Search Results

ASHE SCHOW: Feminist Admits Anti-Sex Discrimination Law Is Actually Anti-Men.

A feminist administrator has finally admitted what many men and women who have woken up to the abuses of Title IX have known for a while: It was always intended as a weapon against men.

Diane Davis, chair of the department of rhetoric at the University of Texas-Austin, had signed onto a letter defending New York University professor Avital Ronell, a well-known feminist and lesbian, from accusations of sexual harassment. As The Daily Wire previously reported, feminists rushed to back one of their own after she faced accusations of sexual misconduct from a former student. They even went so far as to impugn the motives of the accuser, a gay male, using the same tactics they would otherwise condemn if the accuser were a woman and the accused were a man.

But Davis went a step further when she responded to a New York Times inquiry.

“I am of course very supportive of what Title IX and the #MeToo movement are trying to do, of their efforts to confront and to prevent abuses, for which they also seek some sort of justice,” Davis wrote in an email to the Times. “But it’s for that very reason that it’s so disappointing when this incredible energy for justice is twisted and turned against itself, which is what many of us believe is happening in this case.”

Turned against itself? Title IX is gender neutral, so how can it be “turned against itself”?

We all know.

LIZ SHELD’S MORNING BRIEF: Omarosa’s Media Tour, Election Results, and Much, Much More. “#metoo candidate Keith Ellison won his race. ‘Somali-born hijab-wearing refugee’ Ilhan Omar won the MN-5 democrat primary and in Vermont, Christine Hallquist, a transgender candidate, won the democrat nomination for governor. Also notable, Tim Pawlenty lost his primary to a more Trump-friendly candidate.”

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Identifying the Real Haters on Campus.

While radical feminism in the 1960s called for challenging existing gender roles and abolishing what the feminists saw as the pervasive patriarchy that permeated social institutions, churches, politics, and schools, today’s radical feminists call for the elimination of men.

In an offshoot of the #MeToo movement, the #YesAllMen campaign rejects the goodness of all men. Sociologist, Suzanna Danuta Walters, a lesbian gender studies professor at Northeastern University, published an op-ed in the Washington Post last month titled: “Why Can’t We Hate Men?” Walters advised men to “Step away from the power…Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything…And please know that your crocodile tears won’t be wiped away by us anymore. We have every right to hate you.”

Walters believes that gender is a social construct—one that privileges men unfairly. To remedy this, she suggests that gender be simply eliminated. In an interview published in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Walters said that “the world would be a better place for men and for women if we did away with gender altogether—gender nouns, gender binaries, and so on. And God knows men would be happier and better people if we did away with that.” Believing that we can “break apart the binary oppositions” to create more “fluidity,” Walters concludes that “gender demeans, constructs, produces power, constrains.”

Rejecting any criticism of her thesis that all men deserve to be marginalized, Walters has attacked those who voiced some concerns about her proposal to eliminate gender—and men.

When taxpayers tire of subsidizing this sort of thing, we’ll be told that it’s because of “anti-intellectualism.”

ANOTHER #METOO TORPEDO CIRCLES AROUND: MN Dem. Debra Hilstrom tweets SHOCKING Facebook post accusing Keith Ellison of domestic violence. As you know, we’re supposed to believe all accusations from women now, or we’re misogynist.

HEY, #METOO! Yes, the U.S. Military Loves Shotguns.

#METOO: Over at the PJM Live Blog, it’s Florida Woman Friday.

OH: There’s no sign of advertisers boycotting CBS, despite a mounting list of disturbing allegations against CEO Les Moonves.

Has #MeToo moved past knee-jerk condemnation, or is CBS just too valuable a property?

PAULA BOLYARD: #MeToo on Steroids? “Ohio State football coach Urban Meyer has been placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of an investigation into allegations that he… um… knew or should have known that an assistant coach had been accused (but not convicted) of domestic violence in 2015.”

THE TORPEDOES THE DEMOCRATS PUT IN THE WATER FOR TRUMP KEEP CIRCLING BACK ON THEM: “The revelation that Mel Watt, a powerful financial regulator, has been accused of sexual harassment by an employee left Capitol Hill Democrats scrambling for a response, a stark contrast to their reaction to other cases of alleged misdeeds… Even those Democrats who have been vocal supporters of the #MeToo movement and pounced on misbehavior by Trump administration officials ignored requests for comment on the claims against Watt, the last remaining Obama-appointed regulator in this administration.”

The background is here, and it’s well worth reading the whole thing: “A Federal Housing Finance Agency staffer accused the FHFA director of repeatedly making inappropriate sexual advances when she tried to discuss career and salary concerns. The conversations included a 2016 meeting during which Watt steered the discussion to his feelings for the woman, according to documents and partial transcripts of tapes obtained by POLITICO. In a separate encounter, Watt asked about a tattoo on her ankle, saying, ‘If I kissed that one would it lead to more?’”

If the allegations are true, why is lefty politics such a cesspit of misogyny and harassment?


Six women are accusing Moonves of misconduct, not all under their own names — but the most harrowing account comes from someone who is, actress Illeana Douglas. If what she says is true, Moonves would deserve to be fired for this incident alone. And there’s reason to believe what she says is true: She’s told the story to multiple friends and colleagues in the 21 years since it allegedly happened, among them Martin Scorsese. What do you do when the most powerful man in television decides he wants to dry-hump you?

* * * * * * * *

CBS News is named by Farrow as being an especially bad actor (a “frat house”), with “60 Minutes” executive producer Jeff Fager singled out as a noxious enabler. It wasn’t just that Fager himself harassed people, Farrow’s sources claim, it was that he protected other men down the chain of command who did so as well. (“Fager seemed to encourage that climate. It wasn’t even that he turned a blind eye toward it.”)

Read the whole thing. Why are Democrat-dominated industries such cesspits of sexual abuse and exploitation?


Huh. I thought it was “on us” to fight sexual harassment in the corporate world. All the best people, some of whom had project deals with Harvey Weinstein, told me this was true.

As Jim Treacher (whose Twitter account was suspended earlier today, apparently for kicks and grins by Twitter management) tweets:

Related: How #MeToo Has Undermined the #Resistance — The steady drumbeat of sexual scandal is eroding the Left’s moral authority.

ASHE SCHOW: Henry Cavill Caves, Apologizes For #MeToo Comments.

AND AGAIN: Ousted Billboard and Hollywood Reporter CEO John Amato Being Probed for Sexual Misconduct.

“Probed?” But in any case, as Richard Fernandez has said, the torpedoes the Democrats put in the water to sink Trump keep circling back on them.

Flashback: How #Metoo Undermines Progressive Moral Authority.


Curiously, googling around, I haven’t found any quotes from Jane Fonda attacking Bill Clinton for some strange reason.

#METOO:  The NeverTrumper dividing line.

#METOO: Air Force F-16s & A-10s Need More Laser-Guided Rockets.

SO YOU’RE SAYING #METOO CAN’T WORK? For #MeToo to Work, We Must Draw the Line Between Sexual Assault and Being a Jerk.

LATE-STAGE SOCIALISM: In beleaguered Venezuela, young women use beauty pageants to escape poverty.

The 16-year-old daughter of a butcher and a teacher is pinning her hopes for a future free of poverty on a single goal: rising through the world of pageants and becoming an international beauty queen.

“These sashes represent a huge accomplishment for me,” says the skinny teen with dark brown eyes as she pushes her long black hair from one side to another. “I accomplished what I set out to achieve.”

While growing concern about sexism and the rise of the #MeToo movement recently led the Miss America contest to drop swimsuit competitions and emphasize personal accomplishment, in Latin America young women continue to flock to competitions where good looks are unabashedly championed above all else.

Now will the Left finally denounce Venezuela’s democratic socialism?


● Shot: Actor Bradley Whitford’s Advice to Fellow Libs: ‘We Need to Project Our Political Purity.’

NewsBusters, yesterday.

● Chaser: District Attorney Vance Announces Additional Charges Against Harvey Weinstein Including Predatory Sexual Assault.

—Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, today.

● Hangover: How #MeToo Has Undermined the #Resistance — The steady drumbeat of sexual scandal is eroding the Left’s moral authority.

—David French, NRO, May 16.

Why are leftwing-dominated industries such cesspits of sexual abuse and exploitation?

ANALYSIS: TRUE. Beauty pageant contestants aren’t #MeToo victims.

ANNALS OF LEFTIST AUTOPHAGY: Netflix film crews ‘banned from looking at each other for longer than five seconds’ in #metoo crackdown.

#METOO: Democratic candidate who admitted to domestic abuse wins South Carolina congressional primary. “A congressional candidate in South Carolina who admitted to abusing his ex-wife 45 years ago and lost all support from national and state Democrats has won his Democratic primary, CNN projects.”

Via Derek Hunter who tweets, “If he were a Republican, every Republican would be asked about this, repeatedly, like Romney was asked about Akin several times. I wonder if any Democrat will be asked about this once, let alone for days on end. Doubt it.”

JAKE TAPPER: I’m Amazed at How Poorly Bill Clinton Has Handled the #MeToo Movement.

What part of “Bill Clinton is a self-entitled and unrepentant user and abuser of women” is news, Jake?


STAR TREK: THE WRATH OF FARRAKHAN, THE FEMINIST.  Farrakhan on #MeToo and the Jews. What could go wrong?

Farrakhan, who denies he is anti-Semitic, contends that Jews control most of the media, entertainment, and global politics. Farrakhan even referenced the #MeToo movement, saying: “The #MeToo Movement is real, women are tired of being misused by men in power.”

In calling out Harvey Weinstein, Farrakhan insisted the disgraced mogul is not really a Jew:

Mr. Weinstein is not a Jew. He’s Satanic. But he’s committing blasphemy by saying he’s a Jew. The name Jew is a good name, it means one who has a covenant relationship with God.

A righteous Jew will practice righteousness; the false Jew will lead you to filth and indecency. That’s who runs show business, that’s who runs the record industry, that’s who runs television. And in that, there are Jews that have no respect and now they are being outed with the #MeToo Movement.

This week, the Final Call tweeted more lines from Farrakhan’s address about the Weinstein question: “Do you know that many of us who go to Hollywood seeking a chance have to submit to anal sex and all kind of debauchery and they give you a little part? It’s called the casting couch. See that’s Jewish power.”

Related: “Twitter Blocked The Wire Creator David Simon, And He Isn’t Having It.” Farrakhan though? So far though, he’s golden with Twitter management, despite tweeting on Wednesday, “Thoroughly and completely unmasking the Satanic Jew and the Synagogue of Satan,” along with a link to one of his YouTube videos.

(Classical allusion in headline.)


I’ve been thinking for days about what alternate facts Clinton might be talking about here. He was the President of the United States, engaged in an extramarital affair with a young woman he had power and influence over, he destroyed her life, and he has never apologized. Just because we are more attuned to men abusing their power in order to gain sexual gratification from women does not mean NBC’s Craig Melvin is trafficking in alternative facts.

On Stephen Colbert’s show later in the week, the ex-President was thrown a few softball questions in an attempt to clean up his mess on the Today Show.

In the wake of the #MeToo moment, we’ve seen some really despicable men taken down; Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein will likely never be able to victimize another woman. But with Clinton, we’re also seeing how far mainstream feminists are willing to go to right past wrongs and injustices. On Colbert’s show, Clinton was given a ladder to climb out of the hole he dug for himself on the Today Show. 

Related: #MeToo supporter Chuck Schumer gets asked about Bill Clinton (guess what happened next!).

TIME MAGAZINE: ALLIED TROOPS STORM THE BEACHES AT NORMANDY, GET SHOT TO HELL, WOMEN SUFFER MOST: On the 74th anniversary of D-Day, a Time Magazine article entitled This Picture Tells a Tragic Story of What Happened to Women After D-Day reminds us that it’s all about women.

The headline is referring to the women who had their heads shaved (and sometimes much worse) during the épuration sauvage (or the wild purge). Over the course of the second half of 1944 and early 1945, women and men who were alleged to be collaborators were punished by gangs of vigilantes. For the women, this typically meant they were being accused, rightly or wrongly, of sleeping with the enemy.

The Time article (by Ann Mah) described it this way:

The victims were among the most vulnerable members of the community: Women. Accused of “horizontal collaboration” — sleeping with the enemy — they were targeted by vigilantes and publicly humiliated. Their heads were shaved, they were stripped half-naked, smeared with tar, paraded through towns and taunted, stoned, kicked, beaten, spat upon and sometimes even killed.

The épuration sauvage was as savage as it sounds. It has been estimated that 6000 individuals accused of collaboration were killed. Many of the perpetrators were resistance members or ex-collaborators who wished to hold themselves out as resistance members.

The Time article doesn’t mention it, but underlying the purge was a political struggle between communists and non-communists; the vigilantes were very disproportionately communists. It also fails to mention that the source it cited for the 6000 death toll also states that, of those, only about a third were women. Instead, the Time article claims (evidently incorrectly) that “the punished were almost always women.” It further states:

The suspicion and punishment of women after World War II is part of a cycle of repression and sexism that began long before D-Day and continues to be seen today, in the conversation around the #MeToo movement. It begins with a terrible event, then women get blamed, then aggressively attacked and finally the assault is forgotten.

What bothers me most is that Time ran the piece on June 6. Can’t we have a day to mourn the D-Day dead, who were overwhelmingly men, before we have to go back to the “World Ends Tonight, Women and Minorities to Suffer Most” routine? Isn’t the anniversary of D-Day the wrong time to argue that women are always “the most vulnerable members of the community”?

YES. NEXT QUESTION? Did Bill Clinton really think he could dodge #MeToo?

GREAT MOMENTS IN SELF-AWARENESS: Woody Allen thinks he’s a ‘poster boy’ for #MeToo movement.

#METOO: Bill Clinton melts down when asked about Monica Lewinsky.

I’M SO OLD, I CAN REMEMBER HOLLYWOOD’S #METOO ERA: Hollywood Women Invalidate Themselves in Supporting Samantha Bee.

Today celebrities — actresses — are coming forward to essentially declare that some women just have it coming. After more than half a year pleading with us to fix the problems that women are facing we now learn that our cultural elite believe certain women deserve to be degraded. Staggering to consider, after Hollywood and the media have been posturing the need to eliminate this very poison.

It was in 2015, when Hillary Clinton was launching her Presidential run, that a list of banned words was issued that should not be used when writing about the female candidate. Innocuous terms like “ambitious”, and “inevitable” were said to be forbidden for carrying sexist overtones. In just three years we now see the media defending vulgar epithets as acceptable in describing a prominent female in politics.

But this is our current climate. The need to apply one of only two labels to any story means these contradictions will be ever present. A day after the press was telling us to stop being crude they excuse Samantha Bee. While the entertainment industry demands women be treated better they applaud treating a woman in this fashion. The party that claims to support women, and claims conservative wage a war-on-women, now praises degrading a woman and mother in this fashion.

As Charles C.W. Cooke writes, “Samantha Bee’s Defenders Play Calvinball with the Language:”

Attempts to appeal to the speaker’s humanity — “that’s not the Ann I know!” — would fall flat. And not just in the case of an Ann Coulter or a Sean Hannity, but for anyone on the “wrong” side. If the speaker were tough to paint as a sexist, the word would be used instead as an example of the “latent” sexism of American culture — a sexism so potent that it pulls even ostensibly good people into its clasps. Breathless comparisons to The Handmaid’s Tale would become de rigeur. And in would come the headshakers: “There’s just so much more work to be done,” they would sigh. “That the word came to mind in the first place shows that we’ve failed.”

But when Samantha Bee does it? It’s just a “word choice.” Hell, she might as well as have said “asparagus.”

When you’re “in the family,” you have the full protection of the soldato.

#METOO: The Military Still Wants a Belly Gun for the V-22 Osprey.

FACULTY-STUDENT DATING IN THE AGE OF #METOO. When I visited at UVA law in the ’90s there was a move to ban faculty-student dating, and the students rose up and blocked it. Hard to imagine that happening now.

Weirdly, despite all the things we’ve done to “protect” students since the free-and-easy 1970s, students seem a lot less happy.

BLUE WAVE: Poll: Menendez lead narrows to just 4 points over GOP foe Hugin. Amazing for New Jersey, but then again, the whole underage-Dominican-hooker thing probably doesn’t sit well in the #MeToo era.


I’ve read and listened to enough Peterson to make up my own mind and that’s not how I see him at all. Rather than being forthright about this, though, I’ve tended to cower silently in my alienated corner, fearful that revealing my rejection of the stock anti-Peterson narrative will cause my progressive friends to denounce me and the social media mobs to swarm.

It’s not that I’m an uncritical Peterson devotee. Although I find both his work and the furor surrounding him quite fascinating, I don’t share his way of thinking about the political issues (such as socio-economic inequality) that most concern me at all. That said, I would never look to someone like him, who I see as a classical conservative, to provide thought leadership on such matters. That’s the role of the Left. And in my view, the Left is doing an abysmal job on that front.

‘The Left’ is admittedly an overly broad and imprecise term. Still, it’s certainly possible to identify a dominant leftwing discourse in the U.S. and Canada today. And within that discourse, a stock anti-Peterson line indisputably exists. The Left faces many challenges, and the issues surrounding Peterson only represent one. Still, it’s important. The anti-Peterson crusade is an instructive example of a larger dynamic that needs to be named, discussed, and hopefully, addressed.

The hyperbolic uniformity of the leftist attack on Peterson is emblematic of the growing tendency to reduce left-of-center thought to the status of a rigidly simplistic ideology. Increasingly, what passes for progressive political thought today offers little more than a scripted set of weaponized hashtags (you must be pro- #metoo and anti-patriarchy, no further thought required). This narrowing of our public discourse is disturbing, and worrisome on multiple, mutually reinforcing levels.

Leftist politics is basically Mean Girls.


I won’t lose any sleep over the twin descents of Messrs. Cosby and Levine into the dark pit of disgrace. But there’s a difference—a huge one—between shunning such men and rewriting the history of which they are a prominent part. Not only was Mr. Cosby the first black man to star in a weekly dramatic TV series, “I Spy,” but “The Cosby Show,” for which he is now best remembered, was universally praised for portraying a middle-class black family in a way that appealed to viewers of all races. As for Mr. Levine, he was one of the half-dozen greatest opera conductors of the postwar era. Yet the Kennedy Center and Met Opera Radio seem to be trying to pretend that neither man ever existed.

Few of us like to admit it, but most human beings are impossibly complicated, none more so than artists. You can simultaneously be a great comedian and a sexual predator, a great musician and a pedophile. To argue otherwise is to falsify history, and to falsify history is to dynamite the foundations of reality.

I used the word “unperson” earlier in this piece. It was coined by George Orwell in “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” his 1948 dystopian fantasy about a totalitarian society similar to the Soviet Union whose ruler, Big Brother, rewrites history every day to expunge his enemies from the record books. To this end, his Ministry of Truth prints new editions of books and newspapers from which the names of politically incorrect “unpersons” have been scissored out, even as the offenders themselves have been jailed and brainwashed. As a character explains, “If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say of this or that event, it never happened—that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death?”

Perhaps it doesn’t matter all that much that the Kennedy Center has hosed Mr. Cosby’s name off its increasingly trivial roll of pop-culture sycophancy. But Met Opera Radio did something far more consequential when it chucked Mr. Levine’s historic recordings into the memory hole, an act of suppression that bears a distant but nonetheless definite resemblance to book-burning. By doing so, it effectively declared that great musicians must also be good men—a position that can be defended only by the tone-deaf.

In addition to the real-life acts allegedly committed by Cosby and the Met conductor James Levine, there’s that massive amount of badthink on display throughout even the most left-leaning old television shows and movies, which the modern left insists be judged by the current standards of #MeToo.

The Great Purge of 20th Century Mass Culture will be astonishing to watch, a much more insidious version of the way the arrival of the Beatles to America completely pushed swing music, America’s pop music from the 1920s through the early 1960s, into the dustbin of history. With no past to draw upon, what happens next to pop culture won’t be pretty, as Mark Steyn warned in a piece titled “The Totalitarianism of the Now,” written in August of last year, when the left was transitioning from toppling statues to toppling real-life men in pop culture and the fine arts:

I’ve said many times that, when a people lose their future, they also lose their past: There will be no West End theatre in an Islamized London – no Oscar Wilde, no Bernard Shaw, no Noël Coward, and eventually no Shakespeare. There will be no Berlin Philharmonic in an Islamized Germany — no Brahms, Beethoven, Bruckner. There will be no classic rock on the radio dial in an Hispanic Florida — so no Motorhead, no Def Leppard, no Blue Oyster Cult. Such are the vicissitudes of demographic transformation.

But perhaps it won’t matter anyway. Our age not only disdains its inheritance, but actively reviles it, and wishes to destroy it. It is a totalitarian impulse. Nescire autem quid antequam natus sis acciderit id est semper esse puerum: To be ignorant of what happened before you were born is to remain forever a child. To despise what happened before you were born is to remain forever a juvenile delinquent in the thuggish gang of the present tense.

“There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running around with lit matches,” Ray Bradbury wrote in the 50th anniversary edition of Fahrenheit 451.


As Richard Fernandez says, the torpedoes the Democrats put in the water to sink Trump keep circling back on them.

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Commencement speaker slammed for criticizing #MeToo movement. “Nella Gray Barkley caused a stir with her commencement speech at Sweet Briar College, during which she said she has only ‘partial sympathy’ for the #MeToo movement. Barkley argued that women must stand up for themselves by setting ‘high expectations’ and ‘ground rules,’ which some students and alumni called a ‘shameful and disgusting’ display of ‘internalized misogyny.'”

Expecting women to display agency and take responsibility is now anti-feminist.

THE #METOO MOMENT DIDN’T LAST LONG: Congressional Hispanic Caucus to Keep Dem Rep as Chair of PAC Despite Sexual Assault Allegations. “The Congressional Hispanic Caucus will not call on Democratic Rep. Tony Cárdenas (Calif.) to step down as chairman of its political action committee following allegations that he assaulted a then-16-year-old girl in 2007. . . . Earlier this month, Cárdenas identified himself as the unnamed ‘John Doe’ in a lawsuit filed in Los Angeles in late April. The complaint alleges that, in 2007, an ‘elected politician’ sexually battered and assaulted a 16-year-old girl. Under California law, the civil suit cannot name the accuser or the alleged assailant.”


I realize I am privileged: I am white and work in the film and television industry. I’ve had great opportunities, worked hard for them, and done the most I could do with them. But I also made the conscious decision to not market myself in a sexual way, and it cost me. It is very, very hard to create a career as an actor without sexualizing oneself; I have been navigating this minefield for over thirty years with varying degrees of success. I’ve spoken out about the sexism in my industry before and faced backlash. I’ve been called “bitter” and told my behavior was “cringe worthy.” Whatever.

There were things I just could not bring myself to do: the film by the (great) director that would require me to shoot a scene in a shirt but no panties, for example. (He was making some kind of statement, I suppose.) I rejected the advice to “date” men that could possibly advance my career. I didn’t go on auditions for films that I felt glorified sex work, that depicted women being sexually abused in a gratuitous way, or that required me to leave my sense of self on the doorstep. (All of these films became huge hits.)

But this is the way women are set up in the media. There has been some movement, I suppose, but not much. It’s a frustrating and demoralizing struggle with some moments of triumph in spite of itself. And I still love acting. I still love a good role more than just about anything.

Why is the female physical appearance so important in the arts? Sean Penn is the most gifted actor of my generation, and I don’t think he’s gotten Botox. I don’t think Bryan Cranston had butt implants.

What is a woman to do? Turn on the TV and you get a good look at rape culture. I have tried to make a career without contributing to it.

I’m still trying.

Linking to a New York Post article last month headlined, “70 years before #MeToo, women ruled Hollywood,” Sarah Hoyt wrote, “Then the liberals took over the industry and it became a cesspit of intolerance and harassment.”

Or as Kevin Williamson wrote yesterday in his column titled “Advice for Incels,” “In the 1960s and 1970s, there were some social disruptions touching marriage and family life. It was, they told us, a ‘sexual revolution.’ The thing about revolutions is: Somebody loses.”

CATHY YOUNG: The two faces of #MeToo: justice for Eric Schneiderman & grave overreactions for others.

The latest news from the front lines of #MeToo, the cultural war on sexual abuse that began with the downfall of Hollywood mogul and accused predator Harvey Weinstein last October, is a particularly shocking bombshell: New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, a vocal #MeToo supporter who was in the forefront of efforts to bring Weinstein to account, abruptly resigned Monday three hours after the publication of a New Yorker story detailing several women’s claims that he physically and psychologically abused them during intimate relationships.

While Schneiderman denies the allegations, they are backed by some solid corroborative evidence. There are also disturbing overtones of abuse of power, with some of the women saying Schneiderman made references to the authority of his office as an intimidation tactic.

It is a horrifying story, and a stark example of what #MeToo means to most of the movement’s supporters: A powerful abuser, once shielded by his position, finally facing the consequences of his misdeeds.

But the Schneiderman reckoning is only one of several recent #MeToo-related stories in the news. Here are some of the others:

►Richard Ned Lebow, a professor of political theory at King’s College London, was found guilty of making an “offensive and inappropriate” remark by the ethics committee of the International Studies Association and ordered to make an “unequivocal apology” to Merrimack College gender studies professor Simona Sharoni. His offense? When the two shared a crowded elevator at the ISA annual meeting in San Francisco last month, someone asked for the floors to be announced, and Lebow responded by joking, “Ladies’ lingerie” — referencing the old system of floor announcements in department stores.

►Writer Junot Diaz is at the center of a major scandal due to accusations that surfaced at the Sydney Writers’ Festival and were amplified in the social media. Writer Zinzi Clemmons said Diaz “forcibly” kissed her six years ago when he spoke at a workshop she helped organize as a 26-year-old graduate student at Columbia University. (It’s unclear whether she is alleging use of physical force; such language is now routinely used to refer to kissing without explicit permission.) Several other women came forward to say Diaz argued with them in an overly aggressive manner — claims that have oddly Victorian overtones of female frailty. Diaz withdrew from his remaining appearances at the festival and several bookstores are dropping his books.

► According to a New York Times report, the children’s books industry has been reeling from sexual harassment charges against some of the relatively few men in the field — charges that generally involve unwanted but non-coercive advances, badly handled consensual relationships, or inappropriate comments. The print run of one picture book was pulped because the artist, David Diaz, was accused of making unwanted flirtatious remarks to several women at industry events; the publisher is now seeking another illustrator.

Well, blurring the lines gives activists more power. And that’s what activists mostly want.

WHY IS LEFTY POLITICS SUCH A CESSPIT OF SEXUAL ABUSE AND HYPOCRISY? Four Women Accuse New York’s Attorney General of Physical Abuse: Eric Schneiderman has raised his profile as a voice against sexual misconduct. Now, after suing Harvey Weinstein, he faces a #MeToo reckoning of his own.

Well, Eliot Spitzer crusaded against prostitutes, too.

UPDATE: NY Governor Andrew Cuomo is calling on Schneiderman to resign. And it seems as if Donald Trump had an inkling earlier.

ANOTHER UPDATE: From the Ronan Farrow New Yorker story: “After the former girlfriend ended the relationship, she told several friends about the abuse. A number of them advised her to keep the story to herself, arguing that Schneiderman was too valuable a politician for the Democrats to lose. She described this response as heartbreaking.”

Flashback: “The woman even said, according to the transcript of her interview with Portland, Ore., police made public on the Internet, that her ‘Birkenstock Tribe’ friends told her to ‘suck it up’ and not tell anyone or the ‘world’s going to be destroyed from global warming.’”

ANOTHER UPDATE: Schneiderman has resigned.

WELL, HE’S A DEMOCRAT, SO. . . Democrats take cautious approach on sexual assault allegations against California congressman. “More than a day after the child sexual assault allegations against California Congressman Tony Cardenas became public, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said she was withholding judgment on Cardenas until a House Ethics Committee investigation is complete. A broad array of other Democratic officials in California and in Washington have declined to comment publicly. The cautious response to a sitting congressman accused of assaulting a then-16-year-old girl more than 10 years ago is striking after a year in which the #MeToo movement and the Roy Moore scandal dominated the headlines. “


#METOO: The US Military Wants Giant Transformer Robot Subs.

The Aquanaut unmanned underwater vehicle, or UUV, can chug beneath the ocean’s surface for hundreds of kilometers and then transform into a vaguely insect-like robot to perform delicate operations in the watery depths. Its biggest backers are players in the oil and gas exploration like Transocean, which are looking to better maintain oil rigs, offshore equipment, and help with operations. Houston Mechatronics co-founder and chief technical officer Nicholas Radford said the robots might would travel from site to site, like a frog swimming from one lily pad to another without ever having to be pulled out of the water. “‘We intend to blanket the Gulf of Mexico,” he said.

While big oil is the primary investor, the Defense Department — through a cooperative research and development agreement with the Navy — is also supporting the project. Radford expects additional financial funding from other sources within the military soon. The near-term objective is counter-mine missions “in area-denied water, or where you don’t want the presence of a top-side vessel,” he said.

Let’s just call this what it really is: Mechagodzilla.

#METOO: Jeff Bezos dreams of a world with a trillion people living in space.

Bezos’ vision of a civilization that lives both in space and on Earth has been evolving for almost his whole life.

“First of all, of course, I’m interested in space, because I’m passionate about it. I’ve been studying it and thinking about it since I was a 5-year-old boy,” says Bezos. “But that is not why I’m pursuing this work.”

Bezos — who is currently worth $130 billion, according to Forbes — says if humanity does not become multiplanetary, eventually it will stagnate.

“I’m pursuing this work, because I believe if we don’t, we will eventually end up with a civilization of stasis, which I find very demoralizing. I don’t want my great-grandchildren’s great-grandchildren to live in a civilization of stasis. We all enjoy a dynamic civilization of growth and change,” says Bezos.

Billionaire tech entrepreneur and SpaceX boss Elon Musk is also inspired by a future of getting to space. “Fundamentally, the future is vastly more exciting and interesting if we are a space faring civilization and multi planetary species than if we are not,” Musk has said.

I agree entirely, and I’m glad this generation of tycoons feels the same way.

HUH: Why Did The NY Times’ Metro Editor Resign Yesterday? The Times Won’t Say.

Yesterday, NY Times metro editor Wendell Jamieson resigned his position at the paper after an “internal investigation” revealed…something. HuffPost published an email sent out by the Times to its explain the change to their own newsroom.

After an investigation, Wendell Jamieson has resigned from The Times. Susan Chira is stepping in as interim metro editor effective immediately.

Wendell has asked us to express the following to his colleagues in the newsroom: “Leading Metro for the last five years and working with the incredible Times team has been the high point of my professional life. I regret and apologize for my mistakes and leaving under these circumstances. I’m especially proud of all the talent I’ve helped bring to The Times. Susan Chira is a wonderful editor, a true New Yorker, and I know Metro will rise to even greater heights under her leadership.”

To protect the privacy of those involved, we do not intend to comment further.

Mistakes you say? What kind of mistakes? The Times has decided the sudden exit of a senior figure on its own staff isn’t news. And sure enough the Times’ own story on this says a spokesman refused to tell the paper’s own reporter what it was about, though there is a hint in the final paragraph of the story.

The investigation involved “several women,” so it’s a safe bet what kind of behavior forced Jamieson’s resignation.

One question however remains unanswered: Would Facebook rate the New York Times “trustworthy” after burying a story involving its own Metro Editor and a meaty #MeToo investigation?


She’ll catch hell for this even though she says she’s skeptical of the allegations against Brokaw too. But she’s right. In the end, all you can say of a friend’s behavior behind closed doors is “He doesn’t seem like the type,” which is worth next to nothing. Does no one remember all of the Foxies who sneered when Gretchen Carlson first accused Roger Ailes of harassment?

* * * * * * * * *

The risk isn’t that they’ll end up being personally embarrassed if more dirt comes out on him; the risk is that there are women who are right now weighing whether to speak up about him and suddenly find themselves discouraged because the most prominent progressive female stars at the network are laying out the case for skepticism preemptively. If you’ve been harassed, you expect the man who harassed you to call you a liar. You don’t expect liberal heartthrob Rachel Maddow to signal you’re probably a liar before you’ve even opened your mouth.

What do you do in this situation if you’re Maddow, then? You don’t want to let a friend be hanged in the court of public opinion when all of the evidence you have on him suggests he’s not guilty. But you don’t want to be Hannity either, assuming that you have all of the evidence, period, when you don’t. #MeToo is a witch hunt with the twist that some of the accused really are witches.

That wouldn’t be first time that was proven true of a so-called “witch hunt.”

“THE ROBESPIERRE MOMENT OF THE #METOO MOVEMENT:” Roger Simon asks, Who Was Worse — Michelle Wolf, or Her Audience?



Last fall, as the first #MeToo scandals scrolled across the cable news chyron, I happened to be reading “Sticky Fingers,” Joe Horgan’s [sic – Ed] biography of Rolling Stone founder Jann Wenner. As Horgan describes the magazine’s early years in the 1960s, just about everyone on the staff was having sex with everyone else.

Did the women of Rolling Stone consent to the goings-on at what today would be regarded as an illegal den of harassment? It seems they did. In the ladies’ room, they scribbled graffiti ranking male staffers for their sexual performance — not, as girls do on college campuses today, the names of rapists in their midst. Jane Wenner, Jann’s wife, was known to judge job seekers by “whether a candidate was attracted to her” and, in some cases, to test the depth of their ardor personally. Photographer Annie Leibovitz, who made her name at Rolling Stone, routinely slept with her subjects.

Different as those days seem, there’s a direct line between then and now. Today’s clear-cut protest against workplace harassment is mutating into a far-reaching counterrevolution against the combustible contradictions set in motion 50-odd years ago. But as in the 1960s, this sexual rebellion is utopian and deeply naïve about the tangled knot of human motivation. Don’t expect the young women who are building the #MeToo barricades to succeed.

