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.
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.
