After Weinstein: 45 Men Accused of Sexual Misconduct and Their Fall From Power

The NYT is keeping a list. Not comprehensive but something. Excerpt:

'In early October, Harvey Weinstein, the Hollywood producer, was fired from his namesake company after multiple women came forward to accuse him of rape and sexual assault.

In what appears to be a seismic shift in what behavior is tolerated in the workplace, a cascade of high-profile men, many in the entertainment and news media industries, have since been fired or forced to resign after accusations of sexual misconduct that ranged from inappropriate comments to rape. This page will be updated periodically.

45 Firings and Resignations

The men in the list below have been fired, resigned or experienced similar professional fallout.'

Like0 Dislike0


"Collateral damage" as it's called in wartime. Translation: Non-combatants have been killed. Oh well.

Undoubtedly some of these men had a firing or disgraceful resignation coming, maybe a few should be in jail. But what of those who didn't. Few people seem to care.

Civilians standing over the dead/mangled/wounded bodies of friends and relatives know what it's like to have their loved ones regarded as regrettable but maybe unavoidable casualties.

So my fellow men, some of you reading MANN maybe for the first time, how does it feel to know that but for the grace of ___fill in the blank___, there you go.

Could be any one of us, and not because any given man is evil and predatory, as feminists make us out to be. Just being male is sufficient to be presumed guilty on accusation.

I've said before that one knows he lives in a police state not when the police invade his home w/o warrant and search it, placing him in cuffs, interrogating him, refusing access to a lawyer. He knows he lives in a police state when that could happen to him and he has no recourse to stop it.

I submit that men in the US are living in a feminist-generated anti-male paranoia state. That you yourself have not been singled out doesn't mean you don't. That you could be and have no recourse is sufficient to know.

Things like what we're now witnessing will get worse until men decide they've had enough bullshit, get serious about organizing, and use their extraordinary organizational and executory talents to devise and implement a counter-strategy/-attack. Yes guys, *attack*. An attack needs a counter-attack. That is how the Allies won WWII. Axis attacks, stand and fight, counter-attack. Rinse and repeat. It's tried and true. Just gotta do it.

Like0 Dislike0

Pardon me whilst I dance on... wait, I don't dance on graves. Well, not actual human beings' graves... but a lousy, stinking, misandrist fish-wrapping piece of sh*t like the NYT, a so-called "institution"? Yeah, I'll dance on that grave. So one moment while I do my Dana Carvey Church Lady Superior Dance in jubilation at this news:

'Billionaire Carlos Slim is planning to sell more than half of his 17 percent stake in the New York Times Co. to U.S. hedge fund investors, reducing his sway over one of the world’s most influential publishers.

Slim’s businesses earlier this month sold $250 million of mandatory exchangeable trust securities in a private offering that gives the buyers a claim on a 9 percent stake in the New York Times, according to a person with knowledge of the matter. The newspaper’s shares have surged more than 50 percent since Slim boosted his stake in 2015 and became the biggest shareholder.

The deal, which was referenced in a Dec. 6 statement but has gone largely unnoticed, means that when the securities mature three years from now and they automatically convert into Class A shares of New York Times, Slim and his companies will be left with about 8 percent of the publisher’s shares, said the person, who asked not to be identified because the information is private. In essence, the billionaire created a trust, pledged New York Times shares to it, locked the shares up for three years, then sold rights to that stock to investors.'

Oh they are trying to spin it. But Mr. Slim doesn't sell that much of an interest in something unless it is 1. Not making him $$ and 2. Is not likely to make him $$ any time soon. And I'll add this is because 3. The NYT SUCKS BALLS, that is why.

Just sayin'.


There, I feel much better now.

Like0 Dislike0