Amusingly, the movie title is a tell...or a Freudian slip. The expression often used to describe rape or any sexual assault trials is "He Says, She Says". But here we just get "She Said" - unwittingly, but accurately, suggesting that "he" didn't get his fair "say" at all.
So good, Rick, so true. The phrase "He said, she said" always implies lack of solid evidence. As so often lately with the social justice Left, there is not even a pretence of even-handedness. She said 'Let there be a ruined man ...' and it was so.
Wouldn't it be wonderful to do a film based on that magnificent DAMN Handbook (How to Damn a Man Now), documenting the mobification of justice under #MeToo? I would love to be involved in that in some way.
I gave the wrong title, but I'm sure you noticed. It's Destroy a Man Now (DAMN): A Handbook. I can't praise it enough. Some people thought it was a real handbook written by a feminist, or faulted the book for showing women how they can make their accusations stick, as if unscrupulous women haven't already figured that out. In fact, it is clearly a satirical and angry expose of the #MeToo movement showing how any semblance of presumption of innocence has been destroyed in North American and other western societies as a result of #BelieveWomen nonsense. A friend of mine was pretty sure he had figured out, from evidence provided within the book, that the pseudonymous author was an American professor. Whoever he is, he is super smart and aware.
Why is Janice the only clear sighted and balanced commentator on this and related matters? Thank you, Janice, once again, for bringing sane rationality to bear on an issue usually addressed with partisan emotion and political hysteria.
I’m so glad I recently retired from my government HR role where my office was overrun with ‘starlets’ alleging all sorts of devious behaviour from male colleagues. Historical complaints mostly and quite obviously promoted by the #metoo tornado. Of all the complaints that came through our doors only a very small amount were upheld. What was left was a long trail of damaged careers for a lot of men. I’m actually quite ashamed of the handholding and tissue passing I did for so long listening to these women. I don’t think we’ve reached the peak of this madness yet. What I am grateful for is how the #metoo movement spun me 180 degrees and I’m now a proud lapsed feminist.
I’m brave enough but don’t have the energy for the backlash. I’m now enjoying an offgrid existence in the bush as far away from government overreach as possible hoping the world comes to its senses.
The harm done to a wrongfully accused man even if found innocent, is very much greater than the harm done to a woman who was so called sexually assaulted. That man will still be thought of as a pervert/weirdo for life. His personal an professional reputations will forever be destroyed. Like you said there is a trail of damaged careers for a lot of men. After the fact a so-called sexually assaulted woman can still go on with her life, a man can't
Thank you for this! I don't think I'd seen this one then, though I had certainly read about Donna Rotunno and watched her speak. She was tough and articulate and magnificent! I don't know anything about her subsequent career, do you? I hope she's defended more falsely accused men. I'd love to know that she has made it a legal specialty. I admire her passion and intelligence.
👍 No, I haven't followed her career since then but might look it up. Just amazed she was able to hold her temper with that awful interviewer! Agree - a very smart, tough woman completely unswayed by #Metoo sensationalism.
Why do I get the impression of the "Sacrificial Lamb." There are more than enough stories of men whose alleged behaviour gets hung out to dry. The public pillorying of high-profile men, the character assassinations.
The world has changed, and they are being tried and convicted of behaviour that may not have been seen as acceptable.
The net effect is from what I understand more and more men are avoiding relationships with women, intimate or otherwise.
Scapegoat for sure, with emphasis on the 'goat.' I wouldn't call Harvey Weinstein a 'lamb' by any means. He was crude and rude and brusque. I don't know if he actually raped anyone, but he certainly didn't romance the women who came to him, and I wish he'd been nicer and more humane. But I definitely don't believe he deserved 23 years in prison (what a loss to Hollywood, aside from the basic injustice) for having what was obviously transactional sex with Jessica Mann and Miriam Haleyi.
There's a youtube channel called factly, an Indian lady who fact checks interesting stories, the other day she had a video "FACT CHECK: Jail for those who Stare at Women/Girls for Longer than 14 Seconds?" Spoiler: Yeah, looking at a woman is illegal in India, if she complains and can get you 2 years - it doesn't actually have to be 14 seconds, could be a glance.
What does it even mean to say that a man is guilty when we are all guilty, every breath we take is a felony if it offends a woman or she claims it does.
I know a young man who was expelled from his college for allegedly staring at two girls while he was in a waiting room somewhere on a college campus. He was informed that 'his gaze was too intense.' If you look up the sexual harassment policies of various colleges, staring is listed as a form of sexual harassment for which one can be disciplined (Ohio State is one, if I'm remembering correctly). I don't think it is yet actually illegal--YET.
My take on the Harvey Weinstein matter. No witnesses and no evidence. It was a he said she said matter. Most likely those women, unlike Kamala Harris, were unsuccessful in sleeping their way to the top, so they made up the sexual assault story.
I went to a criminal justice reform town hall,. There a woman in tears told Michigan AG Dana Nessel that her brother was convicted of a sex crime with no evidence and no witnesses. With a a tone of satisfaction in her voice, Ms. Nessel said that all that is needed to put a man behind bars is for any women to to make any claim against a man with no witnesses and no evidence. She did not at all care that an innocent man's life was ruined.
Enshrined Western democracies is the presumption of innocence and the rights to due legal process, judicial fairness ands a fair trial. The “MeMeMeToo” movement is just one of the latest feminist campaigns to pervert and subjugate prosecutorial ethics and legal obligations in our courts when it comes to allegations of domestic violence, allegations of sexual assault and in family law, and replace it with a core tenant of the feminist theory “Believe all women”. This is also evidenced by feminist initiated and dictated changes to our laws, such as making definitions of the crimes of domestic violence and sexual assault, broad and as vague so as to secure more convictions and have minor infringements given the same penalty. We see this clearly in the “coercive control” laws being enacted all across Australia. Prosecutorial ethics and legal obligations have reach an all-time low in AU as evidenced in the Lehrmann /Higgins rape mistrial (which was predominantly conducted in the media and parliaments); the ACT government moving to “reform” the ACT Evidence Act so that the accuser and the DPP star witness did not have to appear as a witness in the retrial
The irony of the malignant feminist “MeMeMeToo” movement is that, like the many men who have had allegations levelled at them (the preponderance of which were never tested in a court of law) for abuse of their positions of purported power for personal gain and gratification, these women and enablers /handlers are using their positions of demonstrable power for not only personal gain and gratification, but also to seek to give vent to their self-entitlement, wrath and angst on a selected, socially acceptable male victim. And in the few cases where the allegations are true; to extract revenge.
It's very concerning that these social justice films aren't drawing big crowds. The next step should be mandatory viewing, not just in universities but for the general public. Under the social credit system, you should get points for watching them, and lose points if you fail to do so.
LOL ~ for a moment there I missed the irony. For feminists, no doubt this film will become like the "Red Pill"; very few will watch it, "but all will spruik the feminists take on it, in this case the feminist line will be “the movie [script] was true because ‘She Said’ it was”… not to dissimilar to the paradigm in our domestic violence and family courts where the feminist theory is firmly entrenched.
You have to admire some of these women's ability to both 'have their cake and eat it.' Using unethical means to get ahead, then regaining moral innocence years later when they rewrite history.
They were canny about it. They kept open the possibility of using Weinstein for years, corresponding with him, flattering him, telling him they loved him. Then when he was of no more use, they turned to destroy him. It's almost mythical in its simplicity and savagery.
She Said (2022) isn't the first movie of its kind. Bombshell (2019) was another post-#MeToo film, based on the sexual assault allegations against Fox News CEO Roger Ailes. It also underperformed financially, which raises the possibility the average American was always skeptical of the movement.
I hope that's the case, but defending accused men seems to have no political purchase whatsoever, whether amongst Democrats (definitely not) or Republicans. A lot of conservatives were really happy to see Weinstein go down, and most conservative men are more than willing to jump on their high horse to defend a wronged woman.
I've not watched Bombshell but I did watch The Loudest Voice which I thoroughly enjoyed. If you have watched both, I would appreciate reading how you compare the two
I expected what I thought were explicit parallels between the Weinstein trial and that of Jian Ghomeshi, especially the hyperbole in the press by feminist journalists. I found some sense of sanity in the podcast The Harvey Weinstein Trial: Unfiltered The Unreported Story Society. The Irish documentarians deeply analyze the accusations and weigh them against the testimony. As a bonus, they interview Dr Loftus for her interpretations as to how the memories of the accusers were likely manipulated and altered to placate their egos and preserve their reputations as perpetual ingenues
The title, “She said”, as an abbreviation of the old phrase, says it all. The “He said” portion has no merit. Time has come today for men and the objective women to lobby legislatures and take legal action when possible to correct these abuses of men. It will be a decades long effort, so start now.
Amusingly, the movie title is a tell...or a Freudian slip. The expression often used to describe rape or any sexual assault trials is "He Says, She Says". But here we just get "She Said" - unwittingly, but accurately, suggesting that "he" didn't get his fair "say" at all.
So good, Rick, so true. The phrase "He said, she said" always implies lack of solid evidence. As so often lately with the social justice Left, there is not even a pretence of even-handedness. She said 'Let there be a ruined man ...' and it was so.
Perhaps there will be a sequel called 'He Said'... it might be better attended.
Wouldn't it be wonderful to do a film based on that magnificent DAMN Handbook (How to Damn a Man Now), documenting the mobification of justice under #MeToo? I would love to be involved in that in some way.
I haven't read it yet, but if it's that good I will order it now.
