Author: has written 5267 posts for this blog.

Jill has been blogging for Feministe since 2005.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

81 Responses

  1. Caro
    Caro October 1, 2009 at 11:33 am |

    Oh my goodness, that Peg Yorkin quote is unbelievable. “It’s bad a person was raped. But that was so many years ago.” WHAT?! I’d love if Ellie Smeal or someone else from FMF (or any other “famous” mainstream feminists, for that matter) were to come out to oppose that… but somehow I don’t see it happening.

    Jill, I agree that I can almost understand why more actors and directors wouldn’t come out publicly in opposition to the powerful “Free Polanski” people like Weinstein (though kudos to those who have)… but why in the world would you ever feel a need to publicly support it? What are they gaining from it besides the anger of a lot of their fans who now question if they’ve got their heads on straight?

  2. blondie
    blondie October 1, 2009 at 12:00 pm |

    If Roman Polanski directed crap movies, the petitioners would not give two cents about his arrest and extradition. Apparently, they do not understand that someone can create great art and still be a really awful person.

    Leaving aside the “get out of jail free” card that the rich and famous think they all deserve, I have to speculate that this reaction may be a “natural” outgrowth of the extreme commodification of women, their bodies, and their sexuality in the entertainment business, as well as the increasingly early sexualization of young women/girls in the U.S. I think a lot of Polanski’s supporters just don’t see his actions as that big a deal. They are so quick to ignore the very young age of the victim, as well as her testimony about lack of consent. The whole thing really makes me wonder about how young women are treated in the normal course of the entertainment business.

    I’ve already heard people blaming the victim’s mother and speculating about the victim and her mother using this to try to get the victim roles in the movie biz. I’m just waiting for the jerk who suggests that the victim was lucky that someone of Polanski’s stature would pay attention to her.

  3. Superla
    Superla October 1, 2009 at 12:08 pm |

    Say it ain’t so, Natalie Portman! WTF? I once had a lot of respect for her.

  4. insomniac
    insomniac October 1, 2009 at 12:10 pm |

    Amen, Bo Zenga, I’m glad someone from Hollywood said it.

  5. When Even Feminists Don’t Get It « Tiny Cat Pants

    [...] Even Feminists Don’t Get It Posted on October 1, 2009 by Aunt B. I saw this over at Feministe, and I gasped: “My personal thoughts are let the guy go,” said Peg Yorkin, founder of the [...]

  6. Megan
    Megan October 1, 2009 at 12:37 pm |

    I could not believe the Peg Yorkin quote when I picked up the paper today, my first thought was “Are you KIDDING me?”
    I quickly headed to the computer to verify the information. When pulling up the FMF history page, there was Whoopie Goldberg’s face.
    I called the local office in Beverly Hills to voice my strong disapproval and express my hope that they will do SOMETHING about this, some kind of statement. I was assured they were working on it and was offered apologies over this very disappointing situation. Disappointing doesn’t even begin to cover this. FYI – Beverly Hills Office 310-556-2500, Washington office 703-522-2214

  7. Bitter Scribe
    Bitter Scribe October 1, 2009 at 12:50 pm |

    Everything I ever read about Harvey Weinstein and his brother has indicated that the pair of them are card-carrying assholes. I know, this doesn’t exactly distinguish them in Hollywood, but it makes me roll my eyes all the harder when he talks about “compassion.”

  8. Zoe
    Zoe October 1, 2009 at 12:58 pm |

    So disappointed to read the names of the people signing that petition. Big, big bummer.

  9. Sid
    Sid October 1, 2009 at 1:10 pm |

    I’m sorry if I come across as completely culturally naive, but why is Woody Allen’s defense of Polanski predictable? Is it b/c of Manhattan?

  10. Lady Vanessa
    Lady Vanessa October 1, 2009 at 1:17 pm |

    Sid: Woody Allen defending Polanski is predictable because Allen is also a child molesting scumbag who gets a free pass because he is also such a “great, sophisticated, high culture artiste.”

  11. Thom
    Thom October 1, 2009 at 1:27 pm |

    Sid,

    Woody Allen had an ongoing relationship (which ultimately led to marriage) with his adopted daughter (she was a teen at the time the relationship started).

    Jill,

    I agree that it is disheartening to see folks like Wes Anderson, Darren Aronofsky, Scorcese and the others on there. It’s almost a whose who of my DVD collection. Why couldn’t the signers been guys like Brett Ratner and Michael Bay?

    “I don’t buy into this “Hollywood is so amoral and out of touch” business, but I do think that, like a lot of industries, they’re fairly insular and tight-knit, and they protect their own.”

    Generally I agree, though I think the people who make the money are a bit out of touch. I’m not that impressed by someone who can find the time for a telethon, but little else. And there seems to be a deep disconnect in Hollywood that is equally as out of touch as any Republican when it comes to money and generosity. This seems so simple and straight forward I am stunned that there are people treating it as a grey… unknown quantity. He drugged and raped a girl and ran out during sentencing. That’s pretty straight forward. Making some good movies doesn’t change that. Especially when he has stated “noone got hurt” of the rape. This is not some repentant person throwing himself at our feet for merciful justice. He is trying to avoid any true consequence of his actions. Why is this so hard for Weinstein to grasp???

  12. PrettyAmiable
    PrettyAmiable October 1, 2009 at 1:51 pm |

    So how do we get a petition started that expresses our disgust? If there was one place we could focus our energies, maybe we can be heard.

    Fact of the matter is that Harvey Weinstein’s voice is NOT more important than mine; he’s just able to shout it from the hilltops.

  13. Suzanne M
    Suzanne M October 1, 2009 at 2:04 pm |

    Dear Jeremy Irons,

    Remember when you were in that film of Lolita back in the late ’90s? I do. Remember how creepy it was, and how obvious the filmmakers made it that Dolores Haze wasn’t having fun? Do you realize that it was about the same goddamn thing as the Polanski case? Do you know how much creepier that film just became? Why is your name on this list?

    No love,
    A former fan

    God. So many people whose work I have really loved and admired have signed that petition. (Guillermo del Toro, why?) I think Polanski’s as talented as everyone else does, but goddamn, people.

  14. DaisyDeadhead
    DaisyDeadhead October 1, 2009 at 2:05 pm |

    I actually do believe there is an element of Hollywood vs Middle America involved in the media-play of this event.

    There has always been a wink-wink, nudge-nudge attitude about certain activities in Hollywood such as fringe sexual practices, sex work, gay relationships, drug use and abuse, offbeat religions, crackpot diets and nutritional fads, etc …and it has always taken awhile for the masses to “catch up” to whatever Hollywood is doing. This fact explains the arrogance of the people taking Polanski’s side: Oh, you silly puritans in the provinces don’t understand how us cool libertines on the coasts like to party. You’ll come around to our forward-thinking some day!

    I also believe the Ghost of Fatty Arbuckle is presiding over this event: “Never again!” and all that. (Although I am one of those who believes Arbuckle was guilty.) There is a rather juvenile fear that Polanski’s status as a great artist will be doubted or rescinded, as Arbuckle’s movies were banned. Difference is, this is 2009 and that was 1921; I think the world has matured enough since then. We don’t ban movies any more. Even out here in the dreaded heartland of America…

    (Speaking of his movies, I just wrote about Polanski’s film REPULSION… I have not been able to stop thinking about it since this whole foofaraw began.)

  15. Comrade PhysioProf
    Comrade PhysioProf October 1, 2009 at 2:09 pm |

    Fuck all these assholes. Shit like this is reason number bajillion and thirteen why I don’t regret for a millisecond having not seen a Hollywood movie in decades. The shit ain’t “art”. It’s just corporate celebucrap narcotics to keep the masses addled.

  16. They keep using that word « Blunt Object

    [...] a rather lukewarm discussion of the headline’s topic — one better elucidated in this post at Feministe — but there’s this quotation I want to ridicule in the middle of it: In an interview, [...]

  17. DaisyDeadhead
    DaisyDeadhead October 1, 2009 at 2:21 pm |

    And I can’t believe that LA Times article starts out by mentioning the politics of MICHAEL MOORE–who is a product of that same heartland (Flint, Michigan, to be precise)–not exactly a Hollywood mover-and- shaker like Weinstein.

    I seem to remember the Academy booing Moore some years ago for denouncing the Iraq War…

  18. Melissa Silverstein
    Melissa Silverstein October 1, 2009 at 3:01 pm |

    You know its a tough day when a lil ol blogger like me is the one person willing to go on the record. I had no idea about the feminist majority quote when I spoke with the reporter and I too am floored. I get so many emails from them each and every day asking me to do something and now they say this?

    I really hope Ellie Smeal has a good explanation for what Peg said. It is unconscionable. And BTW the statement that NOW put on its blog was lame.

    I’m glad some more people like Eve Ensler and Katha Pollitt are speaking out.

  19. Sophist
    Sophist October 1, 2009 at 3:32 pm |

    On the most basic level, it’s especially disappointing when the signatories are people whose work I like and respect. Pedro Almodovar…

    Wait, Pedro Almodovar? The hell is that about? Did I hit my head and hallucinate the part in Volver where a girl stabbing someone who was trying to rape her is presented as an entirely reasonable thing to do? Is there some other Pedro Almodovar out there I’m not aware of?

    Gah, this whole situation just depresses me.

  20. Natalia
    Natalia October 1, 2009 at 4:23 pm |

    I used to know two people who got to know Polanski since he fled to France – and by “got to know” I don’t just mean “they saw him in a restaurant once and asked for an autograph.”

    By their accounts, he is an extremely charming, kind person, and I think it’s hard for them to deal with the horrible dissonance between the Polanski they know and the Polanski that drugged and raped a child. Has he changed? I asked that question years ago, and am willing to believe it when they said “yes.” Unfortunately, that doesn’t at all diminish that he did, in fact, drug and rape a child, and has steadfastly refused to be held accountable for it.

    Fugitives do not get to dictate the terms of their case – so all of this talk about “but he’s only escaping sketchy legal shenanigans” is a red herring.

    I think for some people, this is a case of “but I know Roman, he is not a monster,” though for a majority it is “I need to curry favour with the famous and the powerful” with a dash of “but this kind of thing happens in Hollywood all the time” thrown in for good measure. And all of these positions are ultimately wrong, wrong, wrong. Regardless of personal feelings. Regardless of Polanski’s own traumatic history.

    Don’t these people have daughters? What kind of a message are they sending to them?

    And Pedro Almodovar? Natalie Portman? MONICA BELLUCCI?

    Monica, you shot a graphic anal rape scene for “Irreversible” once – one of the most brutal scenes in all of film history. You’re willing to say that someone who did that in real life shouldn’t face the consequences? Good God.

  21. Nancy Green
    Nancy Green October 1, 2009 at 4:56 pm |

    I’m waiting for the sequel where Polanski falls on California like a load of toxic waste and a governor nicknamed ‘The Gropinator’ has to decide what to do with him in the upcoming action movie–Terminator vs Predator

    http://kmareka.com/2009/09/29/terminator-vs-predator/

  22. Tracey
    Tracey October 1, 2009 at 4:57 pm |

    As of right now, neither Portman nor Irons are on the list. Also, Ethan Coen’s name is no longer there, either. Either these stars thought better of having their names associated with such a list, or their names were mis-reported in the first place (from whomever…not pointing fingers as it’s a huge list.)

    At least this calls for a small sigh of relief for some of those names…

  23. oldlady
    oldlady October 1, 2009 at 5:35 pm |

    “Girl 27″ is a documentary available through Netflix about a woman who was raped at the age of 17 at a party given by MGM studios for a convention of their sales reps and theater owners back in 1937. She actually had the guts to accuse the rapist and was raped all over again by the studio, the LA district attorney, her lawyer, and her own mother who was paid off by MGM. Sixty-five years later this documentary was made–and we see an 81 year old woman who has suffered her whole life from this horrible incident. I was so moved by this film–I watched it twice. I especially recommend it to Peg Yorkin or anyone who could make the statment, “It’s bad a person was raped. But that was many years ago.”

  24. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub October 1, 2009 at 6:33 pm |

    Natalia, I know you don’t think this, but I just want to make this clear to people who, as you say, can’t reconcile the idea of a charming, nice, kind man as a rapist: Plenty of rapists are kind, charming, and really, really nice to people they meet and know. They don’t gibber, they don’t hide in dark alleys, and they don’t wear T-shirts that say “I AM A RAPIST.”

    I say this because I have known people who were nice, kind, and charming. As well as very progressive. And I found out later that they were capable of some pretty horrid shit. And my reaction was shock, sure, and dismay and disappointment. My reaction was more: Dammit, I like this person, but they’ve got to face up to this. Followed by: WHAT THE FUCKING FUCKITY FUCK???

