I heard this said at least 10 years ago, so it is not a recent Weinstein-reflex.
“The greatest threat to mankind are women without men and men without balls.”
Twice now in a quarter century feminists have attempted to parlay their own political hypocrisy into attempting to force men into a kind of psychological subjugation, complete with dog collars.
Guilty by Reputation, Guilty at Law
Harvey Weinstein fills an important niche in this history of political hypocrisy. Yes, hypocrisy, not sexual predation, where he is actually rather ordinary.
Sexual predation has been with us since New York became a metropolis.. And from the beginning there was the “predator by reputation” and the “predator at law”. As a former criminal defense lawyer I’m absolutely religious about keeping the two concepts separate, since guilt-by-reputation is almost impossible to defend against if one is innocent….and that is precisely the power the Feminists have been driving toward attaining for many years.
We’ve seen this in politics in recent history, and even in the dim past of Hollywood (see below), but it was practiced on smaller scales in colleges of the 60s, as when 4 or 5 Tri Delts teamed up to tag a guy at Kappa Alpha (Dieu et les dames) as being a habitual masher because, after drunken behavior with a sister at a kegger, then throwing up on her best party dress, then, sin of all sins, he failed to offer to pay for its cleaning, or offer at least one of several courtesies of the day, a card, flowers or other gesture of repentance, all of which separated the Greek community from the average hoi polloi who still went out on blind dates. In those days, that the less-than-gallant KA also actually copped a feel wasn’t necessarily a part of the sisters’ indictment for the guy to earn a bad reputation. Still, within two weeks he couldn’t get a date anywhere in the Greek community. Forbidden fruit.
It was just as tough in small towns. A girl with a “reputation” was a girl to be avoided in every respectable home, s one to be avoided at all costs. But woe betide the young man who spread untrue tales about a girl, especially if she had big brothers.
There were always rules, for both males and females could be mean and vicious, so all sorts of extra-legal methods of suppressing uncalled-for rumors evolved, from shunning (ostracism) to sending the aforementioned three big brothers over to teach that kid a lesson who said those ugly things about their sister.
This informal system evolved over perhaps a hundred year trial period, with regional variations around the country, but you can see how such a hit-and-miss system of sexual justice just cried out for more formal regulation. And over the last 30 years or so schools especially, then the workplace, had come up various cookie-cutter, one-size fits all solutions.
We all know how well those have worked, where in many companies, and several colleges a simple glare amounts to sexual harassment. And can be reported, and the culprit has to write an essay on “white privilege” or somesuch.
But this is not to confuse us with Harvey Weinstein or Hollywood. They are both the real deal. I’m sure unauthorized biographies are already in the works, and probably show that he was a masher at least from his years at the University of Buffalo in the 1970s. I’d bet that he wanted to work in Hollywood primarily because that was where the girls were. Better, the original sin city, den of iniquity, debauchery-town Hollywood was where men with talent could become rich and famous, and Harvey and brother Bob proved they were of that caliber. Took about 15 years. Moreover, for Harvey, who looks the part of the guy who couldn’t get laid in a women’s prison with a fistful of pardons, Hollywood’s “casting couch” reputation provided a source of power for un-handsome men, allowing them to avoid having to pay for hookers on South Figueroa.
Harvey did not reshape Hollywood one iota, He just fit in with it, at least one of its several cultural subsets, the executive casting couch. Unlike Flushing, it was a place where a “bad reputation” couldn’t hurt you if you had position and power. And connections.
Unlike Bill Clinton, Harvey Weinstein was not a prominent American. Only in his little corner of the world was he somebody. Until a few weeks ago no one had ever heard of him. But the same was true of a little-known governor from Arkansas in 1991. Harvey Weinstein and Bill Clinton are the only two men I know who have transcended the difference between moral guilt and legal guilt. Both will likely never stand trial for any crime, still we can deem them guilty by a rather lengthy record of known misconduct, in Harvey’s case, with evidence of out-of-court settlements, and Bill’s with statements by his procurers, the state police[…]
************************Thank you for stopping by Grumpy Opinions and while you are here, please SUBSCRIBE to our Grumpy Opinions newsletter to receive our emails. You can also subscribe to Grumpy Opinions’ in our right sidebar or if you have a WordPress.com account, in our WordPress.com READER in the admin panel on the top left. Social media accounts: