Sexual predators on the Left

Writing at The Daily Beast in the wake of the awful revelations about movie producer Harvey Weinstein, James Kirchick makes the unsurprising point that the political Left, no less than the Right, has its share of sexual predators.

Weinstein is just the latest in a long line of men whose left-wing politics coexisted harmoniously with retrograde attitudes about women. In his statement, Weinstein said that he “came of age in the 60’s and 70’s, when all the rules about behavior and workplaces were different.” Many people scoffed at this explanation, as this was precisely the time when women’s liberation brought workplace sexism to the societal forefront. But Weinstein was right in a way he didn’t comprehend. Ever since second-wave feminism became part of the political left, there have been men who, ostensibly enlightened in the realm of gender relations, are in fact deeply misogynist and believe that their progressive street cred somehow obviates their attitudes about women, attitudes as regressive as those held by the Mad Men-era males who ruled the earth just before the sexual revolution.

Kirchick identifies a number of leftists and liberals who have taken advantage of women sexually and notes that all too often liberals have failed to call them to account– most notably Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton.
I think one of the many reasons we now have a Fake President Trump is that he and his apologists found it strikingly easy to deflect attention from the “Access Hollyood” tape and the many women who accused him of sexual assault by pointing to Bill Clinton and his behavior.
These days Julian Assange is more of a hero to the Right than to the Left. But who can forget George Galloway’s defense of Assange against charges of rape?

… Galloway, a slavish devotee of the Syrian mass-murderer Bashar al-Assad and a one-time comrade of the rapist [Gerry] Healy, rose to defend Assange by claiming that it is not necessarily rape if a man penetrates a woman while she is sleeping. (Galloway speaks with such conviction on this matter that one can only assume he is experienced in the field of having one’s sexual partners fall into slumber mid-coitus). “I mean, not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion,” Galloway assured, speaking on behalf of no woman, ever.

Another sexual scumbag is Sam Kriss, a hard-left supporter of Jeremy Corbyn who wrote for leftwing publications like Vice and The Baffler. After accusations accusation of sexual harassment, Kriss was suspended from the Labour party.

As reported by the object of his unwanted attentions, Kriss’s seduction skills combine the artlessness of a conventional chauvinist with the inimitable entitlement of a Mercedes Marxist:
Sam said, “so do you want to come back to mine to see my massive house?”

“Don’t you mean your parents massive house?”

“Yeah, but when they die I’ll inherit it”
Kriss’s stock-in-trade as a writer is that of a tough guy unafraid to hurl playground insults at his ideological adversaries, to, in his own words, “make unpleasant comments about the way they look or talk,” “place them in gruesome sexual scenarios,” and “indulge in strange fantasies in which they get kidnapped and beaten to a pulp.” Given this modus operandi, it should not come as a surprise that Kriss’s attitude towards women could be summarized as, “Trump is a fascist, Corbyn is our savior, now surrender yourself to my sexual advances.”

Perhaps the hypocrisy is more glaring when leftists and liberals who proclaim their devotion to women’s rights and feminist causes engage in such behavior– and when those who share their political views excuse or overlook it. (However it was the “liberal” New York Times and The New Yorker which published the first accounts of Weinstein’s behavior.)
But as Kirchick observes:

This attitude is the reverse image of, and just as ethically objectionable as, evangelical Christians excusing away Donald Trump’s moral depravity on the reasoning that he will roughly adhere to a socially conservative policy agenda. Both are contemptuous of women. And both betray a conviction that the ends justify the means, that the revolution requires a few broken eggs, that the cause is more important than the individual victims crushed in its path.

http://hurryupharry.org/2017/10/26/sexual-predators-on-the-left/

People who are part of the establishment are hypocrites, I agree.

But no self-respecting liberal or LWer among the general population will continue to support a politician found to have engaged in sexual misconduct. Certainly none on NF.

The same cannot be said for conservatives, RWers and Trump. Who continue to praise him to the moon in spite of his sleezey actions and words.

Eilzel wrote:People who are part of the establishment are hypocrites, I agree.

But no self-respecting liberal or LWer among the general population will continue to support a politician found to have engaged in sexual misconduct. Certainly none on NF.

The same cannot be said for conservatives, RWers and Trump. Who continue to praise him to the moon in spite of his sleezey actions and words.

Who mentioned anyone on newsfix?
Are you paranoid?
Nice dodge by saying "no self respecting"
In other words you are trying to evade the fact that Liberals and the left most certainly have supported sleezy politicians.

Hence why your excuses were poor Eilzel

What was Clintons approval rating when he left office?

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:People who are part of the establishment are hypocrites, I agree.

But no self-respecting liberal or LWer among the general population will continue to support a politician found to have engaged in sexual misconduct. Certainly none on NF.

The same cannot be said for conservatives, RWers and Trump. Who continue to praise him to the moon in spite of his sleezey actions and words.

Who mentioned anyone on newsfix?
Are you paranoid?
Nice dodge by saying "no self respecting"
In other words you are trying to evade the fact that Liberals and the left most certainly have supported sleezy politicians.

Hence why your excuses were poor Eilzel

What was Clintons approval rating when he left office?

The implication of the article is that liberals in general are hypocrites for attacking Trump-supporting conservatives. My post was pointing out that that was not true for the reason I gave.

I have no idea what Clinton's approval rating was in 2000, but since you raise it I'll assume it was decent. To be fair, he had been president for 8 years and done a fairly decent job of it. No justification for his affair of course, and that was nearly 20 years ago.

