Meryl Streep and the Hollywood Hypocrisy – #Sheknew

The Hollywood sex scandal certainly isn’t going away anytime soon.

And neither should it.

It has however, been injected with another talking point: #Sheknew

Aimed at Oscar-winning actress Meryl Streep, the #Sheknew campaign is a series of posters spread around Hollywood depicting Meryl Streep and Harvey Weinstein with the Phrase “She knew” plastered over Meryl’s face.

Personally, I don’t think she should be on that poster.

I’ll explain why.

For those of you who don’t already know; Meryl Streep is a long-time friend to Harvey Weinstein and denies ever knowing ANYTHING about his years of abusing women. A fact that many, including actress Rose McGowan (who claims that Weinstein raped her), simply do not believe.

Normally, I would be the first person to say innocent until proven guilty (read my post The problem with Linda Sarsour and Lena Dunham). However, if you look closely at this case, it becomes more and more clear that it would be pretty much impossible for Streep NOT to know about Weinstein’s behaviour.

Harvey_Weinstein_Césars_2014_(cropped)

Harvey Weinstein’s behaviour was undoubtedly the worst kept secret in Hollywood. Practically EVERYBODY in Hollywood knew a story about him or at the least, knew somebody who did. The very fact that Streep was friends and colleagues with Weinstein for a number of years is, some would say, evidence enough that she must have at least suspected something. Arguably the greatest Actress in the last 30 or so years, she will no doubt have contacts ranging from all aspects of the movie and political worlds in which Weinstein was well-known and feared. Somebody must have said something to her at some point. A little whisper here. A little word in the ear there.

Hollywood is full of people who can’t keep secrets, and knowing something as explosive as the Weinstein scandal is too much not to at least tell a fellow Hollywood alumni if not the press.

However, speculation can only get you so far. I’d be a hypocrite if I didn’t say that Meryl Streep doesn’t at least deserve the right of due-process to be able to “clear her name” in all of this. The evidence against her knowing about Weinstein’s behaviour is pretty substantial, yet I think the whole truth of the matter will never see the light of day. It’s easy to say “Of course she knew! She must have!” simply because she was friends with the guy. But throw in the fact that she is without a doubt the most famous and well-connected actress in Hollywood, and you really do have to ask: “How could she not know?”

Finally, to single out Meryl Streep alone is perhaps a tad unfair.

I understand why some people have; some see her as the ultimate hypocrite: the rich, privileged global superstar who portrays herself to be the moral conscience of “the people”, the epitome of all that is good and fair and just; all the while telling us, the lowly proles that we are how we should live our lives better. How to give more. Who to vote for. Who we should revere and condemn.

All while buddying up to people like Harvey Weinstein.

Like I say though: she needs due process. There’s no proof, just conjecture that she had any idea how much of a monster Harvey Weinstein really is.

And then I remember someone else she’s spoken up for.

Someone else she has applauded and lavished praise and admiration on.

Somebody who, she does know is guilty of being a monster. A rapist. Even a paedophile. We know that she knows he’s guilty.

Of drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl.

Roman Polanski.

The crimes of this man are beyond abhorrent. And we all know they are true.

Meryl Streep knows they are true, yet still applauds and congratulates the man for his accomplishments in Hollywood.

THAT is the true reason I believe most people believe she knew the truth about Harvey all along. It’s not the first time she has done it.

I’m going to end this piece by saying this:

I still don’t think it should be Meryl Streep on that poster.

It should be all of them.

The whole damn lot of them.

From the make-up artists, to the grips, the camera operators to the actors, the directors to the producers. Brad Pitt. Hilary Clinton. Donald Trump. Barack Obama.

They all knew. Every single last one of them knew and yet; they did nothing.

Nothing.

Nobody was willing to stand up and risk their way of life, their position amongst the elite. They all had too much to lose by way of association.

That was proven the moment Rose McGowan finally broke her silence and was then cast aside like a traitor.

They all knew. And trust me, that’s not all they know. But until someone puts them all in a position where they HAVE to condemn someone, you’ll be the last ones to know.

#Sheknew?

How about #Theyknew?