I gave the wrong title, but I'm sure you noticed. It's Destroy a Man Now (DAMN): A Handbook. I can't praise it enough. Some people thought it was a real handbook written by a feminist, or faulted the book for showing women how they can make their accusations stick, as if unscrupulous women haven't already figured that out. In fact, it is clearly a satirical and angry expose of the #MeToo movement showing how any semblance of presumption of innocence has been destroyed in North American and other western societies as a result of #BelieveWomen nonsense. A friend of mine was pretty sure he had figured out, from evidence provided within the book, that the pseudonymous author was an American professor. Whoever he is, he is super smart and aware.
The book seems to have disappeared, unfortunately. I can't find it online. Perhaps it was banned because it was too close to the truth.
Does this work?
https://norskk.is/bytta/menn/damn_angela.pdf
Why is Janice the only clear sighted and balanced commentator on this and related matters? Thank you, Janice, once again, for bringing sane rationality to bear on an issue usually addressed with partisan emotion and political hysteria.
I’m so glad I recently retired from my government HR role where my office was overrun with ‘starlets’ alleging all sorts of devious behaviour from male colleagues. Historical complaints mostly and quite obviously promoted by the #metoo tornado. Of all the complaints that came through our doors only a very small amount were upheld. What was left was a long trail of damaged careers for a lot of men. I’m actually quite ashamed of the handholding and tissue passing I did for so long listening to these women. I don’t think we’ve reached the peak of this madness yet. What I am grateful for is how the #metoo movement spun me 180 degrees and I’m now a proud lapsed feminist.
Wow, what a testimonial! Thanks for this. Have you ever considered writing about the experience (perhaps even anonymously)?
I’m brave enough but don’t have the energy for the backlash. I’m now enjoying an offgrid existence in the bush as far away from government overreach as possible hoping the world comes to its senses.
My husband and I fantasize about escaping it all too.
The harm done to a wrongfully accused man even if found innocent, is very much greater than the harm done to a woman who was so called sexually assaulted. That man will still be thought of as a pervert/weirdo for life. His personal an professional reputations will forever be destroyed. Like you said there is a trail of damaged careers for a lot of men. After the fact a so-called sexually assaulted woman can still go on with her life, a man can't
Check out the Brittany Higgins case happening in Australia right now. This is great example of your point.
When I think back to that time, I always call to mind this amazing interview with his lawyer - https://youtu.be/foT7VtupDBs
- especially her comments just before 7'00" - "I don't think men have any power any more". Certainly true when it comes to false allegations.
Thank you for this! I don't think I'd seen this one then, though I had certainly read about Donna Rotunno and watched her speak. She was tough and articulate and magnificent! I don't know anything about her subsequent career, do you? I hope she's defended more falsely accused men. I'd love to know that she has made it a legal specialty. I admire her passion and intelligence.
👍 No, I haven't followed her career since then but might look it up. Just amazed she was able to hold her temper with that awful interviewer! Agree - a very smart, tough woman completely unswayed by #Metoo sensationalism.
Why do I get the impression of the "Sacrificial Lamb." There are more than enough stories of men whose alleged behaviour gets hung out to dry. The public pillorying of high-profile men, the character assassinations.
The world has changed, and they are being tried and convicted of behaviour that may not have been seen as acceptable.
The net effect is from what I understand more and more men are avoiding relationships with women, intimate or otherwise.
Scapegoat for sure, with emphasis on the 'goat.' I wouldn't call Harvey Weinstein a 'lamb' by any means. He was crude and rude and brusque. I don't know if he actually raped anyone, but he certainly didn't romance the women who came to him, and I wish he'd been nicer and more humane. But I definitely don't believe he deserved 23 years in prison (what a loss to Hollywood, aside from the basic injustice) for having what was obviously transactional sex with Jessica Mann and Miriam Haleyi.
One thing I have learnt, it is hard to figure out what is true when it is presented by the media.
Even reading widely different accounts, can still be extremely difficult.
There's a youtube channel called factly, an Indian lady who fact checks interesting stories, the other day she had a video "FACT CHECK: Jail for those who Stare at Women/Girls for Longer than 14 Seconds?" Spoiler: Yeah, looking at a woman is illegal in India, if she complains and can get you 2 years - it doesn't actually have to be 14 seconds, could be a glance.
What does it even mean to say that a man is guilty when we are all guilty, every breath we take is a felony if it offends a woman or she claims it does.
I know a young man who was expelled from his college for allegedly staring at two girls while he was in a waiting room somewhere on a college campus. He was informed that 'his gaze was too intense.' If you look up the sexual harassment policies of various colleges, staring is listed as a form of sexual harassment for which one can be disciplined (Ohio State is one, if I'm remembering correctly). I don't think it is yet actually illegal--YET.
Another masterpiece.
I've shared your work with family and friends, as I find you to be very admirable!
