Groping for Power
I feel that I must offer my thanks to Harvey Weinstein for molesting so many women. Not that I approve of such behaviour, but he's revived 'Hollywood sex pest' as a popular search term, which has resulted in the story of the same name on The Sleaze receiving a lot of extra traffic for the past few days, giving the whole site a boost. But I feel that I should apologise for not groping all those women I had a chance to molest in the past. I feel that I'm letting the male gender down and frustrating women's low expectations of men. I find it hugely frustrating that I've spent years, decades in fact, trying to be respectful toward women, not groping or harassing them, yet still find myself tarred with same brush as the likes of Weinstein and Trump. Maybe it is a sign that I've been doing everything wrong - after all, no less an eminence as the President of the USA says that the way to treat women is to 'grab them by the pussy'. I've been respectful, yet remain as insignificant as ever, whilst these gropers prosper - is that the key to their success, an utter contempt for women?
In reality, of course, it is the other way around - their wealth allows them to be contemptuous of women, treating them as objects. It isn't just women either. They can afford to be contemptuous of anyone on any grounds: race, wealth, sexual orientation, belief system. They can use their wealth to buy off accusers or, failing that, intimidate them with threats of legal action. They can manipulate the pres, buying themselves favourable publicity and covering up misdemeanours. They can derail investigations through their influence with the establishment. That's the thing about sex crimes - whether they are committed by the wealthy or the ordinary - they are all about power rather than sex. For the wealthy it is all about exercising their power, bending others to their will. For the non0wealthy sex offender it is all about feeling empowered by forcing someone to your will. The difference is that it easier for the wealthy rapist to get away with it.
But to get back to Weinstein, one of the most perplexing aspects of his exposure as a sex pest is the reaction of some of the right wing crazies on the web, who have been triumphantly declaring 'Hah, how do you like it now liberals, now that one of yours has been exposed as a sex offender? Aren't you all hypocrites for accepting his support and donations?' Well, unlike you douche bags us 'liberals' aren't conflicted when 'one of ours' is unmasked as a sexist bastard - we condemn him. As for 'liberal' candidates and causes who accepted money from him: what's worse, accepting donations from someone who you only subsequently discover to be a sex pest, or voting for someone in the knowledge that he thinks it is OK to grab women 'by the pussy'?
In reality, of course, it is the other way around - their wealth allows them to be contemptuous of women, treating them as objects. It isn't just women either. They can afford to be contemptuous of anyone on any grounds: race, wealth, sexual orientation, belief system. They can use their wealth to buy off accusers or, failing that, intimidate them with threats of legal action. They can manipulate the pres, buying themselves favourable publicity and covering up misdemeanours. They can derail investigations through their influence with the establishment. That's the thing about sex crimes - whether they are committed by the wealthy or the ordinary - they are all about power rather than sex. For the wealthy it is all about exercising their power, bending others to their will. For the non0wealthy sex offender it is all about feeling empowered by forcing someone to your will. The difference is that it easier for the wealthy rapist to get away with it.
But to get back to Weinstein, one of the most perplexing aspects of his exposure as a sex pest is the reaction of some of the right wing crazies on the web, who have been triumphantly declaring 'Hah, how do you like it now liberals, now that one of yours has been exposed as a sex offender? Aren't you all hypocrites for accepting his support and donations?' Well, unlike you douche bags us 'liberals' aren't conflicted when 'one of ours' is unmasked as a sexist bastard - we condemn him. As for 'liberal' candidates and causes who accepted money from him: what's worse, accepting donations from someone who you only subsequently discover to be a sex pest, or voting for someone in the knowledge that he thinks it is OK to grab women 'by the pussy'?
Labels: Musings From the Mind of Doc Sleaze, Political Pillocks
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home