When Knights surrender their sword – the problem of effeminate men


“Effeminate men abdicate their divinely-directed duties to sacrifice themselves for the greater good: the well-being of women, the survival of their nation, the protection of Truth. Should a man, at any point, forgo these directives for his own comfort or well-being, he succumbs to an effeminacy that creates a vacuum only a stronger, malevolent force can fill.

In the case of Harvey Weinstein, the men in his purview, by their own admission, were too consumed with self-interest to protect the women from becoming prey to his bestial nature, allotting him free reign to terrorize them for decades. Had Weinstein been stopped when his predatory nature revealed itself, he would have never been allowed to become such a cultural powerhouse.”



What about these women’s duty to sacrifice themselves for the well-being of other women?

These women could have easily taken him down whenever they wanted, but they didn’t want to risk their own careers, and I’m sure plenty of them played that game anyway and are only piling on now because there is blood in the water. Guys like Weinstien don’t do it if it don’t work sometimes.


Certainly women have a responsibility not to be complicit in moral evil. That is no excuse for men to avoid their own responsibility when they should speak up and act.


Has the title from back in the 90’s (?) sensitive new age guy had a hand in all this ? I was just thinking over that yesterday


false gods of sexual hedonism and radical individualism

Harvey Weinstein and other sexual deviants like him in Hollywood are the offspring of these.


What does this even mean anyway? The Catholic Church dances around the interpretation of any of St. Paul’s writings that might upset the feminists. So if you want Catholic, masculine leadership, you are going to have to do something about that problem first.

This is just another plea for men to make feminism and the sexual revolution safe for women. I am not having any part of that.


All people, regardless of their sex, are equally capable of speaking up in a situation like the Weinstein case. It does not take masculine strength or any other inherently masculine trait to be instruments of truth. It just so happens that more women than men knew of Harvey’s nature, and so they would naturally be the ones to speak up first. At that point it becomes the duty of everyone -men and women - to listen to them and defend them. Of course any man who knew of Weinstein’s actions and did nothing is complicit in the crimes he committed.


The Weinstein situation is a sad plot that has been played countless times over the centuries. You have a man of considerable wealth and power, who can snuff out careers with ease. Men, women, masculine, effeminate, at the end of the day people of all stripes can be cowed into either being abused, or turn the other way when abuse is happening. Some can even be turned into unwitting or unwilling collaborators.

When these sorts of abuse scandals pop up, you get people puffing out their chests and declaring “We’ll I wouldn’t put up with that!” and yet I suspect most that say that would, if put in a similar situation, where there career and livelihoods are at stake, simply put their heads own.


Please tell me I’m wrong, but your post sounds like you are justifying the acts of the perpetrator because of the lack of action of the victims…almost seems like you are saying if victims 1, 2, and 3 did not blow the whistle, those victims are complicit in the crime of the assault on subsequent victims.:astonished:


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


The “casting couch” has been a part of Hollywood culture almost since the beginning. It has often been the punchline to a joke, but generations of actresses have come into Hollywood and forced into the same choice. And Hollywood is hardly the only place where women find themselves in the position where career advancement comes with a sexual price. In a perfect world, yes, every woman would have the strength to walk away from such an offer, but in the real world, temptation can take over.

I’m not saying it’s right that some women sleep with men for career advancement, but I’m not willing to say they aren’t victims either, and often in Hollywood, as with other places, the lure of success can tempt people into compromises of this kind.

The problem here, whether the women in question were sexually assaulted or more willingly took part, is that this is how institutional abuse works. It gets ingrained in the very system itself, its core ethos, that to get to the top, you’re going to have to allow yourself to subjected to a certain degree of perversity. In some cases, it doesn’t even appear that sexual acts were directly involved. One actress was put in a nude lineup by a female producer to show that she needed to lose weight.

This all suggests that the core problem here is the objectification of women. Actresses on a balance get paid less, are often pressured to do more nude or overtly sexual scenes, receive more pressure over weight issues. Not that men in Hollywood don’t have similar pressures, but for women it is that much worse, and while a man can age into a nice middle age leading man role, or even in older age still pursue a career, women find themselves constantly bumping up against this gap as they approach middle age where the roles dry up.

Weinstein and his ilk, who have long been the plague of actresses, is just the most extreme end of the spectrum. So it’s not just about making fat cat producers accountable for their actions, it’s about how the entire industry treats women.


And may I just point out that although there are more women in leadership roles in Hollywood, women still deal with the same pressures about their looks…


No. I’m saying the alleged victims here kept their mouths shut for years rather than risk something. This is revealing for two reasons. One, they thought Harvey Wienstien had the power to completely destroy their career (or worse) regardless of any rape charge. Two, who was it they were afraid of? Mean old conservatives? Fox news? Brietbart?

Nope. They were scared of the feminists, the leftist media, and Hollywood progressives. Very interesting how that works.

Sad truth of life.


Victim blaming occurs when the victim of a crime or any wrongful act is held entirely or partially responsible for the harm that befell them. The study of victimology seeks to mitigate the perception of victims as responsible.


Now that just doesn’t make any sense at all. Why would a woman victim of sexual assault by Weinstein fear feminists, the leftist media, or any other progressives? If anything these are the very groups who would spring to the defense of a woman who claimed she was raped by Weinstein. :face_with_raised_eyebrow:


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Those women were afraid of something, and if they believed what you say to be true than they should have had no fear at all of Weinstein… Which was obviously not the case. If they had believed those groups would protect them, then what were they afriad of and why did it scare them?

Ask Paula Jones, Juanita Broderick, Kathleen Willy, and Kathy Shelton how quick feminists and progressives were to leap to their defense. You can’t ask Mary Jo Kopechne because she was drowned in a car.


You gave two reasons for the women being afraid to come forward. I challenged the second of those two reasons as being non-sensical. But the first of the two reasons you gave was right on the money, and answers the question you now ask quite well.


i'll drink to that


That and a whole lot more.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.