  25. Verdict on Child Rape: Still A Crime « 24 Percent

    [...] defend a fugitive rapist, but it really is embarrassing for them. As my crush Jill Filipovic lists, the numbers are not encouraging. Here’s her list of Polanski supporters: Pedro Almodovar. [...]

  26. Canuckistani
    Canuckistani October 1, 2009 at 8:30 pm |

    Perhaps I’m exposing my ignorance of the American justice system, but I thought defense and prosecuting attorneys cut plea deals, and the judge is free to accept or reject them as she or he pleases.

    I guess Roman should have thought of that before drugging and raping a 13-year-old. There are a few crimes for which I think society should save its harshest sentences (permanent segregation from society, ie. life in prison and throw away the key), and drugging and raping a child is one of them. Jumping bail to avoid sentence should simply get him a one-way ticket to remand until his sentence is passed and he gets a trip to the can. It’s disgusting that anyone can argue he has somehow suffered while making movies and living in luxury across the Atlantic after he made a cowardly run from accountability.

  27. Are Anti-Polanski Celebs Afraid To Speak Up? | Gossip : thypolls.com

    [...] gulf between Hollywood liberals and “real” Americans, but Jill Filipovic at Feministe calls bullshit on that: “No, LA Times, it is not ‘Hollywood vs. Middle America’ in the Polanski [...]

  28. chingona
    chingona October 2, 2009 at 2:27 am |

    I thought defense and prosecuting attorneys cut plea deals, and the judge is free to accept or reject them as she or he pleases.

    I’m not an attorney, but every time an attorney has commented about this case on every blog I read, this is exactly what they’ve said. The judge can reject it. If the judge rejects it, it goes to trial.

  29. Thom
    Thom October 2, 2009 at 7:31 am |

    Oldlady-
    “I was so moved by this film–I watched it twice.”

    Agreed. It is a powerful, moving and also angering film. It also really showed the way the destruction of rape spreads to impact the victim’s loved ones. I found myself in tears many times, including the moment where her son got to, for the first time in his life, see his mother dance (via some archival footage)… it was a part of his mother he had never seen, and I believe a part of her that was stolen by the rape. Girl 24 is just heartbreaking.

  30. BeckySharper
    BeckySharper October 2, 2009 at 9:56 am |

    I posted an open letter to Peg Yorkin on Harpyness.

    http://www.harpyness.com/2009/10/01/an-open-letter-to-peg-yorkin-of-the-feminist-majority-foundation/

    I spent a couple hours on the phone chasing down people at FFM’s various offices yesterday demanding to know why someone like Peg Yorkin would go out of her way to defend a child rapist in a national newspaper. It’s fucking appalling that the leader/financer/founder of a big feminist organization thinks we should just “let it go.”

    The young woman I spoke with in their LA offices began apologizing as soon as I said “LA Times.” I was told that most of the executives are in their East Coast offices at a conference, but someone would get back to me.

    We’ll see. I’m not sure there’s anything Peg Yorkin can say that would salvage her reputation after this. There are a lot of things feminists disagree on, but fighting rape culture and imprisoning rapists is not among them.

  31. femme byke
    femme byke October 2, 2009 at 11:05 am |

    I hate when I drug a 13 year old, then rape her unlubed ass and have to pay a really expensive team of lawyers to come up with an inappropriately light sentence for my so-called crime. Oh, and you know what sucks even more? When the judge thinks about maybe rejecting the plea bargain and I’m forced to waste my valuable time fleeing the country because, who wants to deal with maybe getting a fucked up, appropriate sentence, like jail time, you know? This one time when that happened to me, I had to flee the country and live in my various homes around Europe for. like, 30 years! I couldn’t even accept Academy Awards in person, and I could only go to European film festivals, not American ones! That was such a total drag. Oh, and then, after they put me through ALL THAT, they had the nerve to arrest me for fleeing sentencing and so-called jumping bail. Sometimes life is such a drag.

  32. Link round-up (Polanski, hijab, zombies, etc.) and a moment of truth « Natalia Antonova

    [...] more on the Polanski situation, see Jill’s excellent post about his famous apologists. Also, check out Daisy’s review of [...]

  33. Laurel
    Laurel October 2, 2009 at 12:03 pm |

    This whole thing is breaking my heart.

    I’m currently arguing with posters on a “feminist” message board that in insisting Polanski should go free, they are defending a child rapist. Seems obvious to me. But it’s like talking to MRAs. “Evidence” from Wanted and Desired has been brought up. The idea that the judge “reneged” has been brought up.

    But they’re not defending a child rapist. No, no.

  34. William
    William October 2, 2009 at 12:58 pm |

    The long line of people eager to put their names on a petition to free Polanski shouldn’t shock anyone. We’re talking about an industry in which enormous amounts of money are passed around on the basis of who knows whom. Weinstein and his brother are the source of a lot of that money, and a good number of the other names on the list are people in positions to make and break careers. Beyond that, Hollywood is a close-knit community and a lot of people are going to believe their friends (who all insist that Polanski is such a nice man) over a 30 year old court case. Its bullshit, but I find it difficult to understand why so many people are shocked. I mean, if it was a Halliburton executive instead of Polanski and a bunch of marginally different rich old white guys (along with the women and people of color who have those rich old white guys names on their paychecks) were running to defend him, would anyone raise an eyebrow in surprise?

  35. southern students for choice-athens
    southern students for choice-athens October 2, 2009 at 1:06 pm |

    We have enough to deal with without taking on this issue and trying to fully argue a different point of view, but let’s just mention one reason that many reasonable people, including feminists, might support mitigating the punishment or not pursuing charges entirely at this point against Roman Polanski.

    The wishes of the victim.

    Somebody else can source the comments, but the victim in this case has publicly spoken on a number of cases and has said that, at least at that/those points when she spoke, that she did not support, at least not anymore, pursuing charges against Polanski. Yes, she was arguably a child/young adolescent/unable to consent for numerous reasons at the time, and statutory rape and rape by intoxication laws do apply in this case, and the state does have a reasonable reason to investigate the charges. But the victim is now an adult, competent, and her wishes should also be considered.

    Even if she isn’t compelled to testify now, putting Polanski on trial will cause her to relive a greatly distressing time in her life which she has apparently completely recovered from, if she ever had much damage from the incident (being raped while intoxicated and going to testify about it). So it would seem that trying Polanski would cause her some harm, however slight, and if that isn’t considered in determining whether or not he’s tried, her recovery and minimal feelings of anger or desire for punishment might be considered in determining his punishment.