RANT OVER

 

 

 

Advertisements

The problem with Linda Sarsour and Lena Dunham

Oh what a couple of months it’s been! From Harvey Weinstein to Al Franken, it’s been a rough time if you’re a sex pest.

The current Feminist movement has categorically told us all that we MUST believe ALL women who cite that they have been sexually assaulted.

ALL OF THE TIME.

No due process.

No chance to face your accuser.

No way to tell your side of the story.

If a woman says you assaulted her, then goddammit you did it.

Take this quote from Emily Linden, a columnist with Teen Vogue magazine –

“Here’s an unpopular opinion: I’m actually not at all concerned about innocent men losing their jobs over false sexual assault/harassment allegations.”

and this again, from Linden –
“Sorry. If some innocent men’s reputations have to take a hit in the process of undoing the patriarchy, that is a price I am absolutely willing to pay.”

(Good job that she’s willing to pay the price eh?)

An extreme view from an extreme ideology. Yet, it sets the tone for how most Feminists think. It’s an absolute; a way of thinking that is at the very least, consistent.

Basically, if a woman claims assault, she is to be believed. No matter what.

Which leads me to Linda Sarsour.

Linda-Sarsour-796x1024

Asmi Fathelbab, a former contractor who worked for Sarsour, claimed that a male co-worker sexually assaulted her numerous times. Sarsour, a “Champion of Womens’ rights” (and not a wolf in sheeps clothing at all…) didn’t believe Asmi. In fact, according to The Daily Caller (link to article here http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/17/linda-sarsour-accused-of-enabling-sexual-assault-against-woman-who-worked-for-her/) she body-shamed her and called her a liar.

Well!

This certainly is not the kind of behaviour we expect from our group-thinking, blanket statement making Feminists is it? Asmi should be believed shouldn’t she?

Don’t get me wrong, Linda Sarsour isn’t the only Feminist to act like this. Our very own favourite attention-seeker Lena Dunham, who claims that “women don’t lie about being raped”, defended one of her very own friends Murray Miller, against a claim of assault from actress Aurora Perrineau. Dunham later apologised, albeit rather half-heartedly.

But here’s my point:

Why apologise? Was there a chance he might have done it after all?

Why disbelieve Asmi Fathelbab? Is there a chance she was lying?

Yes and yes.

By making blanket statements such as “women don’t lie about rape” and “all women should be believed ALL of the time” destroys any chance of fairness to both victims of assault and those that are accused of it.

Firstly, those who are accused get absolutely NO due-process. In what other situation would we believe an accuser without investigating it first?

Secondly, the more that these sorts of things happen, the more that accusers are believed unconditionally, the more diluted the response to real victims every time an accusation is deemed to be false.

I’ve no doubt that MOST accusers are telling the truth. But to say ALL without any sort of investigation or presumption of innocence isn’t fair to anyone.

Linda. Lena.

You were prepared to believe ALL women before someone accused somebody you know. Your hypocrisy is stunning.

The ONLY way to deal with these kind of situations is to treat every case as an individual. Blanket statements are beyond damaging to all concerned.

Just ask Liam Allen what happens when accusers are believed unconditionally.

 

RANT OVER

Akayed Ullah: The man from Brooklyn

Lone-wolf.

Local-man.

Brooklyn resident.

These are the terms that have been used to describe the man who tried to blow up and kill potentially hundreds in New York city today.

At the very moment that Bill de Blasio and Andrew Cuomo were speaking at a press conference on the streets of New York, Sky News was naming the botched Bomber as Akayed Ullah; a 27 year old Bangladeshi who had been living in Brooklyn for the last 7 years.

Sky News told it exactly like it was.

And that’s the only way it should be.

Enough now. Enough of this bullsh*t.

Enough of this idea that the identity of the perpetrator of acts like this should be shielded from us for as long as possible.

We’re not stupid.

Tell it like it is CNN, New York Post, Mayors’ Office, Governor Cuomo.

Let us know who these people are straight away.

I know it embarrasses you lot when it turns out NOT to be a White Nationalist committing these acts.

That doesn’t mean you have to deny the (mostly) inevitable.

 

RANT OVER