It’s fair to say ’60s-style liberation endorsed the value of female sexual desire, autonomy and consent. This was a genuine moral achievement, and we can be thankful it is a settled part of modern life. But the sexual revolution also helped midwife the soaring number of single-parent families and the related ills of inequality, poverty, achievement gaps, and men MIA from family life. And all these many years later, younger feminists are exposing new flaws in the sexual deregulation bequeathed to them by their elders.

First and foremost is the revolution’s blindness to la difference.

Read the whole thing; I wonder how Kay Hymowitz’s column in the L.A. Times is playing amongst its core readers, given the chief industries of that company town.

Flashback to some related links in a post I wrote back in October, at the height of Weinstein-mania:

THE SEXUAL PREDATORS EVERYONE STILL WORSHIPS:” “What do we do about predators we actually think are cool?…What is the point at which it becomes necessary for us to channel our inner Savonarolas and just start burning? Is one confirmed incident enough? How many Station to Stations or Physical Graffitis are worth the assault of a single woman or child? Are we affirming or materially contributing to their crimes when we watch films or listen to music made by abusers?”

Earlier: Hugh Hefner, Gangsta Rap & the Emerging Moral Majority: “Slowly, however, the elite of our culture seem to be drifting toward a new, far-more jaundiced and suspicious view of popular culture from the 1960s to the 1990s.”

And for my own thoughts on Joe Hagan’s biography of Wenner, click here: Sticky Fingers: A New Biography Explores the Seedier Side of Jann Wenner.


WILLIAM MCGURN: The Elitists’ Trump Excuse: His critics may be more corrupting to democracy and decency than he is.

The election and its aftermath have been an education in how the smart set responds when the American people refuse the judgment of their self-styled betters. In its most honest form, it is the “Resist!” movement. In the more genteel version, it turns out to mean not just opposing Mr. Trump’s policies, which people can reasonably do, but throwing fairness and principle to the wind so long as it might help bring down the 45th president. Consider:

• In the thick of the 2016 election, the New York Times ran a front-page article in which it advertised that the particular dangers posed by Mr. Trump’s candidacy meant that the long-held norm of journalism—objectivity—might have to give way to a more oppositional approach.

• Good liberals once found the idea of spying on American citizens without just cause unconscionable. But when the target is a former Trump campaign associate, it becomes OK to get a warrant based on an unverified dossier paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign.

• James Clapper, President Obama’s director of national intelligence, revised procedures to make it easier for executive branch officials to “unmask” the names of Americans in intelligence reports and share the information among themselves, making leaks all but inevitable. The illegal leak of Mike Flynn’s name in connection with a phone conversation with Russia’s ambassador was one result. But again, it doesn’t matter because he was a Trump transition official.

• When Sally Yates was acting attorney general and President Trump issued an executive order on immigration she objected to, Ms. Yates ordered the entire Justice Department not to obey, despite a finding from the department’s Office of Legal Counsel that the order was lawful. She was applauded in her insubordination by Andrew Weissmann, then a Justice attorney, who now serves on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team. But it’s all for a good cause, right?

• In the middle of a #MeToo moment ostensibly all about more respect for women, the president’s press secretary, Sarah Sanders, has been derided as everything from a “summer whore” to “a slightly chunky soccer mom.” Though the columnist who wrote the latter has since apologized, the accomplished Mrs. Sanders must wonder what happened to “when they go low, we go high?”

• The pardon power enjoyed by the president is among the most unfettered in the Constitution. But because the president is Mr. Trump, and the pardon for controversial Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has opted for lawlessness: appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the pardon’s legitimacy, in clear violation of the separation of powers.

Meanwhile, week after week, the same people who accuse Mr. Trump of lacking depth and nuance toss off allusions to Hilter, Stalin and a parade of murderous dictators. Channeling Mrs. Clinton, they insist that anyone who would chose Mr. Trump over her—or God forbid, agree to serve in a Trump administration—isn’t just wrong but forever morally tainted.

The people aren’t stupid. The 63 million Americans who voted for Mr. Trump—some as an unappealing but better alternative to Mrs. Clinton, but many with gusto—recognize that what is going on here is a concerted effort to overturn the results of a legitimate presidential election. Is it really unreasonable to ask whether this might be as much of a threat to American democracy as anything Mr. Trump has said or done?

Nope. Trump’s election — or, more specifically, the reaction thereto — revealed that we have been ruled by moral and intellectual failures for some time. But what they lack in competence, humility, and integrity, they make up for in self-importance and entitlement.

SHOCKER: Some male sexual assault victims feel left behind by #MeToo.

THE ULTIMATE #METOO: Remembering Girlfriend Murdered by Earth Day Founder.

Why are Democrat monopoly institutions such cesspits of violence?

IT IS ALMOST AS IF THE MOVEMENT WASN’T ABOUT ABUSE BUT JUST AN ATTACK ON MEN:  Male victims of sex abuse feel left behind by #MeToo parade.

SO IT GOES: Six Months in, #MeToo Has Become Infantilizing and Authoritarian.

#MeToo has become an orthodoxy intolerant of criticism or even question. Women who have suggested that it may have gone too far, that conflating rape with crude flirtation risks trivializing serious incidents and falsely demonizing innocent men, have been hounded for thought crimes. Katie Roiphe prompted outrage when it was rumored she might go public with a list of “shitty media men” that had been widely circulated among writers and journalists. Roiphe recalls that “Before the piece was even finished, let alone published, people were calling me ‘pro-rape,’ ‘human scum,’ a ‘harridan,’ a ‘monster out of Stephen King’s “IT”‘ a ‘ghoul,’ a ‘bitch,’ and a ‘garbage person.’” Catherine Deneuve and over 100 other prominent French women were met with a similar tsunami of name-calling and criticism following their public letter comparing #MeToo to a witch hunt. The result has been a censorious closing down of debate through a crude division between “good women” who stick to the #MeToo script and “bad women” who digress.

Criticism of the wrong kind of women respects no limits. Film producer Jill Messick, best known for her work on Mean Girls and Frida, committed suicide in February. Messick worked for Weinstein’s Miramax between 1997 and 2003 and was manager for Rose McGowan in the late 1990s. As #MeToo gained ground, McGowan alleged she was raped by Weinstein and that Messick knew but did not take appropriate action. Messick was reportedly already suffering from depression; it seems unlikely that finding herself caught between McGowan and Weinstein, between claim and counterclaim, can have done much good for her mental health. The speed with which Messick was written out of history makes clear that to the #MeToo activists, some people’s lives are worth more than others.

#MeToo is a moral crusade where facts are readily sacrificed for the greater good of the cause. When it comes to declaring rape, sexual assault, or harassment, what matters to activists is not objective evidence that can be proved or disproved but the subjective feelings of the accuser. #MeToo has redefined sexual misconduct as unwanted behavior. As the case against actor Aziz Ansari showed, defining abuse as unwanted behavior takes us into the realm of the bad date. Leaving a restaurant too early, pouring wine without asking, even attempting a kiss might all be considered rude, but they are only violations in the mind of the most zealous #MeToo crusaders. Women in such scenarios are robbed of all agency; apparently unable to say no, they are forced to rely on men’s presumed mind-reading skills to protect them from the unwanted. Not only does this pave the way for miscarriages of justice, it makes all interactions between men and women inherently risky.

I witnessed this same thing in action a quarter century go, during a sexual harassment seminar required by all employees of the large corporation I was working for at the time. We were told, in no uncertain terms, that harassment was defined by the feelings of the victim. That’s no standard of justice, but it’s a great way to subjugate men to the whims of women.

MORE BAD PRESS FOR JAMES COMEY: Reading the Comey interview transcript, I get a “Cat Person” vibe. “I feel as though I’m reading a #MeToo story told by a young woman. Why didn’t he say ‘I thought…’ like a plain-spoken adult? It’s like the inside of his head is an environment with moods and wisps of cognition. He’s invited into a private space, he has his trepidations, but other people will be there, and he’s hoping he won’t be alone with the man. . . . I feel like I’m reading about a 20-year-old female fictional character. Is this what the inside of Comey’s head looks like or is this some psychological narrative concocted, with ghostwriting help, for the American reading public?”

When we find out who the ghostwriter was, we’ll probably know.

Plus: “What seems odd to me is how awkward and passive Comey is. Even in Comey’s own telling, he seems inert: he’s waiting to follow instructions and trying to please a man he feels no connection to. Comey doesn’t come across here as the embodiment of FBI tradition and integrity. He seems like a man hoping to hold onto his job and unsure how to make that happen, hoping to be told what to do. He’s so wary, and I assume Trump did not like him or trust him.” I can’t imagine why.

IT’S COME TO THIS: USA Today Declares ‘Ebony and Ivory’ Offensive, Insufficiently Woke.