    None of this is meant to defend Polanski, just to give reasons why some feminists who you might otherwise agree with on other issues might be signing on to a statement which, oversimplified, might seem to mean “free Polanski”.

    If anyone cares what we think about this, we wouldn’t want to say “free Polanski” either, but if “free the victim” means anything, it might also mean don’t pursue charges against Polanski at this point.

  36. BeckySharper
    BeckySharper October 2, 2009 at 1:18 pm |

    @Southern Students: No one’s talking about putting Polanski on trial. He’s already pleaded guilty. He escaped and did not serve his sentence. That’s why he’s been arrested and must go to jail. The victim does not have to give further testimony.

  37. PrettyAmiable
    PrettyAmiable October 2, 2009 at 1:20 pm |

    But at some point, letting this case drop is an endorsement of rape culture. I’ve recently been sexually assaulted by a classmate and my class has discussed this at length with my assaulter and NOT with me, labeling me a girl who cries assault.

    When the legal system endorses rape culture and ratifies the words of Harvey fucking Weinstein, how can I EVER convince naysayers that I shouldn’t be re-victimized over and over?

    I understand Samantha Geimer not wanting to discuss it because it might hurt her and that she doesn’t want to be the poster child for rape, but it hurts so many other victims to tacitly agree with Roman Polanski’s actions.

  38. akeeyu
    akeeyu October 2, 2009 at 1:52 pm |

    Southern Student,

    What Becky said, but also this: Rape isn’t just considered a crime against the victim, but a crime against society. That’s why it’s the state who initiates charges against the perpetrator, not the victim.

    Using “but the victim is okay with the crime” as an argument to drop charges or dismiss sentences is a terrible idea, especially in light of the slippery slope involved. There are plenty of cases of child abuse or molestation where it would be easy to coerce a victim into ‘forgiving’ their abuser so that Daddy/Mommy/Cousin Pat doesn’t have to go to jail. Hell, that happens enough already.

  39. southern students for choice-athens
    southern students for choice-athens October 2, 2009 at 3:05 pm |

    We didn’t know the victim didn’t need to testify further in this case. Still, there’s the publicity and the chance, one supposes, that she could be still compelled to testify.

    We don’t know any more about this case than what we (or you) could read in a few newspaper articles online and the Smoking Gun deposition from the victim, but one part which is known and hasn’t been talked about much is the timeframe in which the event took place and the reasons for Polanski’s flight.

    One would really have to be a student of the era or read a lot on the case to know (because it isn’t mentioned these days in the news articles, at least online) that Polanski was married to Sharon Tate, who of course was killed by members of the Manson family in 1969. The Manson family big enough to be connected by a degree of separation or two to numerous people in Hollywood and Polanski, from what we’ve heard, beyond being traumatized by the murder itself (not to mention the trial that followed) was the subject of numerous death threats from crazies, many of whom were not directly connected to the Manson family.

    That was one reason we understand for Polanski’s flight after the rape in 1977, a fear that if he was imprisoned for a long time that he would be at unusual risk for revenge (or other reasons) in prison.

    None of this in any way excuses or mitigates the rape he committed against the victim in question — having your wife tortured and killed by a doomsday cult does not give one an excuse to rape — but in the context of the time, it does help explain why he might rationally want to flee after the judge in the rape case apparently reneged on a plea deal — and it was his flight that is at issue here, as mentioned above, not his guilt or innocence in statutory rape or rape by intoxication, or whatever those charges exactly are. And it also explains why so many in “Hollywood” are sympathetic to Polanski — again remembering the time and what Polanski and so many others went through in that community after the Manson murders in 1969.

  40. Cara
    Cara October 2, 2009 at 3:13 pm |

    And it also explains why so many in “Hollywood” are sympathetic to Polanski — again remembering the time and what Polanski and so many others went through in that community after the Manson murders in 1969.

    Seriously? You think that is why so many in Hollywood are sympathetic to him?

    You know, signing a petition that calls it “a case of morals,” running around calling raping a 13-year-old a girl a “so-called crime,” and arguing that it’s “not rape-rape” sure is a funny fucking way of showing it.

  41. Jill
    Jill October 2, 2009 at 3:34 pm |

    Yeaaaah… not buying it.

    Look: Most people have a reason for not wanting to go to jail. Any rational person would want to avoid it. Sexual predators (and child sexual predators in particular) are notoriously targeted for abuse while behind bars. That’s really fucked up, but as far as I know it’s not usually considered a mitigating when someone fleas.

    And while it is his flight that’s at issue in the legal proceedings it’s not his flight that’s at issue in the really problematic media narratives surrounding the case.

  42. Jill
    Jill October 2, 2009 at 3:36 pm |

    Also, where are you getting the info that Polanski’s flight had something to do with threats of retribution from the Manson clan while in prison?

  43. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub October 2, 2009 at 4:06 pm |

    Southern Students, let’s review:

    Polanski’s defenders insisted back in the 70′s–and continue to insist–that the girl he raped was either asking for it or lying, not that he was so afraid of Manson family retaliation, or that it was his trauma that made him flee. Nope, they were quick to say that she wasn’t a virgin! She was a slut! Her mother was a golddigger and the girl was a star fucker! She had done drugs before! Therefore, she was totes unrapeable. Even now, people are saying it’s not “rape rape” and that it’s a “so-called crime.”

    Then they have the gall to cry about respecting the survivor of this rape–when they have been part of the freaking problem. These same people have shown disrespect and continue to show disrespect–note that she has ALWAYS maintained that he raped her. If they want to be at all convincing on this point, they can disavow their rape apology and Victorian slut-baiting, apologize for it, and come down hard on those who do it. But I’m not holding my breath.

    And you know, not for nothing, but he’s not the only person who’s suffered trauma. I know people from Cambodia who lived through Pol Pot’s genocidal regime, but I doubt very much they’d be given leeway if they committed a crime and then pulled a runner. They’re not wealthy, they aren’t famous, they aren’t connected, and they aren’t White.

    Read the petition and you’ll see Levy whinging about Polanski being arrested like a “common terrorist” (because Polanski is Our Sort, one of the wealthy and certainly not a “common” person who would be extradited with nary a peep from these folks). He was arrested like a criminal who did a runner–it’s not the first time it happened, and it won’t be the last. I’m not at all sorry for him.

