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.
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.
Men who believe in the inferiority of women are called “sexists.”
Women who believe in the inferiority of men are called “feminists.”
Abigail Shirley (@abzdafab on Twitter) is a feminist who is editor of the website Fem 2.0, and her expression of anti-male prejudice is an excellent example of why Americans generally loathe feminism.
That probably offends you, but why does it offend you?
Because it negates male experience, per se, seeking to impose silence on half the human race with regard to the experiences of the other half.
Feminists do not hesitate to criticize male behavior, yet they insist that no man should be allowed to criticize female behavior. Nor do feminists permit men to invoke their experience as fathers or husbands when addressing the problems of women. (Ms. Shirley’s tweet was obviously directed at men commenting on the Harvey Weinstein scandal.)
Feminism is an ideology that privileges female experience as a basis of authority, while negating the value of men’s experiences. Male opinions have no value, according to feminist theory, because men do not have the experience necessary to speak of women’s interests. Feminism is a totalitarian movement based on the belief that women’s interests are the only interests that matter — “social justice” as a zero-sum-game mentality that condemns males as oppressors and enemies of women.
“Women are an oppressed class. Our oppression is total, affecting every facet of our lives. . . .
“We identify the agents of our oppression as men. . . . All men receive economic, sexual, and psychological benefits from male supremacy. All men have oppressed women.”
— Redstockings, “Manifesto,” 1969
“Men are the enemy. Heterosexual women are collaborators with the enemy. . . .
“We see heterosexuality as an institution of male domination, not a free expression of personal preference.”
— Leeds Revolutionary Feminists, 1981
“Sexuality, then, is a form of power. Gender, as socially constructed, embodies it, not the reverse. Women and men are divided by gender, made into the sexes as we know them, by the social requirements of heterosexuality, which institutionalizes male sexual dominance and female sexual submission.”
— Catharine MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (1989)
“We regard our personal experience, and our feelings about that experience, as the basis for an analysis of our common situation,” the Redstockings collective declared in their famous 1969 manifesto. “We cannot rely on existing ideologies as they are all products of male supremacist culture.” Feminism rejects every other system of belief — in science, politics, religion or law — as invalid, because such beliefs are contaminated by “male supremacist culture.” Only women’s experience and feelings can serve as a basis for analysis, and male experience is irrelevant to that analysis because men are the enemy. This is why it is false to say that feminism is a movement about “equality,” because feminist theory is based on a total contempt for males.
Abigail Shirley’s derogation of men’s experience — the insulting assertion that fathers have no right to speak in defense of their own daughters — is a perfect example of feminism’s anti-male ideology. There can be no commonality of interests between men and women, according to the zero-sum-game calculus of feminist theory in which everything that men say or do is always wrong, simply because they are male.
And now, speaking as a father of daughters . . .
Would any father want his daughter to join a collection of perverted lunatics masquerading as a political movement? That’s what feminism is, as everyone with two eyes and a brain can see for themselves.
What I want for my daughters is the same thing I want for my sons: To be happy and successful, to be respectable and admirable people, to live according to the Christian ethic of the Golden Rule — and feminism is utterly incompatible with those goals. The feminist movement attracts selfish and immoral women, who seek to avoid personal responsibility by blaming their failures and unhappiness on “patriarchy.”
Feminists are proponents of the Culture of Death, advocates of promiscuity and abortion. Feminism is not merely anti-male, but also anti-motherhood, anti-Christian and ultimately, anti-American.
These are not opinions, but facts. The truth about feminism can be documented by quotations from feminists themselves. For some reason, feminists get angry when I quote them. Quotation is “harassment,” because they don’t want to be held accountable for their words.
FLASHBACK Nov. 5, 2016. It's probably cruel to remind feminists of how they were gloating in anticipation of Hillary Clinton's victory. pic.twitter.com/T8cuBszpy0
“Speaking truth is a threat to power and those in power will seek to suppress it. If you are being silenced, they see you as a threat. If you have become a target, you are doing something right.”