It’s nice to see 2016’s “Guide to Properly Hating Old Movies” is easily adaptable to other mediums as well.  

UPDATE: Given the paucity of rap and hip-hop lyrics given the Central Scrutinizer treatment in the above referenced USA Today article, as NewsBusters asked earlier this week, In the Era of #MeToo, Why Does Hip-Hop Get a Pass?

QUESTION ASKED: In the Era of #MeToo, Why Does Hip-Hop Get a Pass?

JOHN HAWKINS: Tony Robbins Is Right About the #Metoo Movement (And It’s Not for the Reason You Think).

NEWS YOU CAN USE: A Guide to Properly Hating Old Movies.

There are interesting ideas floating somewhere beneath the surface of The Guardian’s article, but whatever insights might be offered are lost in the all-too-typical emphasis on personal experience as objective analysis. I’m open to reading an article about what The Shining lost during the adaptation process, or why Wendy Torrance is a disappointing female lead given the horror genre’s history of progressive female characters, or even how a movie like The Shining transitions from a disappointment to a work of genius in just a few decades. Instead, we get two very familiar and, frankly, boring arguments: I Was Personally Unimpressed and This Film’s Audience Is Annoying.

But you know what? I’m a helpful guy. If authors are dead set on publishing these types of pieces, then the least we can do is take a moment and work out the perfect template. This way, the argument gets made, the author gets paid, and audiences can breathe a little easier knowing that they aren’t actually missing anything if they don’t click. Film criticism moves a little closer to its future as a perpetual motion machine that chugs continuously on without outside interference. Let’s give it a shot.

Heh. Read the whole thing.

Note that in the era of #metoo, with just a few minor changes, the template that follows the above quoted passage can do double-duty, serving those who priggishly choose to hate on old TV sitcoms as well for insufficient wokeness.

AND NOT WITHOUT REASON: Men are concerned about what #MeToo is doing to men at work. Though the gender divide here is not that big: “Sixty-eight percent of Republican men and 59 percent of Republican women say it’s ‘harder’ for men to interact with female colleagues while 45 percent of Democratic men and 40 percent of Democratic women feel the same.”

Plus: “Few respondents from either party said the #MeToo conversation would improve women’s economic mobility: 28 percent of Pew’s sample said it would lead to more opportunities for female workers. (Twenty percent said it would decrease opportunities, and 51 percent thought it wouldn’t make a difference.)”

#METOO!  Obama is ‘relieved’ to no longer be president.

WAR ON BOYS: Why raising my son made me question what female empowerment is doing to boys.

It recently occurred to me, however, that if I had a daughter I might be more concerned with passing on different messages.

Just as my own mother repeatedly told me throughout my youth, I would be advising my daughter of the importance of being independent, becoming educated, earning her own money and not relying on anyone. I would be encouraging her to be strong.

But I’m not teaching my son any of those sorts of things. Why? I suppose I’ve always thought it was a given that males will grow up to be strong and independent, self-sufficient and confident, no matter what messages they receive in childhood. . . .

While we’re all happy to talk about our desire for ‘strong women’ in society these days, I’m ashamed to admit that I somehow feel disconcerted to hear someone discuss a ‘strong man’.

Because, if I’m honest, when hearing the words ‘strong man’ I subconsciously think of negative connotations — things like misogyny or bullying. But when I hear the words ‘strong woman’, I think of victory over oppression.

So engrained has this divide become that any display of male strength seems almost discouraged. And when I imagine Fin growing up, that doesn’t sit well with me.

Well, it’s nice to see at least a glimmer of awareness.

Totally, completely, unrelated: Sarah Vine: Women are going off sex because the modern man has lost that raw, masculine edge in this #MeToo world of ours…which doesn’t make for much fun in the bedroom.

Sorry, Ladies: Not everyone can be as hypermasculine as me.

Related: Why Millennial Women Are Dating Older Men.

ANALYSIS: TRUE. Actually Easter Is Not A #MeToo Story.

#NOTME: Outspoken #MeToo advocate Rep. Elizabeth Esty rejects fellow Democrats’ calls to resign.


#METOO WINS HOLLYWOOD? Video Game Movies Tomb Raider and Ready Player One Are Sexually Tame.

I DIDN’T EXPECT THIS: Hartford Courant Editorial: Elizabeth Esty Must Resign.

Elizabeth Esty will likely spend the next several days defending her failure to take strong steps to protect a woman who’d been threatened and bullied — by a member of her own staff — by blaming the system and talking about the good she’s done in Congress.

She shouldn’t. She should resign.

After learning about the allegations against her chief of staff, Ms. Esty, the Democratic U.S. Representative for Connecticut’s 5th District, should have ensured that her former staffer was safe and that the man who’d threatened her was held accountable. Instead, she circled the wagons, called the lawyers and kept things quiet.

That’s appalling.

Well, it’s pretty typical actually, and nothing compared to Bill Clinton, whom I’m pretty sure the Courant never called on to resign. But the #MeToo torpedo that the Dems put in the water for Trump keeps circling back around on them. I’m cynical enough to think that they want her to resign more out of fear of losing a Democratic seat than anything else. Though there is a hypocrisy/payback angle:

Ms. Esty herself was among those who called for the resignation of fellow U.S. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., who stepped down late last year after allegations that he had sexually harassed female staff members.

Here’s what Ms. Esty had to say about Mr. Conyers at the time:

“I do think that reports that have come to light in the last 48 hours are of an extremely serious nature,” she said. “They involve people he had direct authority over, staff in his congressional office who are entirely reliant upon him for their livelihood. … I think it’s entirely unacceptable and I think he should resign.”

Ms. Esty’s responses so far have been disappointing. She has blamed the system and hasn’t taken nearly enough responsibility for her own actions.

But any prior year this wouldn’t be resignation-fodder. And, I predict, it won’t be next year, either. But this is 2018 and the Democrats, as part of a deliberate strategy of weaponizing female anger, have made such things a hanging offense, at least until it becomes inconvenient to the narrative. In the meantime, there’s collateral damage.

Related: Former Elizabeth Esty Aide: Congress Enables Domestic Violence and Harassment.

Full disclosure: I went to law school with Elizabeth Esty and quite liked her then. I don’t think we’ve spoken since, though, and I haven’t really followed her career, though I knew she was in Congress.

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND HAS A FAMILY #METOO PROBLEM: Gillibrand rival slams her father’s ties to alleged sex-slave cult.

ANNALS OF LEFTIST AUTOPHAGY: Walmart to remove Cosmopolitan magazine from checkout lines, citing #MeToo movement.

Flashbacks (for those who’ve forgotten how far to the left Walmart’s management leans):

Walmart CEO criticizes Trump but is not stepping down from advisory council.

Walmart’s Walton family backing [Hillary] Clinton.

Walmart Ripped for Supporting Cap and Trade at Annual Meeting.

● “Leslie Dach: a well-known progressive and former senior aide to Vice President Al Gore. In July 2006, Dach was installed as the public relations chief for Wal-Mart. He drafted a number of other progressives into the company, seeking to change the company’s way of doing business: its culture, its politics, and most importantly its products.”

Related: After the Pervalanche.


The University Virginia chapter of Phi Kappa Psi could not be reached for comment.

ROLLING STONE FOUNDER JANN WENNER, 72, SAYS #METOO MOVEMENT IS A ‘WITCH HUNT’, three months after being accused of sexual assault by male friend who says he attacked him after a night of cocaine and booze in 1983.

To be fair, after what his publication did to the University of Virginia fraternity, the man knows a thing or two about sexual witch hunts.

Flashback: From December, my of review of Sticky Fingers: A New Biography Explores the Seedier Side of Jann Wenner.



Rape hoaxes like what took place at the University of Virginia, Duke, and Columbia, added fuel to the fire and amplified the debate on whether campus sexual assault cases should rely solely on due process or if campus authorities can act without ample evidence. In many circles, it is thought that sexual assault accusers should be readily believed, even if all the facts aren’t yet presented. However, two recent cases have shed light on the dangers of jumping to conclusions.

Last December, a student activist at Middlebury College published a “List of Men to Avoid” in the campus newspaper. It brandished individuals as “physically /emotionally abusive,” “physically violent,” and even as a “rapist.” Elizabeth Dunn, the student author, “evidently took no steps to verify any of the claims she posted,” according to one of the men accused as a rapist.

While Dunn, the author of the list, lacked any compelling evidence, many students at Middlebury jumped to conclusions. The fallout from the published piece was brutal for the students accused. One individual, who insists all his sexual encounters were consensual, penned a letter for The College Fix, explaining the social and psychological setbacks he experienced. He lost friends and has sought professional counseling. He’s even had suicidal thoughts.