    The judge didn’t “renege” on the deal–Polanski made it clear that he understood the judge could reject the plea agreement–such agreements are made between the prosecutors and the defense, NOT between the judge and the defense. In fact, Polanski did not stick around for sentencing–he “heard” that the judge might not go with the plea agreement and decided to run.

    The petition calls this a case of morals, as if this was Stonewall or a same sex couple getting busted for kissing. It’s not. It’s a case of rape. That they would minimize this, hand-wave it away as so much right-wing hysteria, says nothing good about their views of rape, violence, and the status of women–at least when it comes to women and girls targeted by one of their own. And I’m sorry, but that’s bullshit. That so-called feminists defend this shit is beyond disgusting. If rape survivors can only count on these women when their attackers aren’t somehow annointed as above the law, then they should leave the fucking movement and join the Dominionists, who hold similar views on rape as the jackasses who shrug off Polanski’s actions.

    Yes, I realize the murder of his wife was traumatic and scary. You know what else is traumatic and scary? BEING RAPED.

  44. gwen
    gwen October 2, 2009 at 4:50 pm |

    I wish more people were linking to this: http://notonhollywood.blogspot.com/2009/09/dear-pedro-almodovar.html#comments

    Do you think you might?

  45. southern students for choice-athens
    southern students for choice-athens October 2, 2009 at 4:54 pm |

    Cara quoted:

    “And it also explains why so many in “Hollywood” are sympathetic to Polanski — again remembering the time and what Polanski and so many others went through in that community after the Manson murders in 1969.”

    And Cara replied:

    “Seriously? You think that is why so many in Hollywood are sympathetic to him?”

    Yes, exactly. This includes especially the older generation who would remember that time, which probably includes a lot of the older members of the Feminist Majority Foundation like Peg Yorkin and a group who they share a lot of members with, the Hollywood Women’s Political Caucus.

    It also helps explain the otherwise inexplicable sympathy to the point almost of advocacy in Peg Yorkin’s quote above.

    Yorkin’s words:

    “It’s bad a person was raped. But that was so many years ago. The guy has been through so much in his life. It’s crazy to arrest him now. Let it go.”

    (note to website moderator, please delete the near-duplicate post immediately above this one, the html in the post was messed up, and so this repost)

  46. Thomas
    Thomas October 2, 2009 at 5:11 pm |

    s-s-asshole, listen up.

    The Tate murder was eight years earlier than the offense. Your claim is ahistorical and illogical. And silly.

    Samantha Geimer said “no.”
    She was 13.
    Immediately upon fleeing to France, Polanski began sexually penetrating a 15-year-old Nastassja Kinski.
    He said in 1979 that everyone was fascinated with the crime he committed because judges and juries also wanted to fuck young girls.

    He’s a pedophile; a recidivist molester who has shown no real remorse.

  47. Laurel
    Laurel October 2, 2009 at 5:38 pm |

    southern students for choice-athens, I pointed out to them that the justice system does not work that way, that in a strict legal sense it’s not about her anymore. I even pointed out what a bad precedent honoring the victim’s wishes after a guilty plea might set for, say, domestic abuse cases.

    And they went blithely on to “It’s been so long, nobody cares about the victim, someone’s just doing this to make zir career.” I left.

    And then [sigh] then I came here. I weep for the state of feminism, I do.

  48. William
    William October 2, 2009 at 6:08 pm |

    Yes, exactly. This includes especially the older generation who would remember that time, which probably includes a lot of the older members of the Feminist Majority Foundation like Peg Yorkin and a group who they share a lot of members with, the Hollywood Women’s Political Caucus.

    It also helps explain the otherwise inexplicable sympathy to the point almost of advocacy in Peg Yorkin’s quote above.

    Bullshit. Pretty much every criminal has a hard luck story. The jails are full of people who have lived lives that no one should be asked to live. The thing is, most people who are victimized, like most people who are not, go on to live their lives in some manner that doesn’t involve raping other people. What you’re doing is obscuring the basic underlying fact of the case: Roman Polanski knowingly and intentionally drugged a 13 year old girl so he could brutally rape here after arranging for her to be alone in his presence. You can scream Manson and Holocaust till judgment day, but premeditated rape is premeditated rape.

    The bottom line of the Polanski case is simple. If he was some black guy from the hood who didn’t hold a job and ran to Mexico for 30 years before being arrested no one would give a shit. People give a shit only because he is a great director. If you want to defend him, at least be honest with us and say that what you really mean is that raping 13 year old girls, while terrible and unacceptable, ought to be forgivable if someone has something to offer society of greater value than 13 year old girls not being raped. Anything else is cowardly and insulting.

  49. PrettyAmiable
    PrettyAmiable October 2, 2009 at 6:39 pm |

    And I’m sorry. Should I care about the Manson family being behind the same bars Polanski might end up behind himself? … Was this information only presented to him the morning after he raped the 13-year-old? Did someone only tell him fucking an underage girl who painted a very clear message of NO, STOP is illegal after he did it?

    … You guys may be wicked nice about this point, but I want to be clear about coming down hard on the side of not giving a fuck.

  50. S.A. Small
    S.A. Small October 2, 2009 at 10:30 pm |

    @southern students for choice-athens:

    I really feel like you lack perspective. Lauren made a really great–and brave–post on this very site a few days ago:

    http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/09/29/getting-over-it/#more-16948

    There’s also a link that post a similarly excellent and eye-opening post over at Shakespeare’s Sister. I certainly wasn’t in the “Let It Go” camp before, but after reading both, I definitely think that “the victim doesn’t want Polanski to be re-arrested” argument doesn’t hold the water you think it does.

  51. S.A. Small
    S.A. Small October 2, 2009 at 11:09 pm |

    There’s also a link that post a similarly excellent and eye-opening post over at Shakespeare’s Sister.

    Here, “that post a” would make much more sense as “in that post to a”. Oy.

  52. Lauren
    Lauren October 3, 2009 at 7:46 am | *

    Mmmmkay. Southern Students for Whatever (Plural): You’ve already stated that you (plural) know nothing about the trial other than what little you’ve (plural) read online. The other commenters here have been very kind to correct you (plural) without resorting to too much name-calling or snark. You (still plural) have a comment in moderation further grasping at attempts to excuse the actions of a fugitive rapist.

