Feminism rescued woman from her dependence on men. Nevertheless she persisted. She keeps persisting away at depending on men.
Beneath all the noise the ongoing Hollywood sexual harassment scandal documents the present of an age-old practice, women depending on sex to advance in male-dominated fields (and they’re all male-dominated).
That’s why “male dominated fields” exist in the first place. They’re just vast, organized efforts to meet women.
There is a disparity in power for the women of course. Feminism is an attempt to correct that. Earnest feminists assume the power disparity is yet another trick of the patriarchy, and its elimination won’t come at a cost but with a yield: all that female creativity previously denied bursting forth, presumably.
Mostly at this point feminists don’t care. All “rights” movements are in the appropriation phase, what Steve Sailer has called the “Scramble for America”: each politically favored group scrambling for its fair share of the ruin before the others hog it all up.
But the power disparity in the sex-for-advancement scheme exists for good reason: it’s a lot harder for the male to get where he is than the female, who competes in a too-brief window of high value attractiveness against a sea of beautiful eager faces. What the male has to trade is essentially power that translates into a variety of opportunity (including the competing females); the female is trading her intimate self for just a piece of that. The woman who leverages that into her own genuine power is real but rare. More common I’m sure is the young homosexual twink who manages to do so.
Women simply won’t tend toward the same aggressive/creative behavior in general that put the guys where they are in the first place.
It’s all so depressingly obvious.
The inquisition is ruining it all. Not just for the men, but for the young women who were or would like to be complicit. Hollywood is driving away all those horny creative men that are the backbone of the industry. They are not going to replace them with women, woke transsexuals and gay negroes. Wake the hell up, ladies.
But replacement is precisely the game. The model is that of the university race or rape hoax yielding diversibucks and jobs: X group is deemed offended by Y, only correction for Y is more X.
The only way we’re going to solve Hollywood’s sexual assault problem is by putting more women in Hollywood. And the opportunities for that look promising–replacing men with women, not “solving” a sexual assault problem, which of course could just get worse.
By forbidding any criticism of the women involved (unless it’s the rare case of a powerful woman adopting the male model) feminism seeks to maintain a natural advantage desirable women have always had. But in taking away this opportunity for ambitious men, and in driving so many out of an industry the face of which is already changed, they are squelching a great source of advancement for ambitious young women.
The naive assumption of course is that women will be replacing these men in, say, Hollywood, with no lack of decline in quality or profit–nay, with a certain increase in both.
But the reality is to the extent feminism appropriates Hollywood it weakens it, which, big-picture now, might not be such a bad thing. Because of all the feminism Hollywood puts out.