Dunn claimed to have been motivated by the #MeToo movement.

A case with additional repercussions took place at Clemson University earlier this year. Sarah Katherine Campbell submitted a fake police report against the Delta Chi fraternity at Clemson, claiming to have been sexually assaulted. When the local sheriff deputies concluded that actions between Campbell and the male she was accusing were consensual, she was arrested for filing a false report. Based upon the investigation and the evidence gathered, it was actually found that Campbell wasn’t the victim at all. Instead, the man she falsely accused was a victim of her wrath.

Despite the due process, Clemson Interfraternity Council suspended all Greek life on campus.

Sounds like a hostile educational environment on account of sex. Let the lawsuits bloom!

21ST CENTURY RELATIONSHIPS: How Does Submissive Sex Work in the Age of #MeToo?

Like all of us in the throes of #MeToo, I have been taking rigorous inventory of my sexual history, rolling back the tape on past highs and lows: the disturbing teenage experiences no longer chalked up to miscommunication, those times I gave in because it was easier, some unwanted advance successfully fended off.

And then there are the memories of being brusquely, and without permission, pushed up against a wall — and loving it. In fact, those were the steamiest moments I could recall. I wondered if I would ever experience such an unscripted embrace again — and then immediately worried: Did my secret desires make me a traitor to #MeToo and what it stands for? . . .

“After being exposed to so many accounts of different women’s sexual abuse or harassment, I was hyper-aware and hyper-sensitive about it,” said Jessica Tallarico, 30, of Toronto, a newly engaged friend of mine. “So on one occasion, playing around affectionately in bed, my fiancé got the tiniest bit rough and I had such an adverse reaction to what would normally be playful. Adverse as in, I became defensive, flooded with a bit of fear.

“This felt so strange to me because it happened with my partner who I love and trust immensely, and he did nothing wrong or really that out of the ordinary.”

Making women feel fearful and defensive toward men who have done nothing wrong isn’t a side effect of the movement. It’s a goal.


What you see on the screen is a matter of artistic vision. If you think a role calls for a black actor, then you’re not being unfair to Russell Crowe by casting Denzel Washington. But if you tell a lighting director that he can’t have the job he’s qualified for because he’s not gay or a woman, that’s a bit different.

Hollywood’s various powerful unions will likely be quick to point this out. As Christine Rosen of the Weekly Standard notes, the Costume Designers Guild is 80 percent female. So if we’re to take this idea seriously, a lot of qualified women are going to lose jobs to less qualified men. It would work in reverse for the Art Directors Guild, which is 73 percent male.

So why do I want Hollywood to go for it? Because Hollywood rarely practices what it preaches. We get lots of nice award-ceremony speeches about the superior values of Hollywood and how evil big business and Republicans are. We get lots of movies indicting capitalism and glorifying organized labor. The upshot of much of this stuff is that it’s easy to do the right thing, so when society does the wrong thing, it must be because evil people wish it so.

Well, here’s Hollywood’s chance to put its money where its biggest mouths are. And not just the amorphous entity called Hollywood, but the individual actors and directors who just love to preen about their enlightened views. Let’s see them prove they have the courage of their convictions.

Curiously, post-Weinstein and hashtag #metoo, I haven’t seen a lot of headlines on male Hollywood executives voluntarily retiring or retraining for other professions to make way for more women as studio heads or directors. Perhaps that will change now that Frances McDormand has spoken. What say you, Coen Brothers?

STANDARDS: “But breaching the privacy of an intimate relationship seemed worth doing to gynecologist Jen Gunter (writing in the NYT), because it was the male who (from her perspective) lacked interest in having sex. . . . This one individual deserves to have his personal story told in the NYT because in general people have a stereotype that the man is the one who wants sex all the time and it’s women with the lack-of-interest limitation. That’s such an awful basis for betrayal. . . . In the old days, that was called gossiping, and it was considered wrong. Then came consciousness-raising sessions and, later, telling your stories about all the sexual things. . . . Imagine a man telling a similar tale about a woman: I scheduled a night for sex and I got in bed naked, but she didn’t give me sex. What would people say? Who the hell does this guy think he is?! At best! I could imagine him getting denounced in full-on #MeToo mode.”

Remember: A man wants more sex than his wife? Men are awful! A man wants less sex than his wife? Men are awful!

Plus, from the comments: “I have asked myself, in this metoo moment, what is the analogous tendency in women to man’s lust which, when allowed to run to excess, becomes harmful and indecent? My answer was gossip.”

RAPE CHARGES BELONG IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM: Yale Student Found Not Guilty in Rape Trial. “In an interview after the verdict, Norman Pattis, a lawyer for Mr. Khan, said he had tried to challenge ‘the outer limits of the #MeToo movement,’ which he called ‘a form of mass hysteria.’ ‘Sex happens, especially on college campuses,’ he said.”


When the guy who hosted the breast-obsessed ‘Man Show’ appears onstage with an NBA player once accused of rape to give awards to people who spent decades doing business with Harvey Weinstein — you know Hollywood has gotten serious about sexual harassment.

I have no comment about the crop of overrated movies honored by the Academy Sunday night — other than to note that giving the Best Picture nod to ‘Handicapped Woman Has Sex With Fish Man, Is Saved By Communists’ may be the most #Oscars! moment ever. What is worthy of notice is the nonstop self-congratulations from society’s most notoriously corrupt class, the Hollywood Left.

Elsewhere, Jonah Goldberg writes:

[M]ost people don’t see the movies that the Oscars honor — only two of the nominees for Best Picture grossed more than $100 million — Jimmy Kimmel said that making money isn’t the point. ‘We don’t make films like Call Me By Your Name for money. We make them to upset Mike Pence.’

Hah hah and all that. But Kimmel’s right (though probably not literally). Hollywood does make a lot of movies to be transgressive. In one sense, that’s fine; self-styled artistes are allowed to make the movies they want. And as I said, some of them are great. But no one should be surprised when the ratings for the Oscars are lousy, given that they mostly celebrate movies that are hostile — or simply unappealing — to vast swathes of the movie-going and TV-watching audience. Particularly when those honored are so liable to preen about how clever and brave they are.

Speaking of Call Me By Your Name, over the weekend, the New York Times asked “How Do You Solve a Problem Like ‘Manhattan’?”, exploring how problematic Woody Allen’s 1979 film, once considered a stylish modern classic, has become post-Weinstein:

[As] Lisa Schwarzbaum, the former movie critic for Entertainment Weekly, pointed out in an email interview, ‘‘Manhattan’ was always about a middle-aged man with a high school girlfriend. Back then, ‘Manhattan’ was made by Woody the Lovable Neurotic Nebbish, and now it has been made by Allen the Monster. And it’s the same movie.”

Call Me By Your Name also concerns a relationship between a 17 year old and an adult, except this time around they’re both of the same gender. Other than to troll Mike Pence, why isn’t this film considered equally problematic among today’s allegedly reformed denizens of Hollywood?   

Update: Post was slightly reformatted for ease of readability.

#TIMESUP: Nashville’s Democratic Mayor Megan Barry Is Expected To Resign Today.

UPDATE: Nashville Mayor Megan Barry pleads guilty to theft charges, resignation imminent.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Mayor Megan Barry thanks Nashville as she resigns from office. This is hard for Tennessee Democrats, as she was going to be their great female hope for winning statewide office again, especially with an expected wave of #MeToo enthusiasm from women voters. Instead, well . . .


KYLE SMITH: Virtue-signaling reaches a new extreme in the silly ‘#MenToo’ online petition.

Attention all problematic dudes: Would you like to distance yourself from any sleazy behavior toward women in the past and proudly attach the adjective “former” to your problematic-dude status? The New York Times has the means. Sign an online “affirmative consent pledge.” Swear to the following: “I’m a Man, and I Commit to Making Sure All My Sexual Encounters Are Fully Consensual.”

The man behind this nonbinding, meaningless, and superfluous consent pledge is author Michael Ellsberg, whom the Times is promoting in a splashy, fawning feature, complete with animated graphics (“#MeToo” is transformed into “#MenToo” when a friendly-looking anthropomorphic “N” saunters into the headline, waving at readers) and one of those dramatic portraits that features Ellsberg gazing courageously into a more honest and better future. Presumably Ellsberg’s future will be more gentlemanly than his past, because in the interview he admits to Aziz Ansari–like behavior and acting like the guy in the New Yorker short story “Cat Person” — which is to say, being a major jerk.

Yes, well, Hollywood is trying to reinvent itself with conspicuous virtue-signaling now too: Hollywood Is Suddenly Serious. That’s Exactly What America Needs Right Now.