    No one cares about the semantics, and you’re (yep, still plural) really reaching with the Manson Family argument, especially since you (all of you) admittedly can’t reconstruct the timeline of events and don’t really know all that much about Polanski or the Manson Family. It’s high time you (maybe it’s just one of you tarnishing your org online) STFU, and if you don’t, I will see that you (all one of you) don’t have a forum here any longer. This isn’t the first time you (whoever) have annoyed the crap out of me, so consider this a final warning.

    Ban hammer.

  53. jemand
    jemand October 3, 2009 at 9:30 am |

    thanks Lauren, ssawhatever was really annoying me. Especially since as far as I know, one of the reasons the victim wanted it dropped is because it looked like he’d never serve anyway and she didn’t want her life dragged through the mud for nothing. If he’s actually going to serve time, than she may in fact support that. I don’t have any hard links for this right now, but while he was living the high life in France with no indication he’d ever face any consequences, and ever couple years the media kept pulling her back into the story, well, I can see one reason why she’d want it dropped, and it doesn’t apply if he’s finally going to be serving time.

  54. SaynaTheSpiffy
    SaynaTheSpiffy October 3, 2009 at 11:12 am |

    Oh no, Gael Garcia Bernal?! Goddamnit. There goes my crush too. And Natalie Portman and Martin Scorsese used to be cool, too.

  55. yogagrrl
    yogagrrl October 3, 2009 at 11:26 am |

    Someone must be getting the message. Boost the signal and increase the pressure:
    http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ebernero/2009/10/02/polanski-apologists-dont-speak-for-all-of-us-in-hollywood/

  56. flip flopping joy » Blog Archive » Really?

    [...] via Feministe “My personal thoughts are let the guy go,” said Peg Yorkin, founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation. “It’s bad a person was raped. But that was so many years ago. The guy has been through so much in his life. It’s crazy to arrest him now. Let it go. The government could spend its money on other things.” [...]

  57. oldlady
    oldlady October 3, 2009 at 5:19 pm |

    I lived in LA when the Tate murders were committed–and very near Stone Canyon Road where the Polanski-Tate house was located. Yes, everyone in LA was terrified, especially when another mass murder was committed just days later. (How awful that I can’t remember the name of the family!)

    Yes–lots of sympathy of Polanski–of course! His wife, who was eight months pregnant, was brutally murdered, the fetus, apparently, cut out of her body, if you can imagine anything much more horrible.

    The other Hollywood connection was through Doris Day’s son, who had rejected Manson’s song-writing efforts, and who Manson actually sent his gang after, thinking he still lived in the Stone Canyon house.

    To suggest, however, that seven years later Polanski fled the country because he was fearful of Manson retaliation or that Hollywood people protected him (then or now) because they were/are fearful of Manson retaliation, or that he was/is fearful of prison because of Mason retaliation is ridiculous. As is the plea that he deserves special consideration because of what happened forty years ago to his wife or because he is a Holocaust survivor.

    And I never heard anything so awful and absurd as someone trying to qualify degrees of rape–”not rape-rape.” Rape is rape is rape is rape.

  58. julie
    julie October 3, 2009 at 6:55 pm |

    As to the Peg Yorkin quote “It’s bad a person was raped. But that was so many years ago.” :
    Let me tell everyone up front that I hate, HATE when people use the word “retard” when they are attempting to admonish someone. So I say this with no irony or malice: From what I’ve read from Peg Yorkin, she sounds intellectually delayed.

  59. Nicole
    Nicole October 4, 2009 at 2:02 am |

    Is there some other Pedro Almodovar out there I’m not aware of?

    Well, yes, there’s the Pedro Almodovar who made a movie in which we’re supposed to sympathize and see the ~romantic~ side of a man who rapes a comatose woman. He and Woody Allen were the only names that didn’t surprise me at all.

  60. lauredhel
    lauredhel October 4, 2009 at 4:45 am |

    “I hate, HATE when people use the word “retard” when they are attempting to admonish someone. So I say this with no irony or malice: From what I’ve read from Peg Yorkin, she sounds intellectually delayed.”

    Julie: That’s incredibly offensive.

  61. bluecoua
    bluecoua October 4, 2009 at 7:27 am |

    If creative talent justifies a Get Out of Jail Free card, what level of misdeed should other directors’ talent let them get away with? Directors’ Get Out of Jail Free Card survey

  62. amandaw
    amandaw October 4, 2009 at 8:49 am |

    I hate when people do something offensive, which gives me cred when I do that same offensive thing, so you know that this offensive thing ESPECIALLY true when *I* say it. Because I don’t care about the reasons why it is offensive, so long as it is a convenient tool to use in service of other purposes.

  63. Cara
    Cara October 4, 2009 at 9:04 am |

    I don’t really know what to say other than WTF and “that’s offensive,” so I will just add: Shouldn’t that be obvious?

    Ableism is against the comment policy. One of the many good ways to know if you’re leaving a comment that is ableist is if you feel the need to put some version of an “I’m not ableist, but …” qualifier in front of it. Indeed, whenever you have to write some version of “I’m not [X prejudice]-ist, but …” you should very, very, very strongly reconsider writing whatever you planned to come after it.

  64. William
    William October 4, 2009 at 11:30 am |

    Let me tell everyone up front that I hate, HATE when people use the word “retard” when they are attempting to admonish someone. So I say this with no irony or malice: From what I’ve read from Peg Yorkin, she sounds intellectually delayed.

    Say, for the sake of argument, you came across a post saying the following:

    Let me tell everyone up front that I hate, HATE when people use the word “cunt” when they are attempting to admonish someone. So I say this with no irony or malice: From what I’ve read from Peg Yorkin, she sounds like a vapid cunt.

    How would you respond? Would you be pissed off? Offended? Completely unimpressed by the shitty little caveat that preceded use of the word? Perhaps even more appalled than if it had just slipped out in anger because the person who just used it said they fucking know better and went and said it anyway? Disgusted that women were being thrown under the bus in the name of tearing someone down, as if being a woman was so terrible as to compare to advocating the brutal rape of a 13 year old? Would you perhaps take their “I say this with no malice” as an empty platitude, covering the malice they’re about to spew?

    Cause, I have to say, those were my reactions reading your post, Julie.

