multiple allegations of sexual harassment against Weinstein, a story that led to the resignation of four members of his company’s all-male board, and to Weinstein’s firing from the company.
The story, however, is more complex, and there is more to know and to understand. In the course of a ten-month investigation, I was told by thirteen women that, between the nineteen-nineties and 2015, Weinstein sexually harassed or assaulted them, allegations that corroborate and overlap with the Times’ revelations, and also include far more serious claims.
Three women — among them [actress Asia] Argento and a former aspiring actress named Lucia Evans — told me that Weinstein raped them, allegations that include Weinstein forcibly performing or receiving oral sex and forcing vaginal sex. Four women said that they experienced unwanted touching that could be classified as an assault. In an audio recording captured during a New York Police Department sting operation in 2015 and made public here for the first time, Weinstein admits to groping a Filipina-Italian model named Ambra Battilana Gutierrez, describing it as behavior he is “used to.” Four of the women I interviewed cited encounters in which Weinstein exposed himself or masturbated in front of them.

But wait — there’s more!

When Gwyneth Paltrow was 22 years old, she got a role that would take her from actress to star: The film producer Harvey Weinstein hired her for the lead in the Jane Austen adaptation “Emma.” Before shooting began, he summoned her to his suite at the Peninsula Beverly Hills hotel for a work meeting that began uneventfully.
It ended with Mr. Weinstein placing his hands on her and suggesting they head to the bedroom for massages, she said. . . .
Rosanna Arquette, a star of “Pulp Fiction,” has a similar account of Mr. Weinstein’s behavior, as does Judith Godrèche, a leading French actress. So does Angelina Jolie, who said that during the release of “Playing by Heart” in the late 1990s, he made unwanted advances on her in a hotel room, which she rejected.

Are there any women in Hollywood that Harvey Weinstein didn’t harass? But never mind, liberals are shocked, shocked:

Academy Award winner George Clooney, who was given his first major big-screen role by Harvey Weinstein, has become the latest — and most high-profile — member of Hollywood to speak out on the alleged sexual-misconduct allegations against his sometime employer.
“It’s indefensible. That’s the only word you can start with,” he says. “Harvey’s admitted to it, and it’s indefensible. I’ve known Harvey for 20 years. He gave me my first big break as an actor in films on From Dusk Till Dawn, he gave me my first big break as a director with Confessions of a Dangerous Mind. We’ve had dinners, we’ve been on location together, we’ve had arguments. But I can tell you that I’ve never seen any of this behavior — ever.” . . .
Weinstein, the former co-chief of Miramax, has since been fired from The Weinstein Company—which he co-founded with his brother Bob—and many of the male actors and filmmakers in particular who have benefited from the studio executive’s Oscar Midas touch, from Matt Damon and Ben Affleck (Good Will Hunting) to Quentin Tarantino (Pulp Fiction), have remained alarmingly silent.

“Alarmingly silent.”



 

 

PREVIOUSLY:

 

Harvey Weinstein Is a Democrat and a Pervert, But I Repeat Myself

 

How much money has film producer Harvey Weinstein donated to Democrats over the past 25 years? Thousands upon thousands, and you can add it up yourself. But now Democrats are being urged to shun Weinstein’s money because, well, he keeps acting like a Democrat:

An investigation by The New York Times found previously undisclosed allegations against Mr. Weinstein stretching over nearly three decades, documented through interviews with current and former employees and film industry workers, as well as legal records, emails and internal documents from the businesses he has run, Miramax and the Weinstein Company. . . .
During that time, after being confronted with allegations including sexual harassment and unwanted physical contact, Mr. Weinstein has reached at least eight settlements with women, according to two company officials speaking on the condition of anonymity. Among the recipients, The Times found, were a young assistant in New York in 1990, an actress in 1997, an assistant in London in 1998, an Italian model in 2015 and Ms. O’Connor shortly after, according to records and those familiar with the agreements. . . .

You can read the whole thing. Among the women Weinstein reportedly harassed were actresses Ashley Judd and Rose McGowan. And I say “reportedly,” because Weinstein is threatening to sue the New York Times for libel. Here’s an interesting headline:

Former Obama Adviser Anita Dunn Helped
Harvey Weinstein Strategize Before New York Times Story

Democrats help Democrats, you see. In his response to the allegations, Weinstein says: “I came of age in the 60’s and 70’s, when all the rules about behavior and workplaces were different. That was the culture then.” Ann Althouse calls this the “Roman Polanski excuse.”

As Ace of Spades remarks, many people in the media must have known about Weinstein’s (alleged) misbehavior, but he’s a Hollywood big shot and a liberal, so they didn’t blow the whistle on him — the same way they covered for Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton and Anthony Weiner.

Well, the Clinton era is over, and it’s not the 1960s anymore and, amid the current climate of feminist jihad, Democrats are going to find it more difficult to get away with their customary shenanigans.

More from Ed Driscoll at Instapundit.