But if America overall seems to have backslid into a darker age, Hollywood is examining everything in a new, more starkly revealing light. Over the past five months alone, Hollywood has moved quickly to right long-established wrongs and to rattle ancient modes of thinking. The revelations about Weinstein crashed like a tidal wave: even though the fallen mogul had plenty of enablers, relatively few people–beyond the women he abused or harassed–grasped the full extent of his manipulative, devious behavior. In our naiveté, we’d always assumed that beautiful, successful female actors just drifted through life, untouched by the travails ordinary women deal with every day; suddenly, we knew differently, as women risked their careers to speak out first about Weinstein and then, in a swell that became bigger and louder by the day, other abusers. The subsequent and swift downfall of other Hollywood players changed everything about how we view women–or anyone who doesn’t hold the big power cards–in the entertainment business. Now Hollywood isn’t just part of the political conversation; it’s actively driving it, motivating its denizens to speak out about certain core American values in a way we’ve never seen before.

But you know the rule: The more virtue signaling, the less actual virtue. And in Hollywood’s case, it’s just more whitening applied to the sepulcher.

CATHY YOUNG: Monica Lewinsky Is No #MeToo Heroine.

The #MeToo revolution against sexual abuse has a new unlikely heroine: Monica Lewinsky. The former White House intern, now a 44-year-old activist, has a new essay in Vanity Fair reexamining her past in light of the post-Harvey Weinstein reckoning.

The piece has been widely praised as a smart, necessary contribution to our national conversation about sex, power and consent. It is indeed a fascinating essay. But its main takeaway should be to raise more questions about whether #MeToo in its current version represents progress.

Until now, Lewinsky has always insisted that her relationship with President Bill Clinton was fully consensual and mutual, despite the vast gap in their position and age — and despite efforts by Clinton foes to portray his actions toward her as predatory.

“To Lewinsky’s credit, she never portrayed herself as any kind of victim of Clinton’s advances,” Jeffrey Toobin wrote in his 2000 book, “A Vast Conspiracy: The Real Story of the Sex Scandal That Nearly Brought Down a President.”

In her first confessional piece for Vanity Fair in 2014, Lewinsky stuck to that position. She asserted that she felt abused in the aftermath of the affair, when special prosecutor Kenneth Starr strong-armed her into testifying while Clinton minions tried to smear her to protect the President. But the affair itself? “Sure, my boss took advantage of me, but I will always remain firm on this point: It was a consensual relationship.”

Well, “always” didn’t last long — only another four years. . . . Lewinsky also asserts that her earlier denials of victimhood were a self-deluded way of dealing with trauma and reclaiming her dignity.

So it was consensual until she changed her mind. I swear, someone’s going to write a book calling for a return to patriarchy, using nothing but the words of #MeToo advocates as evidence that women can’t make good decisions on their own.

#METOO IS RACIST? Woman Who Lied to Police About 3 Black Men Raping and Kidnapping Her Faces Zero Years in Prison. Sadly, it’s newsworthy when women get prison time for lying about rape in any circumstances.

WELL, POSSIBLY THE FIRST FATAL VICTIM: Searing Big Screen “Chappaquiddick” Thriller: Mary Jo Kopechne as First #MeToo Victim of Kennedy Family Money, Power and Corruption.

I think the ghosts of Marilyn Monroe, Jackie Kennedy and Rosemary Kennedy might take exception with Roger Friedman’s headline.


Warren Buffett on Saturday released his annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders, covering the year 2017. This year it struck me as newsworthy more for what was omitted than for what was in there.

Despite Buffett’s Democratic-leaning politics, there was nothing in the letter complaining about President Trump. No pleas for free trade, no pleas for immigration reform to accommodate the “dreamers,” no pleas for gun control, no major complaints about the tax law (though some brief discussion of how it affects Berkshire). No mention of the #MeToo movement, though there is a borderline inappropriate comment in Buffett’s letter about how board members encouraging CEOs to consider possible acquisitions is “a bit like telling your ripening teenager to be sure to have a normal sex life.”

Nor was there any discussion of Berkshire’s selling of its roughly $10 billion stake in IBM. There was no discussion of the problems at Wells Fargo, which at year-end was Berkshire’s largest single common stock investment, with a stake valued at $29 billion. Buffett previously has been all too happy to testify to shareholders about how “very well-run” a bank Wells Fargo was. There was no discussion of the joint health care project that Berkshire Hathaway, Amazon, and JP Morgan Chase announced recently.

Much more at the link, from Ira Stoll.

#METOO, NASHVILLE EDITION: Megan Barry’s lover Sgt Rob Forrest paid $53K more than other bodyguards combined. To be fair, he was providing more services.

The nice thing is, when you’re a female Democrat you can have an affair like this — at taxpayer expense — and a female columnist in the New York Times will womansplain how you’re the real victim here.

#METOO’S LATEST: Womansplaining Megan Barry’s Affair With A Married Subordinate.


● Shot: When It Comes to Sexual Assault and Rape, Why Aren’t Women Believed?

—Headline, Yahoo News UK, December 16th, 2017.

● Chaser: How an Alt-Right Bot Network Took Down Al Franken.

—Headline, Yahoo News UK, today.

As Iowahawk tweets, “Now it can be told: he was lured into a honey trap by Natasha X-11, the Kremlin’s secret ultra bootybot.”

Note that the article on Franken is by Newsweek’s Nina Burleigh, who famously told Howard Kurtz in 1998 that “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.” Propping up Clinton’s White House during his impeachment hearings is an understandable maneuver for a Democratic activist with a byline; does Burleigh believe that Franken’s career in politics can be resuscitated?

Update: As Glenn tweets, “So #MeToo is a Russian influence op? Now it all makes sense.”

Heh, indeed comrade.

WHAT IS SHE, 14? California Democrat, and #MeToo activist, allegedly urged staffers to play ‘spin the bottle.’

HOW WE GOT HERE: From the Family Parlor to the Back Seat to #MeToo.

Read the whole thing.

BLUE ON BLUE: The Left’s War Against The New York Times.

The Times has flourished under Trump, witnessing a surge in digital subscriptions and regularly breaking major news about the administration and the Russia inquiry (not to mention #MeToo). Yet liberal criticism of the Times has also intensified, especially on social media. Not a day passes, it seems, without a prominent Twitter user complaining that the Times is biased against the left, too friendly to Trump and his supporters, or engaging in false equivalences between Democrats and Republicans.

Reporter Michael Schmidt was criticized for not asking more follow-up questions during an impromptu sit-down with Trump in December. His colleague Richard Fausset was accused of normalizing a neo-Nazi in his profile of an Ohio white nationalist the month before. Critics frequently charge that the Times is preoccupied with giving a voice to Trump supporters or even just saying something nice about the president, and the paper has openly struggled with how to cover racists. Broader criticisms go to questions of framing and context—whether news analysis of Trump is too gentle, like when Peter Baker described the president’s “reality-show accessibility,” or why the Times’ mobile phone push notifications seem strangely favorable to the White House. And then there’s the steady moan about the Times opinion section—not just stalwarts like Brooks and Ross Douthat, but Bret Stephens and Bari Weiss, both of whom joined the paper last year from The Wall Street Journal.

“I think there’s been a lot more anger from the grassroots against the Times,” Willis told me. “They’re able to be more vocal about it because of social media and Twitter specifically.” Sean McElwee, a socialist policy analyst and columnist at The Outline, said this anger sometimes “unites everyone from a deeply anti-imperialist socialist to someone who works at a center-left think tank.”

The Left turns on its own, always.

TEACH WOMEN NOT TO HARASS: California #MeToo advocate hit with new claims of misconduct. “California Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia, a vocal #MeToo leader, faces fresh allegations of misconduct in her office, including frequent discussions about sex and alcohol consumption at the Capitol. San Diego lawyer Dan Gilleon filed a formal complaint Wednesday with the Legislature detailing the allegations on behalf of four anonymous former employees in Garcia’s office.”

WELL, #METOO IS ABOUT THE PREFERENCES OF A FAIRLY NARROW SLICE OF WOMEN: ‘They Don’t Want to Include Women Like Me.’ Sex Workers Say They’re Being Left Out of the #MeToo Movement. “Sex workers say they have often been marginalized by mainstream feminist movements.”

STEPHANIE GUTMANN IS NOT HAPPY: #METOO IS KILLING SEDUCTION: Male assertiveness is not necessarily a bad thing. “Feminist writing can be extremely dense – in the academic manner – but it boiled down to ‘We’ve been distracted by this consent/no consent question. This hang up over consent, emerging from legal codes which were of course written by men, is obsolete. Sex itself… er, the kind with men.. is the problem.’”

I see no reason why social mores should be determined by the preferences of women’s studies majors with mental health issues.