    Oh, and like most situations when someone is using race/gender/able-bodiedness/orientation/etc as an insult, you fucked up. “Intellectually delayed” isn’t a category or a description that anyone professional has ever used. The phrase you were looking for, but failed to have the background or education to summon, is “developmentally delayed.” Which, its worth noting, isn’t the same as old-fashioned stupid. See, “developmental delay” indicates a certain limitation an individual has which reduces or caps their ability to perform certain tasks. Stupid, on the other hand, indicates an otherwise average person who just doesn’t bother to think. It’s a concept closely related to ignorance, though ignorance tends to be more the product of a lack of education than intellectual laziness.

    Peg Yorkin, I’d call her an asshole. But you, Julie, you’re just a classic example of old fashioned stupid. And, in this case, also an asshole. Funny how they tend to go together.

  65. Sharman
    Sharman October 4, 2009 at 6:15 pm |

    Those who have “gotten” the feminist message are the ones that want Polanski back home to face justice. The others are still not feminists….just feminist wannabees. I’ll wager there’ll be several ho will have changed their minds before it’s all over.

  66. Put Simply, It’s Rape: Chris Rock on Roman Polanski | Our Bodies Our Blog

    [...] Last week we heard that Roman Polanski’s rape of a 13-year-old girl wasn’t “rape-rape“; the media downplayed the crime; and celebrities petitioned for Polanski’s release. [...]

  67. Robin
    Robin October 5, 2009 at 2:00 am |

    I think Bo Zenga should be arrested for making such shit movies, but damnit if he doesn’t have a point. If there’s one thing I hate more than people who’s work I respect disagreeing with me, it’s people who’s work I detest agreeing with me.

  68. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve October 5, 2009 at 1:38 pm |

    “I don’t buy into this “Hollywood is so amoral and out of touch” business, but I do think that, like a lot of industries, they’re fairly insular and tight-knit, and they protect their own.”

    Neither do I, but this is not about Hollywood. This is about so-called ‘geniuses.’ Okay, I admit I consider many of them geniuses so it’s probably wrong to put the word in quotes, although Iit is possible to think someone is a brilliant filmmaker and a fucking idiot at the same time. And while I would doubt that they are ‘amoral,’ sadly it is all to apparent with this petition how ‘out of touch’ many of them are.

    I mean Jesus Christ, any person with a degree of self awareness, would think that, were they in Woody Allen’s position, I’ll stay out of this one. ‘Out of touch’ is not the word to describe the lack of nous that he must have to think that his name is going to be a positive recommendation for a man accused of sex with an underage girl. Absolutely insane.

  69. William
    William October 5, 2009 at 5:07 pm |

    Absolutely insane

    I think the word you’re looking for is hubris or arrogance, given that being an asshole who doesn’t think about others isn’t generally recognized as madness and certainly doesn’t have a DSM-IV code. Unless you’re implying that somehow these Polanski advocates are somehow skewing towards Axis II (likely Narcissistic PD), although I’m guessing you aren’t making a clinical judgment. We’ve already had someone toss out “retard” as an admonishment, theres really no need to bring the mad into it too.

  70. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve October 5, 2009 at 9:48 pm |

    I’m not a lawyer, so correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand that not knowing ‘the difference between right and wrong’ makes one, at least legally, insane.

  71. William
    William October 5, 2009 at 10:12 pm |

    I’m not a lawyer, so correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand that not knowing ‘the difference between right and wrong’ makes one, at least legally, insane.

    How…cute. Aside from the fact that its pretty clear you’re neither a lawyer (who, for the record, understand madness only so far as it determines in which cage they should place a given individual) nor a clinician, I find it interesting that so soon after an objection over the word “retard” being used as an insult you not only toss out “insane” but attempt a feeble and fumbling defense of yourself. You decided to draw a line between madness and moral deficit. Most persons judged to be mad are not rapists.

    But, since you asked, I’ll correct you. The concept of legal competence (fuzzy though it may be) which you’re crudely referencing isn’t generally the standard used to determine “sanity” (itself a shaky construct primarily aimed at maintaining power over those judged to be mad) in most cases. Even if it was, someone like Woody Allen wouldn’t fit the bill for defending Polanski.

  72. PrettyAmiable
    PrettyAmiable October 6, 2009 at 10:47 pm |

    Is there a way to correct without being patronizing? Life is a learning process. Traversing the minefields of colloquialized language isn’t easy. That’s not to say we shouldn’t correct people who make these errors, but there has to be a better way of doing it than saying, “How…cute.”

    Cut and dry. “It’s not the legal definition either. What you’re referencing is this which doesn’t apply to Woody Allen. Use of ‘insane’ is offensive to individuals with psychotic disorders who are not rapists or rape-enthusiasts.”

    I’m fairly confident that Julie and Fat Steve made mistakes and not intentional judgments against the peoples concerned in their comments. Help them learn. Given the DSM-IV reference, I’m sure you’re familiar with the studies regarding how difficult it is for learning to take place in environments with aversive stimuli. Save the maligning for individuals who make these mistakes and demonstrate that they don’t care.

  73. Noli Irritare Leones » Blog Archive » Hollywood and Catholic priests

    [...] of Roman Polanski, people are talking about a different face of Hollywood, a face that involves powerful people petitioning to get a break for one of their [...]

  74. mista masaai
    mista masaai October 7, 2009 at 1:17 pm |

    This whole matter completely disgusts me…and that self-serving comment by that pig Harvey Weinstein is revolting. For all we may know, this may not be Polanski’s only rape. There may be many victims out there who have kept silent out of fear or embarrassment.

  75. William
    William October 8, 2009 at 12:25 am |

    Is there a way to correct without being patronizing?

    Probably, but given the proximity to Julie’s comment (who proved she knew better and went ahead and called someone a retard anyway), I really couldn’t be bothered.

    Life is a learning process. Traversing the minefields of colloquialized language isn’t easy. That’s not to say we shouldn’t correct people who make these errors, but there has to be a better way of doing it than saying, “How…cute.”

    You’re right, I’m sure there is a better way. The thing is, as both a clinician and as a mad person, I pick my battles. Sometimes I am gentle and try very hard to make sure I educate, others I could give a shit and just want someone to stop being an asshole. This thread was one of the later. It isn’t the responsibility of oppressed people to look out for the fee fees of oppressors. Sure, its nice when we have the energy, but I’m not going to be lectured to for being too exhausted to go through yet another round of ableism 101. Thats doubly true when we’re not talking about disability but when people are tossing the language of disability around disparagingly to criticize child rape advocates.

    I’m fairly confident that Julie and Fat Steve made mistakes and not intentional judgments against the peoples concerned in their comments.

