We (yes, that’s you and me) feminists are having a field day. I think Harvey Weinstein deserves his very own Nobel Peace Prize for services to the cause. I can’t wait for him to be nominated. Where would we be without him?

What an opportunity! Isn’t this just the catalyst we’ve needed to reveal our years of silent suffering at the hands of our male tormentors?

Finally, the me, me, me (goodness me, I must remember to be a me too), ladies can finally come out into the open! We are on a roll – yes, the ‘#MeToo’ hashtag movement has taken off. It’s gone viral. Are you surprised? Who can’t dredge up at least one dastardly or creepy guy who’s had the audacity to come on to us, that we were too traumatised to tell about; for fear of his power, you know, what else? Yes. It behoves us to remember that men, despite 50 years of feminism, are still all-powerful – and bad; that we are the victims. I can’t think why anyone goes on about Muslim women. That’s cultural. Have they looked at what we have to endure? They’re joking if they think we’re equal. Men still need cutting down to size.

Now Harvey’s making it happen. He’s made it open season on shaming men.

Let’s not forget brave Emma Thompson, ready to stand up and be counted. Without her stunning Newsnight performance, how would we have known that the horrendous Harvey was by no means a one-off monster, but one of many lurking behind all of Hollywood’s shower doors? Was she surprised by the flood of sexual abuse allegations coming out? Not she. Nor were we. She said what we secretly knew: ‘it’ is endemic everywhere, and that ‘this has been part of women’s world since time immemorial’. She’s right. Thank goodness someone has finally dared own up to what we poor wimmin have been putting up with all these years. A crisis in ‘extreme masculinity’, is what she said it was – yes, that must be it.

Who coined that phrase, Emma or Rebecca? No matter, that’s the shocking truth of it and the time has come to challenge it.

So where would we be without Harvey? Without him, how could the truth about sexual predation (by men on women of course; do be quiet, you over there – this isn’t about female teachers having a bit of fun with young lads in their class) have ever come out? Who’d have known of the scale of the epidemic, not just in Tinseltown, but over here too, or that it’s an insidious and wide-ranging problem?

I’d never have known, for one. You’d think with all those human relations and sexual harassment officers, and the cost of the out-of-court settlements . . . but who knows? You never do.

And just think of the poor comedians too frightened to fess up about male predators on all those Leftie comedy shows! Not even daring to make one joke at their disgusting expense! I can’t wait to hear from Pam Ayres and the Vicar of Dibley – she’s got a mine of stories!

No, really, you just wouldn’t have known. But you can take it from Arabella Weir that it’s true. British TV and film (radio too?) is rife with sexual bullying.

‘It’s the backdrop to many women’s lives. We are numbed by it because to think about it all the time would immobilise us.’ Ahh, I see, that’s why she could never speak out. She was immobilised.

Well, all that immobility can go out of the window now – with all the brilliant #MeToo proof rolling in, we are all empowered. At least 37,000 allegations by the end of Tuesday! I am sure it’s tripled by now!

Thanks, too, to Suzanne Moore for dramatising the awfulness of it all. She didn’t lose a minute to expose the ’till now’ hidden shameful behaviour of British men and to instruct us to break our silence. MeToo is another hashtag with good intentions, Suzanne says. It really is. And this time it’s all about us – the me culture girls, the silent sufferers, when we are not on our iPads or fixing the world to get on the BBC 100 women list, not just those poor kidnapped Nigerian girls (whatever happened to them, by the way?) It’s about the ubiquity of sexual assault, here, at home, that we’ve been victims of!

As Suzanne says, we feminists must really start to speak up for ourselves and tell how our lives have been marked by sexual harassment. It’s the mission Harvey has set us off on (thank you Harvey) to dig deep into our past memories for #MeToo. Lady Gaga and Monica Lewinsky are the latest. I don’t suppose Monica had to dig that deep. It’s a bit unfair. How can we possibly compete? Best remember what your mum said: It’s the taking part that counts, not the winning.