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:


Who mentioned anyone on newsfix?
Are you paranoid?
Nice dodge by saying "no self respecting"
In other words you are trying to evade the fact that Liberals and the left most certainly have supported sleezy politicians.

Hence why your excuses were poor Eilzel

What was Clintons approval rating when he left office?

The implication of the article is that liberals in general are hypocrites for attacking Trump-supporting conservatives. My post was pointing out that that was not true for the reason I gave.

I have no idea what Clinton's approval rating was in 2000, but since you raise it I'll assume it was decent. To be fair, he had been president for 8 years and done a fairly decent job of it. No justification for his affair of course, and that was nearly 20 years ago.

In the main they are hypocrites.

Take my example of Clinton, who is an utter sleeze and yet he has the biggest approval ratings since the war.
That should not be possible, based on the fact he is an utter sleeze. As no matter what good he did in office should have meant nothing but contempt. And as you pointed out. No self respecting left winger would continue to praise him. Yet he has been continually praised even more since leaving the office.

That means many Liberals render him being a complete sleeze bag as meaningless

Its not just affairs.

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

The implication of the article is that liberals in general are hypocrites for attacking Trump-supporting conservatives. My post was pointing out that that was not true for the reason I gave.

I have no idea what Clinton's approval rating was in 2000, but since you raise it I'll assume it was decent. To be fair, he had been president for 8 years and done a fairly decent job of it. No justification for his affair of course, and that was nearly 20 years ago.

In the main they are hypocrites.

Take my example of Clinton, who is an utter sleeze and yet he has the biggest approval ratings since the war.
That should not be possible, based on the fact he is an utter sleeze. As no matter what good he did in office should have meant nothing but contempt. And as you pointed out. No self respecting left winger would continue to praise him. Yet he has been continually praised even more since leaving the office.

That means many Liberals render him being a complete sleeze bag as meaningless

Its not just affairs.

Such apparent "hypocricy" on tthe part of electorates isn't isolated to American politics,  nor a left-wing/right-wing divide though,  is it Dodge  ???

We can see plenty of examples from many other places --  Britain, France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Greece, the former Yugoslavia, Russia, here in Australia --  where people have not only supported but also kept on re-electing sleazy, dodgy or crooked politicians, various officials and company bosses,  even with clear records of wrongdoings (sleaze bags, sexual predators, corporate criminals, company shills, corrupt bullies, traitors..).

Sure it's wrong -- ethically, morally, or from a practical/'common sense'/ fairness aspects -- and not good for eventual outcomes,  but still it keeps on happening.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Didge wrote:

In the main they are hypocrites.

Take my example of Clinton, who is an utter sleeze and yet he has the biggest approval ratings since the war.
That should not be possible, based on the fact he is an utter sleeze. As no matter what good he did in office should have meant nothing but contempt. And as you pointed out. No self respecting left winger would continue to praise him. Yet he has been continually praised even more since leaving the office.

That means many Liberals render him being a complete sleeze bag as meaningless

Its not just affairs.

Such apparent "hypocricy" on tthe part of electorates isn't isolated to American politics,  nor a left-wing/right-wing divide though,  is it Dodge  ???

We can see plenty of examples from many other places --  Britain, France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Greece, the former Yugoslavia, Russia, here in Australia --  where people have not only supported but also kept on re-electing sleazy, dodgy or crooked politicians, various officials and company bosses,  even with clear records of wrongdoings (sleaze bags, sexual predators, corporate criminals, company shills, corrupt bullies, traitors..).

Sure it's wrong -- ethically, morally, or from a practical/'common sense'/ fairness aspects --  and not good for eventual outcomes,  but still it keeps on happening.

Which proves the point there is many hypocrites on the left does it not?

I never claimed it is isolated to the US.

Why can not the left admit, there is the exact same hypocrisy on points of sleeze.

Now I think Trump is a vile sleeze. I offer no excuses and nor will I to someone as contemptible as he is.

I am centre right and do not make excuses that sadly the right has such vile people and even worse one running the most powerful nation in the world. Yet I do not hold back from condemning Trump ffor what he is.

So why and has seen on here, misdirection is apllied and worse a denial to this?

Second one down

@OP,
Have you done a similar thread about the right too, in the interests of balance? If not, why the fk not?

Are you aware of the alleged accusations against George Bush senior? Yes or no?

Jules wrote:@OP,
Have you done a similar thread about the right too, in the interests of balance? If not, why the fk not?

Are you aware of the alleged accusations against George Bush senior? Yes or no?

Don't think a list of RW pedos will manage to balance the long list of Leftwing liberal pedos in any case

smelly-bandit wrote:

Jules wrote:@OP,
Have you done a similar thread about the right too, in the interests of balance? If not, why the fk not?

Are you aware of the alleged accusations against George Bush senior? Yes or no?

Don't think a list of RW pedos will manage to balance the long list of Leftwing liberal pedos in any case

You just make more and more bullshit up as you go along, Smelly'...

You have to have some sympathy for Stench. The parts of his brain that deal with decency and common sense were discarded with the afterbirth.
He is an army deserter, fled his country for fear of justice, and wears the yellow ribbon of a coward.
I reckon he wears a black poppy.

Angry Andy wrote:You have to have some sympathy for Stench. The parts of his brain that deal with decency and common sense were discarded with the afterbirth.
He is an army deserter, fled his country for fear of justice, and wears the yellow ribbon of a coward.
I reckon he wears a black poppy.

*Chortle *

Have I ever told you, that we remind me of inspector grim from the thin blue line