ADDENDUM: Permit me to note, in regard to Weinstein’s defense that he “came of age in the 60’s and 70’s,” that he seems to have made a made a mistake common among high-profile sexual harassers, i.e., he stayed in the game too long. Back when Weinstein was a young man promoting rock concerts in the 1970s, yeah, “all the rules about behavior and workplaces were different.” There were basically no rules at all in the world of rock music back then, nor were there any such rules in Hollywood when Weinstein started making movies. But the main problem is that Harvey Weinstein kept chasing skirts when he was in his 40s and 50s, and even as recently as 2015, he was reportedly still at it.

Guys, don’t do this. At age 45 or 50, you may want to believe you’ve still got it, but you don’t. No matter how much success you had with the ladies when you were 20 or 25, you’re going to look ridiculous if you’re still trying to play the same game when you reach your 40s.

UPDATE: Rebecca Traister of New York magazine recounts her own confrontation with Weinstein’s violent abusive behavior — her called her an epithet and shoved her boyfriend down the steps at a party in 2000. She tries to explain why Weinstein’s behavior was never previously reported, including the fact that “there were so many journalists on his payroll, working as consultants on movie projects, or screenwriters, or for his magazine.” Talk magazine, with Tina Brown as editor, was published 1999-2002: “The cover story of the debut issue was an interview with Hillary Clinton.” In less than three years, Talk lost an estimated $50 million. This was simply another aspect of Weinstein’s power. He was willing to throw away money on a slick magazine with a big-name editor in order to buy influence among journalists. And guess what? It worked. Contrary to their own smug opinions of themselves, the journalistic elite aren’t the most ethical people on the planet.

 

Let’s Put It This Way: Maybe @DDLovato Isn’t a Lesbian (But Her Girlfriend Is)

 

In case you don’t know who Demi Lovato is — because you’re an adult and have an actual life — she is an ex-Disney starlet who has struggled with mental illness ever since she got dumped by Joe Jonas in 2010.

Or maybe she was always crazy, not to mention those rumors of being a teenage cocaine addict, but that’s all ex-Disney starlets, right? Brittney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, Miley Cyrus — being a child star on Disney is excellent preparation for a life of rehab, DUI arrests, etc. If you want your daughter to grow up to be a dope-addled sex maniac, just send her down to Orlando and let the Mouse People™ teach her how it’s done.

Demi Lovato has survived her post-Disney career better than most. She’s developed a sort of cult following as a pop singer — the hashtag is #Lovatics — and most of her fans seem to be girls with “issues” of one sort or another. They’re fat, or they’re depressed, or they don’t have boyfriends, or some combination of these factors. Basically, if you’re a skinny happy girl with a boyfriend, you’re not Demi’s target audience.

Also, for the past few years, Demi’s been pandering to the LGBT crowd. When I say “pandering,” I don’t mean she’s not sincerely gay, but rather that her gayness has been commercially beneficial to her in an era when the Compulsory Approval Doctrine requires everyone to celebrate homosexuality as if we were all Grand Marshals of the San Francisco Pride parade. Sympathy for gay people has been de rigueur in academia, journalism, politics and show business for decades now, and everybody’s anxious to avoid suspicion of “homophobia.” It’s a scandal nowadays to prefer normal sex, and even using a word like “normal” might be enough to put you on the SPLC hate map. But I digress . . .

 

How gay is Demi Lovato? She’s been hinting around for three or four years. She performed at the Los Angeles Gay Pride festival in 2014, but her publicists issued a press release that vaguely described her as “an active advocate of the LGBT community.” OK, how “active” is she, and does her advocacy include dining at the all-you-can-eat seafood buffet?

Ah, details, details — but never mind the colorful metaphors, because the paparazzi finally got pictures of Demi Lovato with her girlfriend.

 

 

 

 

 

Despite all this headline buzz (coincidentally or not, just as Demi’s releasing a new album, as the cynics among us must note) the ex-starlet proved herself to be a cunning linguist, by issuing a non-denial of her relationship that was also a non-confirmation of her gayness. Lovato’s shrewd ambiguity could be clever show-business publicity to keep up the gossip tabloid guessing-game, but the Serious Gay Journalist™ crowd wants to turn everything into an LGBT identity-politics statement.

Demi Lovato’s Reason For Refusing To Talk
About Her Sexuality Is Total Bulls**t

You can click that headline if you want to laugh at a silly gay man hyperventilating about why it’s wrong — wrong! wrong! wrong! — for Demi Lovato not to publicly confess that she’s as gay as the president of the Rosie O’Donnell Fan Club. Or whatever. The editor of HuffPoQueer is very serious about homosexuality, in a way strangely reminiscent of the late Rev. Fred Phelps. As a Christian conservative, probably I should be writing seriously about how Demi Lovato’s carnal perversion will doom her to destruction in the lake of fire (Revelation 20:15), but why preach a sermon when you can just torment celebrity sinners with sarcasm?

Besides which, first of all, Joe Jonas is as much doomed to Hell as Demi Lovato, and perhaps more deserving of eternal destruction than she is. How many girls did Joe pump and dump like he did Demi? Dozens, I’m sure, and whatever happened to all those women he used and discarded? How many of them turned out as bad as Demi Lovato or worse? There’s a reason why I’m glad my 24-year-old twin sons are both married, because otherwise they’d be out there casually breaking hearts with no regard for the consequences, temporal or eternal. But once again I digress . . .