And Suzanne is right. Your ‘reaction to the Weinstein harassment allegations’ depends on who you are. For some, it comes as ‘a sudden anger, for others a slow burn’. I must be one of the slow burn ones. Or could I be suffering from repressed memory? Oh dear. What am I going to tweet? That bottom pinch in the park?


  1. Weinstein probably thought he was above the law. After all, as a Jew, he holds the ultimate ‘get out of jail free’ card.

    • He seems to have aimed at Jewish women. The Daily Mail published a two page spread of pictures of women who he is claimed to have hit on.

      All of them bar one on the left hand page were Jewish. Possibly though this is because so many Hollywood stars are, like himself, indeed Jewish.

      I wonder why that is ?

    • Nothing to do with being Jewish. Being a liberal with public support from the Clintons and Obamas, now that really gets you out of a lot of jails.

  2. Surely all this sexual harassment also says how very powerful women are. If they didn’t have this overwhelming power to attract men, the Harvey Weinsteins wouldn’t exist.

    Possibly some of these me-too women are chiming in lest they thought insufficiently powerfully attractive even to the wolfishly predatory Weinstein.

    It was ever thus also with powerful, alpha males. At least Weinstein has moved on somewhat from Genghis Khan who is reported as saying :

    ‘A mans greatest pleasure is to defeat his enemies, to drive them before him, to take from them what they possessed, to see those they cherished in tears, to ride their horses, and to possess their wives and daughters.’

  3. The definition of sexual harrsment is akin to the definition of racism , a cover all term that can mean anything .

  4. Where does this all lead? The demonization of all men because of the actions of a small and nasty minority?
    Trends can already been seen in Business whereby men in senior positions are preferring to work only with other men. Its the natural conclusion for men.

    This is why the vast majority of men now will not go out of their way to help a small lost child. All the men on here know it is true. The risks are to high. I often wonder if women really consider what that feels like to a father for instance?

    In 2017 everyone must be believed, and that will have consequences. Good men will disengage from activities and situations that leave them at risk. Because once false accusation can ruin a man.

    This will actually lead to less opportunities for women. That is what this feminist campaign to discredit all men will achieve.

    • I don’t know how much truth there is in the story of City bankers covering themselves by not sharing lifts/elevators with female colleagues – but I’ve heard it so often there must be something in it.

    • ” … and that will have consequences”

      Yes, but the Left doesn’t accept that consequentialism is the correct way to judge ethical correctness, and so to argue that their recommendations are flawed because they tend to lead to a poor overall sum of consequences is to argue against a strawman. The Left didn’t recommend these policies as a result of adding up the predicted consequences, they recommended them because they considered the policies to be intrinsically the right or the virtuous things to do.

      To make any headway against the Left we must understand that they’ll debate with us until the cows come home about the valuation of consequences, because they know that nothing in such a debate will attack the validity of their basis for judging the ethical correctness of actions taken. In such a debate we’re just wasting our breath. We need to divert the debate in such a way as to address the correctness of disregarding consequences in deciding ethical rights and wrongs.

      • I agree,
        I would point out one exception. With other peoples money and other peoples lives they could not give a damn about consequences.
        But with their own life and money? mmmmnn.. not so much

  5. Do keep up, Kathy: #MeToo already appears to be soooo last week, with its originator now urging the use of #HimThough, apparently to “put the burden on men”.
    And by the time this post is read, no doubt there will be another, more fashionable angle on the post-Weinstein fallout.

    Of course, much of what is classed as sexist misbehaviour is entirely subjective, with victimhood being largely self-defined. And when lewd comments and unwanted propositions, however unwelcome, are ludicrously conflated with heinous crimes of rape and sexual assault, the flood of online confessional actually demonstrates very little – except that if there is an epidemic of anything, it is of rampant narcissism.

    • Well thus far the epidemic tends to look like one of photogenic actresses fully versed in “no publicity is bad publicity”. I have a feeling Mr. Weinstein, from his sex addiction rehab bed, will find he launches more careers than ever he did chasing starlets round the casting couch .

      • You might well be correct that this public victimhood will boost many a career. Mind you, contemporary Hollywood cinema is far from being my specialist subject: throughout the roll call of Weinstein’s complainants, my involuntary reaction has mostly been, “Who?” (“A popular film actress, m’lud.”)

