Posted on 10/12/2017 10:55:47 AM PDT by nickcarraway
When I first heard about the Harvey Weinstein scandal, my initial reflex was to see it through a Jewish lens: Oh no, I thought, not another Jewish scandal. As anti-Semitism reaches a tipping point, this is the last thing we need.
And then I read The New York Times story detailing three decades of sexual misconduct, and the stories that have come out since then. Sickening stories that, as a woman and as a mother, make my blood boil. Stories that would make me sever ties with a man who was capable of just one of them, let alone dozens. Stories that have apparently been an “open secret” in Hollywood for years.
As an outsider looking in, I am dumbfounded that the women of Hollywood, the women of the Democratic Party, would keep silent about these transgressions. For what? His money? His glamorous parties? His ability to “make your career”? After a certain point, you don’t get to claim that you’re a feminist, that you support women’s rights, if you know that there is a very powerful man destroying the emotional fortitude of young women on a daily basis.
As an independent, I have no dog in the Democrat versus Republican hyper-partisan mega-fight. Both sides play up the scandals of the other side, and play down the scandals on their own side.
But as a liberal, as a feminist, I care about women subjected to repeated abuse — verbal, physical, psychological, sexual. And so I ask the liberal women of Hollywood: How could you let this happen for three decades? I ask Hillary Clinton: How could you take money from this man?
I ask the liberal establishment: How could you allow your hatred of the GOP — and we’re talking pre-Trump here — to undermine your ability to honor your own principles? To stop you from stopping Weinstein from scarring yet another young woman’s life?
We have come to over-politicize nearly everything. If it’s bad for the other side, we go hysterical. If it’s bad for our side, we stay quiet. If the abuser is a right-winger like Bill O’Reilly, the left goes ballistic. If it’s a Democratic lion like Harvey Weinstein, it goes silent.
Perhaps the ugliest episode oft the Weinstein saga is that, according to a report by Sharon Waxman at The Wrap, the Times gutted a story on Weinstein’s sexual misconduct in 2004, after coming under pressure from Weinstein and his liberal Hollywood pals. How many women would have been spared the scars of sexual abuse had this predator been called out earlier?
While the Times’ explosive piece on Weinstein should be applauded, the “paper of record” was one of his enablers. “So pardon me,” Waxman writes, “for having a deeply ambivalent response about the current heroism of the Times.”
There’s nothing ambivalent or partisan about the moral depravity of using power to abuse women. To its credit, the Times published an op-ed by Bari Weiss that nails this point: “Will Liberals Give Weinstein the O’Reilly Treatment?” In her piece, Weiss notes that “prominent feminists like Gloria Steinem didn’t waste any time discarding sexual harassment guidelines when it came to Bill Clinton’s sexual predations as president. Principle rapidly gave way to partisanship and political opportunism.”
The one good that can come from all this is a deep self-reflection on the part of everyone who knew what was going on but chose to remain silent. Some liberals, like Meryl Streep and Lena Dunham, have begun to speak up. Of course, now that Weinstein’s star has dimmed, it’s a lot easier to show outrage.
Streep, who has worked with Weinstein for years, says she didn’t know anything about the overt daily harassment — he was known for throwing tables at employees when he was angry — and huge financial settlements. Perhaps she didn’t. But with her statement of outrage, Streep now can go back to attacking the right for its moral failings.
To redeem politics and scale back the cynicism that is corroding our discourse, both sides must choose moral principles over politics. We can’t hate “the other party” more than we hate sexual predators or Islamic terrorists. Every time we put politics ahead of what’s obviously right, we put another nail in the political coffin.
We’re running out of nails.
Karen Lehrman Bloch is a cultural critic and curator. Author of “The Lipstick Proviso: Women, Sex & Power in the Real World” (Doubleday), her writings have appeared in The New York Times, The New Republic, The Wall Street Journal and Metropolis, among others.
After Bill Clinton, all bets were off. Leftists didn’t give him the boot and are okay with rape, what’s left?
At least this liberal author recognizes their hypocrscy.
Feeding his donations thru the slot down at the bank.
It’s simple: Liberals/Progressives have selective indignation.
Leftists never “care” for people. They just use them as a means to power.
That explains the Weinstein and Clinton Phenomena to a “T”.
There are many more sharks in that pool.
The only morals leftists claim is a vague commitment to an equally vague “better future”. All manner of personal vice is excused with that vague commitment. Murder, rape, genocide, all are excusable if only the perpetrator makes the obligatory excuse of a “better future”.
When the NAGs didn’t turn on slick they lost any credibility they had. That the GOP-e didn’t capitalize on that is sad.
While the Times’ explosive piece on Weinstein should be applauded, the “paper of record” was one of his enablers. “So pardon me,” Waxman writes, “for having a deeply ambivalent response about the current heroism of the Times.”
The New York Times whitewashed the murderous crimes of Josef Stalin back in the 1930s, and turned a blind eye to the murder of millions of people. Their lead reporter in the USSR was given a Pulitzer Prize for his efforts!
Compared to that, their delicate tiptoeing around the Weinstein problem is as a gnat landing on an elephant's eyelash.
Could Harvey be hold back some juicy videos of his exploits ?
Where Were the Liberals When Weinstein Betrayed Them?
_____________________________________________
I suspect many of them are as guilty as he is.
My guess... he’s not the only smarmy fish swimming in their cesspool. I would also guess there’s probably worse than him and they are a little afraid of being outed.
The liberals were hugging and kissing their creep!
23 photos showing Weinstein, the Clintoons, Obama and other elite rats who loved Harvey until this week.
What does his being Jewish have to do with anything?
He’s a dick. Literally a dick with ears....Moron...
As well as being a serial sexual predator Harvey Swinestein was a very prolific donor to Dems and the list contains all the usual suspects...
https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?name=harvey+weinstein&page=2
She sees it as yet another example the anti and self-loathing left will not let go to waste to ramp up the anti-Israel movement.
But as a liberal, as a feminist,
Independent? Right!!
Tipping point? Well, maybe on the left.
perhaps he went from power bundler to liability.
Yep. He was going to ruin the Weinstein company financially with lawsuits settlements and I think his brother finally said, “Enough”, and started the ball rolling.
The CONTENT of the 'reports'; or mere the fact that the Messengers are too big to shoot?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.