The other reason why I’m not preaching a fire and brimstone sermon about Demi Lovato is because she is fully aware that she’s a sinner, and is therefore “without excuse” (Romans 1:20). We need not doubt that Demi can rationalize her sin in her “reprobate mind” (Romans 1:28) and is under “strong delusion” (II Thessalonians 2:11). Perhaps some of my devout friends will say a prayer for Demi Lovato’s repentance, but why waste prayers on an “active advocate” of evil? There are too many good people suffering in this world for me to spend much time worrying about the souls of celebrity millionaire perverts. Why pray for Demi Lovato when there are boys younger than her deployed to Kandahar, fighting Taliban terrorists and not knowing if they’ll ever make it back home?

What has Demi Lovato ever done that should merit admiration or sympathy from anyone? She was a 10-year-old “star” on Barney and Friends, the most wretched children’s show in TV history, starred in Camp Rock at age 13, then leveraged her forgettable Disney series into an record deal. She is basically just a manufactured commodity marketed by the entertainment industry. Her life has been a public performance since childhood, and trying to separate her image from her authentic self is impossible, because how can there be anything truly authentic left beneath the show-business façade she’s been paid to display all these years? If there is a “real” Demi behind the masquerade, is she someone we would actually like? Or is she just another soulless atheist who sees herself existing in a godless world without meaning or purpose?

 

 

Just because Demi Lovato refuses to label her “sexuality” doesn’t mean we can’t. Her sexuality is — wait for it — a marketing gimmick.

And isn’t that just pathetic? One might muster some sympathy for the secretly homosexual celebrity who is trapped in the closet, but I don’t want to deal with a libel suit from Tom Cruise, so never mind. On the other hand, sex sells, and what better way for Demi Lovato to keep her name in the headlines — and sell her new album — than to take her (alleged) lesbian girlfriend to Disneyland and let the paparazzi get some pictures, then invoke her privacy when reporters ask questions.

Clever little game, really, and we ought to call it what it is, rather than to pretend that Demi’s too dumb to know exactly what she’s doing. If you’re going to sell your soul, might as well make a profit, eh? Oh, and it looks like Joe Jonas is boning yet another starlet who will, no doubt, eventually end up as pathetic as Demi Lovato. Joe is so going to Hell . . .

 

Dry-Humping the Patriarchy, Because @LaurenJauregui Is a Feminist Like That

SHOT:

 

CHASER:

 

Some readers may recall the name Lauren Jauregui, not because you’ve ever heard any songs by her girl group Fifth Harmony, but because she decided to make a feminist statement after the 2016 election:

Anti-American left-wing teachers at an all-girls Catholic school in Miami taught bisexual pop singer Lauren Jauregui the radical feminist beliefs that inspired her outspoken opposition to President Trump.
A member of the group Fifth Harmony, the 20-year-old Jauregui denounced Republican voters as “racist, homophobic, sexist, xenophobic, a–holes” in a November rant in which she compared Trump to Hitler and declared her pride in being “a bisexual Cuban-American woman.” In that Nov. 18 message, Jauregui specifically cited her attendance at an all-girls Catholic school in condemning Republicans as “narrow-minded” and “selfish.” Saturday [Jan. 22], Jauregui attended the pro-abortion “Women’s March on Washington,” obscenely condemning “patriarchy.” . . .
In an interview with the feminist web site Nylon . . . Jauregui defended federal funding for Planned Parenthood, America’s largest abortion provider, and credited her feminist politics to attending Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart in Miami . . .

Read the whole thing, in case you’ve forgotten (or never cared) who Lauren Jauregui is or what she said about Republican voters.

“F**K THE SYSTEM AND THE PATRIARCHY.”
— Lauren Jauregui, Jan. 21, 2017

 

She vowed a “revolutionary fight for justice” in January, but even an America-hating anti-capitalist pro-abortion feminist has to pay the bills, so Lauren is shaking her money-maker for heteronormative cash:

Fifth Harmony bumped and grinded while surrounded by shirtless male dancers for He Like That, the second music video off their third studio album released Friday.
Lauren Jauregui practically bared her entire rear-end in a corseted mini-skirt for the raunchy reggaeton-tinged track, which has already amassed 500K views on YouTube.
‘Pumps in the bump, pumps in the bump / He like the girls with the pumps in the bump,’ the girl group sang.

 

Yeah, that “revolutionary fight for justice” is a tough job. Lauren Jauregui is fighting “patriarchy” under a management contract to Simon Cowell (male) making profit for a record label headed by L.A. Reid (male) which is owned by the multi-trillion-dollar conglomerate Sony.

Lauren’s Daddy paid $30,000 a year to send her to a Catholic girls school, where the radical teachers taught her a lot about “social justice,” but she apparently never learned the definition of irony.

The patriarchy is laughing all the way to the bank, sweetheart.