    I heard a 20-something hipster on the train a few days ago drop the N-word to one of his friends on the phone. He did it as a greeting and it was clear that he was being ironic and colloquial. I think it would have been difficult to have inferred any intentional malice or ill-intent from his use of the word. At the same time, he deserved the “you better watch your goddamn mouth” response he got from someone who had a very different response to hearing that word come out of a white man’s mouth in any context. Why? Because the intention of a privileged group doesn’t matter. This isn’t about them.

    Help them learn.

    Not my responsibility. When I have the energy, fine, I’ll take it on. I do not, however, have any obligation to help anyone learn anything. That is doubly true when we’re talking about oppressors and the oppressed. The onus is not on the oppressed person to educate the oppressor. The onus is on the oppressor to not oppress.

    Given the DSM-IV reference, I’m sure you’re familiar with the studies regarding how difficult it is for learning to take place in environments with aversive stimuli.

    This might come as something of a surprise, but not all of us mad folk are desperate for acceptance and a fuzzy round of kumbaya around the campfire. Some of us just don’t want to continue to hear words like “retard” and “insane” tossed around. Some of us aren’t too particular about how those words are excised from the common parlance. Some of us have better things to do than to explain the obvious for the hundredth time. Yeah, I mentioned the DSM (which is something of a problem in itself), but that doesn’t mean I’m here to serve as educator to every lazy, privileged, obnoxious person with an opinion and working vocal chords who can’t quite work out that if saying “retard” is bad then maybe saying “insane” (when you clearly don’t know what the word means) is also bad.

  76. PrettyAmiable
    PrettyAmiable October 8, 2009 at 9:56 pm |

    Ah.

    I remember from all those times in history when the oppressors suddenly realized what they were doing was wrong and stopped it and that’s how most of the world stopped picking on the Jews and schools got integrated and so on. That’s why this site is mostly run by men who acknowledge the impact of sexism, because these men, like many before it, realized the onus was on them to change a wrong.

    Being patronizing does absolutely nothing except increase hatred and disparity between the two groups concerned. If you don’t want to help change social norms constructively, then get the hell out of my way.

    It’s also not your responsibility to be a jerk to people you know don’t know better either. At least the education route has a positive goal.

    Your life is hard; it happens. My niece has Down’s and I twitch everytime someone says “retard.” I had a LENGTHY discussion with my shrink today about what I am petrified are hallucinations. But I also know where I’ve been, where I am, and where I’d like to be. If life hadn’t helped get me here, I could easily be one of those people saying one of those things, completely unaware that words aren’t always just words.

    That’s not to say don’t take a stand: do it, we (read: all of humanity but especially all marginalized people) need it. But don’t set me (or anyone else) back.

  77. William
    William October 9, 2009 at 1:50 pm |

    Being patronizing does absolutely nothing except increase hatred and disparity between the two groups concerned

    Not to be militant, but how is that my fucking problem? I like the idea of social change, I really do, but I’m not going to sit and take abuse. I’m not going to have my life experience treated as an analogy for supporting child rape, or as a synonym for “anything I object to.” More importantly, when I encounter people who are so careless with my basic humanity, I’m not always going to have it in me to don the kid gloves and say to myself “well, maybe I can convince them they’ve been hurtful.” When I have it in me to do that, then I will, but if not I will not be quiet. I will not be silent. I will demand recognition of my experience and I will express my offense. If someone doesn’t like they way I did that, then I refuse to somehow feel guilty because they didn’t like the way in which they were corrected.

    If you don’t want to help change social norms constructively, then get the hell out of my way.

    I’m not just a little engine of social change but a human being. I do want to change norms constructively, but I’m also a human being with a limited amount of patience and energy. Sometimes I get angry, sometimes I’m just sick of having to explain something basic for the hundredth time. Sometimes I’m not in the mood to listen to the endless string of privileged “buts” and correct them point by point. When those times kick in, I seek to silence those who are being ignorant because then at least I don’t have to hear them. I’m not going to apologize for defending myself nor will I be shamed or scolded for doing so.

    It’s also not your responsibility to be a jerk to people you know don’t know better either.

    Nah, thats a service I offer for free when people are hateful and I’m tired.

    That’s not to say don’t take a stand: do it, we (read: all of humanity but especially all marginalized people) need it. But don’t set me (or anyone else) back.

    I have to say, the implication there makes me a little ill. Are you really suggesting that the only acceptable options for an oppressed person faced with hate and anger are to take the high road and try to educate their oppressors or to just shut the fuck up and take it so they don’t reduce the chance of someone in the future managing to educate the oppressor? Are you really saying that expressing anger, that being forward and aggressive rather than coddling is unacceptable? Are you really saying that if an oppressor says something patronizing and compounds their previous ignorance that we ought to take the path of “if you can’t say something nice don’t say anything at all?”

  78. PrettyAmiable
    PrettyAmiable October 9, 2009 at 10:21 pm |

    Express your anger any way you want to, but taking it out on someone who doesn’t know better is like punching a fifth grader in the face for repeating something he or she heard in school. If you need to vent, do it, but don’t do it somewhere where you’re going to set back the people working to make a change.

    You are NOT entitled to lash out at people who hurt you with their ignorance, and you are NOT entitled to making a learning space hostile because someone said something offensive. Two offensive statements do not cancel each other out.

    “Not to be militant, but how is that my fucking problem?”

    Julie is going to keep on keeping on, and so is Fat Steve. It’s your problem because you get offended by it.

  79. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub October 10, 2009 at 2:13 am |

    Jeebus. Enough with the tone arguments. PA, I’m glad that you’re so sanguine about other people’s ignorance, but why not take your own damn advice and stop telling people who are ALSO directly affected by this sort of bigotry to just be nicer? I get this shit enough from anti-feminists who think I should dial it down when I call out rape apology.

  80. BAH
    BAH October 14, 2009 at 11:59 pm |

    Not a rape-rape !!!.

    Many women who are meet Polanskis on their roads are often too afraid to punch the agressor in the face or better, kick his balls in a very nasty way.

    WOMEN SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT

    The “Hollywood clique” recognizes rape as rape ONLY if women are ready to risk everything, even death, to avoid being raped.

    In all other circumstances, this is not a “rape-rape”. Just spicy sex.

    These people have shown how much they respect freedom.

    Another good reason to despise the Hollywood clique.

    And a good reason to send girls to kickboxing or karate schools.

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.