— Casey Chapman
The men who punched and kicked Maria MacLachlan had come to protest the women on account of their interest in feminism and in discussing the way new conversations and legislation around “gender identity” could impact the women’s movement and women’s rights. The protestors did not frame their anger and inflammatory rhetoric in this way, though. Instead, they labelled the women “TERFs” (trans exclusionary radical feminists) — a word that has come to signify a modern witch: to be silenced, threatened, harassed, punched, and — yes — killed.
The idea that feminists who question the notion of “gender identity” should be beaten and murdered has very rapidly become accepted by self-described leftists. We’re not just talking about Twitter eggs, here. Men with large platforms who are publicly associated with Antifa and groups like the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) have amplified the “punch TERFs” and “TERFs get the guillotine” message proudly, with the support of their comrades. In reference to The Handmaid’s Tale, many have taken to saying “TERFs get the wall.”
“TERF,” like “white supremacist” and “fascist,” is one of those terms used by leftists to silence their opponents. If you don’t agree 100% with their latest slogan, or if you call attention to facts that don’t fit their agenda, the Left will make you a target of these epithets, in an attempt to discredit you, and thus to exclude you from public forums. To these totalitarians, facts are “hate” and disagreement is “harassment.”
We on the Right have witnessed this tactic in action for years as, for example, those like Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer have been demonized as “racists” for speaking out against radical Islam. The Left has now become so deranged as to denounce freedom of speech as “genocide,” and it is dangerous to be a Republican on a college campus. However, this totalitarian tendency of the Left has also been manifest in the attempt to enforce ideological conformity within the Left.
Casey Chapman is a socialist who resigned from the Democratic Socialists of America in August after she was accused of being “trans-exclusionary.” In fact, Ms. Chapman has “experienced gender and sex dysphoria for most of my life,” she “previously identified as trans [and] was part of the trans community online.” However, Ms. Chapman stopped short of pursuing “transition” via surgery and hormones, and eventually “re-identified” as a woman. She now identifies as as bisexual, and is in a heterosexual relationship with a socialist comrade, Jonathan Phipps.
Because DSA members were prominent among those promoting online attacks against feminists as “TERFs,” Ms. Chapman recorded a YouTube video addressed to DSA leaders:
Ms. Chapman calls this left-wing anti-“TERF” crusade a “dehumanization” tactic, one that functions for left-wing men as “a convenient way to say you’re an ally to women and still hate women.” Gosh, doesn’t that remind you a lot of Harvey Weinstein supporting Planned Parenthood and giving money to Democrats in order to conceal and/or rationalize his predatory behavior toward women? And if you are familiar with the way David Horowitz became an ex-leftist, doesn’t this remind you of his wake-up moment, when Horowitz realized that his Black Panther “comrades” had murdered Betty Van Patter?
What feminists like Ms. Chapman might discover, if they are paying attention, is how the Left’s rhetoric of “equality” and “social justice” tends to provoke conflict, justifying hatred against scapegoated enemies by blaming them for the victimhood of those who claim to be oppressed. Believing yourself to be a victim of oppression, fighting against systemic injustice, becomes an excuse for antisocial behavior. After all, if “society” is to blame for your suffering — as transgender activists claim — then all the laws, customs and moral codes of society may be rejected as oppressive. Obligations of courtesy toward women, for example, are rejected by the Left and therefore feminists who offend transgender activists are targeted with abusive language and acts of violence.
Radical hostility toward “society” (as racist, sexist, homophobic, and otherwise unjust) becomes a license for destructive impulses. This is why radical movements always attract immoral people with antisocial personalities. It’s why, as Hayek observed, “The Worst Get on Top” in totalitarian regimes that offer “special opportunities for the ruthless and unscrupulous.” Wicked people crave power for selfish purposes, including revenge against those who disapprove of their wickedness. In the Soviet Union, for example, the head of Stalin’s secret police was Lavrenti Beria, “notorious for his sadistic enjoyment of torture and his taste for beating and raping women and violating young girls.”
Lavrenti Beria (left) with Soviet dictator Josef Stalin (right).