  6. I didn’t hear Ms Thompson express a fervent opinion about the mass rape of young white girls by mainly Muslim men in Rochdale, Oxford, Newcastle and Rotherham.

    • Goodness me how could you rain on the parade! Being “brave” for all the “me too s” isn’t about being actually brave. As if anybody thinks slagging off a fat old rich guy who publicly said he’s a sex addict is somehow hard. Tackling some very powerful interests to get to the bottom (well even scratch the surface) of what has to be Britains biggest child protection (lack of it) scandal would be brave as Ms Thompson would find herself accused as racist. As it is she’s just further cemented as the Nation’s nanny McPhee.

    • She’s too ashamed of our society being “hideously white” – ref her comment of a few years back.

  7. This Harvey thing has enabled so many women to literally have their cake and eat it too. They keep quiet whilst their careers are built, awards won and fan base gained. And now they can claim victim hood along with the rest of us. What a double bonus …
    …..and if they now get a huge payout for it, you could really conclude that Harvey was the gift that just kept on giving.

  8. It’s unfortunate that Weinsteins immoral perversity will be used to advance the feminista cause even further instead of being the catalyst to drag open the doors of the seriously complicit in the entertainment industry and beyond. If justice is to be done, then I can guarantee that it involves complicit woman, most of them won’t soil their pretty nails of course, but they will have benefited.

    • Funny part is, here at least, the blowback is starting, I saw many articles yesterday, from women, much in the tone of Kathy’s. There’s plenty of wannabe victims. But there are also a lot of (mostly conservative, to be sure) women refusing to be victims. There are some real victims though, like Dana Loesch, forced by leftist death threats to move out of her house, not that that has stopped or even slowed her down.

      Well said, Kathy.

      • Women and men on here aren’t generally liberalist snowflakes. Neither starts making a noise until provoked, but all of us have a surfeit of capacity to argue logically and rationally against this tide of emotionalism.

        • Yes, and I wonder if that’s part of the reason the left hides behinds emotionalism, well, that, and because they are wrong, nearly every time.

          That is, of course, part of the fun here for us all, we may disagree, and often do, but we can argue like adults.

          • They appear closer to tribal hippies than what I understand as the left.

            Ayn Rand defined “whim” as “a desire experienced by a person who does not know and does not care to discover it’s cause”. Such a person simply wants a certain item-because he wants it.

            Whim worship is to ethics what mysticism is to epistomology. Both practices are invalid and lead to the same destructive results. Hence the modern left are simply nihilistic child adults who have learned that if they scream and stamp hard enough (in a kind of prayer) they can get what they want. It doesn’t matter if that item is good or bad for them, they just want it because they do.

  9. Weinstein has clearly behaved badly, at least some of the time. But I’m now hearing allegations such as “He touched my arm” and the truly dreadful “He wanted to kiss me”. If such as this are offences, I have been affronted in a similarly wicked manner rather a lot.

    Can I be a victim, please, I’ve watched one of his films?

  10. Got a laugh today when Jennifer Lawrence stated that when she first started out she HAD TO/MADE TO stand naked in front of the producers!
    Just shows that she has, as suspected, no mind of her own.
    Comment by TmWe sums it up nicely.

    • Like anything else to do with people, it depends on the individual. some are, many aren’t, the problem is the sorting. I’d guess it’s always been so, has been in my lifetime, anyway. And very little of it has to do with looks, for that matter.

  11. I assume that his wife (who he must have proposition at some time) took a more long term view of his approaches?

  12. I don’t condone the rape allegations or the overt aggressiveness but he reminds me of a mate of mine.
    He had no inhibitions, his only driver was sex.
    He would proposition every woman (he wasn’t that fussy) he came in contact with.
    I on the other hand, would be respectful and chatty and get dumped immediately into the friends zone.
    Who do you think got laid more?
    Was he wrong for doing this?
    How would the women who rejected him consider his actions as opposed to those who accepted his offer?

Comments are closed.