The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Harvey Weinstein Is the ‘Patriarchy,’ and Other Feminist Non Sequiturs

Posted on | October 15, 2017 | 2 Comments

“Patriarchy is a system of structures and institutions created by men in order to sustain and recreate male power and female subordination.”
— Sneja Gunew, Feminist Knowledge: Critique and Construct, 1990

Lauren Duca is not very good at logical inferences, and her belief that the exposure of Harvey Weinstein provides a road map to “take down the patriarchy” is delusional, primarily because “patriarchy” itself is a paranoid conspiracy theory, a persecution fantasy. What are the “structures and institutions” by which “male power and female subordination” are sustained and recreated, how does one “take down” that system by “storytelling” and, most importantly, what will be the result if feminism’s destructive agenda succeeds? What “structures” and “institutions” will replace those that feminists destroy?

Nearly half a century has passed since the radical Women’s Liberation Movement emerged in the late 1960s. Why is it that Harvey Weinstein — an avowed “progressive” and a major donor to Hillary Clinton and other Democrats — got away with preying on young women for decades?

“I would be happy to give [Bill Clinton] a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their Presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”
— Nina Burleigh, 1998

Feminists are trapped in an abusive relationship with the Democrat Party, and the Hollywood establishment is part of the same political machine. So long as Harvey Weinstein was useful to Democrats, his predatory behavior was ignored by the “operatives with bylines” in the media. Da Tech Guy is almost certainly correct that if Hillary had won in 2016, Weinstein would not have been exposed in 2017.

Isn’t the Democrat Party a structure and an institution? Hasn’t male power in the Democrat Party been sustained by feminists’ voluntary subordination to the party’s agenda? If Hillary Clinton was willing to tolerate Harvey Weinstein’s behavior, in the same way she tolerated her own husband’s behavior, what does this tell us about the corrupt bargain between feminists and Democrats? Is it true — or was it true 20 years ago — that women owe a debt of gratitude to Democrats for “keeping abortion legal” and “keeping the theocracy off our backs”?

While we’re asking questions, how about this one: Why did Bill Clinton take 26 flights on a private plane dubbed “The Lolita Express,” which “was reportedly outfitted with a bed where passengers had group sex with young girls”? The owner of that plane, Jeffrey Epstein, was convicted and sent to prison “for solicitation and procurement of minors for prostitution. He allegedly had a team of traffickers who procured girls as young as 12 to service his friends on ‘Orgy Island,’ an estate on Epstein’s 72-acre island, called Little St. James, in the U.S. Virgin Islands.”

If Lauren Duca wants to engage in “storytelling,” why isn’t she telling any stories about Bill Clinton’s travels aboard “The Lolita Express”?

Feminists like Lauren Duca aren’t very good at logical inferences, however. Their partisan loyalty to Democrats leads them to conflate the “patriarchy” — their delusional idée fixe — with the Republican Party. Believing that legal abortion is the summum bonum of public policy, and that the GOP represents the forces of “theocracy” which would criminalize abortion, feminists believe that women’s “progress” is synonymous with the success of the Democrat Party.

Like an anti-Semite muttering about “Zionists,” the feminist who sees herself (and all women) oppressed by “patriarchy” has abandoned facts and logic for the sake of a simplistic theory that offers her a demonized scapegoat as an all-purpose explanation for her problems. The essential message of American feminism can be expressed as a syllogism:

  1. Men are evil;
  2. Abortion is good;
    and therefore
  3. Vote Democrat!

Am I the only one who understands why this is a formula for madness? If feminists believe that electing Democrats is the solution to their problems, perhaps they should ask the families of the 53 women shot to death in Chicago this year what electing Democrats has done for them. Hillary Clinton got 75% of the vote in the Democrat fiefdom of Cook County, Illinois, and former Clinton/Obama staffer Rahm Emanuel is mayor of Chicago, one of the most dangerous places in America.

Cynthia Trevillion, a 64-year-old math teacher, was murdered Friday night in Chicago, the victim of a drive-by shooting. Early this morning, Chicago police found a 26-year-old woman dead on her front porch, shot through the head. Of course, the vast majority (81%) of those shot to death in Chicago are males, including one recent case in which a man made the fatal mistake of bringing a knife to a gunfight:

Police say the fatal shooting of 25-year-old Pleasure Cardell Singleton Jr. was a case of self-defense, and the woman who shot him will not be charged.
The woman shot Singleton after he stabbed her multiple times . . . in a domestic fight in his West Side Lawndale neighborhood home, Chicago Police said.
About 4:05 p.m. Oct. 5, Singleton, a father of three, was shot in the chest after he stabbed the 25-year-old woman multiple times in the 4000 block of West 21st Street, police said.
The woman was taken in serious condition to Mount Sinai Hospital, and Singleton was pronounced dead at the scene at 4:48 p.m., authorities said.

Perhaps “storytelling” can “take down the patriarchy,” as Lauren Duca says, but a bullet through the chest is also quite effective. However, it seems that feminists are not interested in telling stories about the daily death toll in Chicago, just as they weren’t interested in telling stories about Harvey Weinstein’s predatory behavior until after Hillary — a beneficiary of Weinstein’s support — lost the presidential election.

1998: Gwyneth Paltrow, Hillary Clinton and Harvey Weinstein.

2017: Huma Abedin, Harvey Weinstein and Hillary Clinton.

Harvey Weinstein’s behavior was an “open secret” in Hollywood for decades. Where was Lauren Duca’s feminist “storytelling” all those years? Why wasn’t it necessary to “take down the patriarchy” when Bill Clinton was assaulting Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, et al.?

“Rape culture is a complex set of beliefs that encourage male sexual aggression and supports violence against women. It is a society where violence is seen as sexy and sexuality as violent. In a rape culture, women perceive a continuum of threatened violence that ranges from sexual remarks to sexual touching to rape itself. A rape culture condones physical and emotional terrorism against women as the norm.”
— Emilie Buchwald, Transforming a Rape Culture, 1994

“We need to defend Planned Parenthood and women’s rights.”
— Harvey Weinstein, Feb. 26, 2017

Does Harvey Weinstein believe violence is sexy? Isn’t it true that Bill Clinton engaged in behavior within the “continuum” of sexual violence? Hasn’t the feminist strategy of “Vote Democrat” helped foster the climate of “physical and emotional terrorism against women”? And why have feminists like Lauren Duca been unwilling to engage in “storytelling” if it might undermine the political interests of the Democrat Party?

Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.



 

Category: Celebrities, Democrats, Sex Trouble

Comments

2 Responses to “Harvey Weinstein Is the ‘Patriarchy,’ and Other Feminist Non Sequiturs”

  1. Harvey Weinstein Is the ‘Patriarchy,’ and Other Feminist Non Sequiturs | Welcome to my Playpen
    October 16th, 2017 @ 2:27 pm

    […] Harvey Weinstein Is the ‘Patriarchy,’ and Other Feminist Non Sequiturs […]

  2. Vox Media Sexual Harassment Scandal: Another Sign the SJW Left Is Imploding : The Other McCain
    October 20th, 2017 @ 3:47 pm

    […] happened was that, in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein scandal, some female journalists compiled a list of “Sh*tty Media Men” alleged to be guilty of […]