Meghan Murphy says transgender activists are guilty of “hate speech” against feminists, which suggests that such speech should be criminalized, but do feminists wish to use the force of government to silence their opponents? Isn’t the problem that transgender activists, by accusing their critics of “hate,” are trying to silence opposition? If both sides of this conflict seek to silence each other, why? And what does this mean for those of us who have disagreements with both feminists and transgender activists? We have seen leftists use violence to prevent conservatives from being able to speak on college campuses. Defenders of religious liberty have been smeared as “hate groups” by the SPLC.
On her Twitter profile, Ms. Chapman calls herself a “thought criminal,” which ought to be a badge of honor in an era where there are so many people trying to prevent us from thinking and speaking freely.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Edith Macias became infamous a couple of weeks ago when a viral video showed the University of California-Riverside (UCR) student stealing a “Make America Great Again” cap from another student. An ethnic studies major, Macias demanded that the hat’s owner be punished. At one point during the video, when the hat’s owner Matthew Vitale cited his First Amendment free speech rights, Macias said: “Your f–king freedom of speech is genocide, homeboy.” After a UCR employee took the hat from her, Macias said: “We’re in a country where literally people of color are getting genocide, they’re getting killed.”
This is the American education system in the 21st century.
Edith Macias was merely repeating what she has been taught at UCR, where the notorious Andrea Smith (“Heteropatriarchy and the Three Pillars of White Supremacy”) is on the Ethnic Studies faculty. Students at UCR, as at many other universities in America, are taught an anti-white ideology in the guise of “social justice.” Only 12% of UCR students are white, while 41% are Hispanic and 34% are Asian. White students like Matthew Vitale are demonized and scapegoated at UCR, and are not even allowed to speak out in opposition to the climate of anti-white hatred on campus: “Your f–king freedom of speech is genocide, homeboy.”
According to IRS migration data, which uses individual income tax returns to record year-to-year address changes, over 250,000 California residents moved out of the state between 2013 and 2014, the latest period for which data was available. The tax returns reported more than $21 billion in adjusted gross income to the IRS.
Of the returns, 33,626 reported address changes from California to Texas, which has been the top destination for individuals leaving California since 2007. Californians who moved to Texas between 2013 and 2014 reported $2.19 billion in adjusted gross income. . . .
According to Tom Gray of the Manhattan Institute, people may be leaving California for the employment opportunities, tax breaks, or less crowded living arrangements that other states offer.
“States with low unemployment rates, such as Texas, are drawing people from California, whose rate is above the national average,” Gray wrote. “Taxation also appears to be a factor, especially as it contributes to the business climate and, in turn, jobs.”
The high taxes in California are used to fund an education system which is teaching students that freedom of speech is genocide. Promoting this hateful ideology of “social justice” on university campuses will only exacerbate the economic problems of the poor people who are left behind when taxpayers — people with jobs and money — leave California.
What kind of jobs will Ethnic Studies majors be qualified to do? How much tax revenue will they provide to California? Isn’t it likely that many of those enrolled at University of California-Riverside will never even be able to repay their student loans? It is no surprise to learn that UCR students are rallying in defense of the hat thief:
The “Statement of Solidarity with Edith Macias” circulating within the campus community states in part that UC administration should “pay for alternate housing accommodations for Macias and their family while simultaneously covering their current housing costs in order to keep them safe from threats of harm.”
The demand cites Vitale’s viral video, saying Macias has been doxxed and threatened as a result. It also calls for administrators to “grant Macias amnesty and protection from any student or legal charges.”
It also seeks a statement against “white supremacist violence” and one in support of sanctuary campuses from campus leaders.
What “white supremacist violence” are they talking about? The defense of freedom of speech on a university campus is “violence”? This is what students are being taught as “social justice” not just in California, but at many other schools in America. A rhetoric of hatred inspired by propaganda that demonizes white people — including Christopher Columbus — will not solve anybody’s economic or social problems.
High unemployment, widespread poverty and government corruption have all contributed to making life miserable for many citizens. Economically, Zimbabwe is facing huge challenges: It has had no national currency since 2009, when the Zimbabwean dollar collapsed under massive hyperinflation . . .
Zimbabwe, like Venezuela, is a lesson in what happens when “social justice” — an ideology of hatred — becomes the policy of government. If you think it can’t happen in America, just consider what kind of government we’ll have if people like Edith Macias take over.
The Other McCain is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for this blog to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