Have a great weekend!
May the Wind Be at Your Back.
My take on the Harvey Weinstein matter. No witnesses and no evidence. It was a he said she said matter. Most likely those women, unlike Kamala Harris, were unsuccessful in sleeping their way to the top, so they made up the sexual assault story.
I went to a criminal justice reform town hall,. There a woman in tears told Michigan AG Dana Nessel that her brother was convicted of a sex crime with no evidence and no witnesses. With a a tone of satisfaction in her voice, Ms. Nessel said that all that is needed to put a man behind bars is for any women to to make any claim against a man with no witnesses and no evidence. She did not at all care that an innocent man's life was ruined.
Enshrined Western democracies is the presumption of innocence and the rights to due legal process, judicial fairness ands a fair trial. The “MeMeMeToo” movement is just one of the latest feminist campaigns to pervert and subjugate prosecutorial ethics and legal obligations in our courts when it comes to allegations of domestic violence, allegations of sexual assault and in family law, and replace it with a core tenant of the feminist theory “Believe all women”. This is also evidenced by feminist initiated and dictated changes to our laws, such as making definitions of the crimes of domestic violence and sexual assault, broad and as vague so as to secure more convictions and have minor infringements given the same penalty. We see this clearly in the “coercive control” laws being enacted all across Australia. Prosecutorial ethics and legal obligations have reach an all-time low in AU as evidenced in the Lehrmann /Higgins rape mistrial (which was predominantly conducted in the media and parliaments); the ACT government moving to “reform” the ACT Evidence Act so that the accuser and the DPP star witness did not have to appear as a witness in the retrial
The irony of the malignant feminist “MeMeMeToo” movement is that, like the many men who have had allegations levelled at them (the preponderance of which were never tested in a court of law) for abuse of their positions of purported power for personal gain and gratification, these women and enablers /handlers are using their positions of demonstrable power for not only personal gain and gratification, but also to seek to give vent to their self-entitlement, wrath and angst on a selected, socially acceptable male victim. And in the few cases where the allegations are true; to extract revenge.
Well said.
It's very concerning that these social justice films aren't drawing big crowds. The next step should be mandatory viewing, not just in universities but for the general public. Under the social credit system, you should get points for watching them, and lose points if you fail to do so.
LOL ~ for a moment there I missed the irony. For feminists, no doubt this film will become like the "Red Pill"; very few will watch it, "but all will spruik the feminists take on it, in this case the feminist line will be “the movie [script] was true because ‘She Said’ it was”… not to dissimilar to the paradigm in our domestic violence and family courts where the feminist theory is firmly entrenched.
That's probably being written into law right now.
You have to admire some of these women's ability to both 'have their cake and eat it.' Using unethical means to get ahead, then regaining moral innocence years later when they rewrite history.
They were canny about it. They kept open the possibility of using Weinstein for years, corresponding with him, flattering him, telling him they loved him. Then when he was of no more use, they turned to destroy him. It's almost mythical in its simplicity and savagery.
If the sex was consensual, and it seems it was, shouldn't the women be jailed for prostitution, along with Weinstein; and the rape charge vacated?
She Said (2022) isn't the first movie of its kind. Bombshell (2019) was another post-#MeToo film, based on the sexual assault allegations against Fox News CEO Roger Ailes. It also underperformed financially, which raises the possibility the average American was always skeptical of the movement.
I hope that's the case, but defending accused men seems to have no political purchase whatsoever, whether amongst Democrats (definitely not) or Republicans. A lot of conservatives were really happy to see Weinstein go down, and most conservative men are more than willing to jump on their high horse to defend a wronged woman.
Let's hope the Depp v. Heard trial helps people rethink that. There were even feminists willing to acknowledge female wrongdoing in the face of it:
https://medium.com/@christiebrkt/stop-defending-amber-heard-and-telling-me-how-to-be-a-feminist-aed8ca690fff
I've not watched Bombshell but I did watch The Loudest Voice which I thoroughly enjoyed. If you have watched both, I would appreciate reading how you compare the two
I haven't watched any of these movies; I just know them by reputation.
I expected what I thought were explicit parallels between the Weinstein trial and that of Jian Ghomeshi, especially the hyperbole in the press by feminist journalists. I found some sense of sanity in the podcast The Harvey Weinstein Trial: Unfiltered The Unreported Story Society. The Irish documentarians deeply analyze the accusations and weigh them against the testimony. As a bonus, they interview Dr Loftus for her interpretations as to how the memories of the accusers were likely manipulated and altered to placate their egos and preserve their reputations as perpetual ingenues
The title, “She said”, as an abbreviation of the old phrase, says it all. The “He said” portion has no merit. Time has come today for men and the objective women to lobby legislatures and take legal action when possible to correct these abuses of men. It will be a decades long effort, so start now.