This image of Mel "Going Straight [Back]To Hell" Gibson is from
here.
This video of Sean Connery is relatively old, not new.
Hollywood has had the chance to "get it" but they don't, why?
This post is for my new friend, Beth.
[This post was edited with embedded links and added content, throughout Saturday, 17 July 2010.]
Sean and Mel, Mel and Sean. White het men at their inglorious worst. Here are just a couple of quotes from Mad Max to the woman he had chosen to be with, with no gun against his head, with no one forcing him to do so. Of his own free will. Because he wanted her to perform oral sex on him regularly, among other things.
“How dare you be such a f-cking B-TCH when I’m being so NICE.”
“You said you were annoyed with me - FOR WHAT F-CKING REASON?!?
“I deserve to be blown first before the F-CKING JUCUZZI! Okay, I’ll burn the f-cking house down!!! HOW DARE YOU?!!”
Mel gives new meaning to the term "nice" and in the adjectives tossed about to describe him we surely can add this one: clueless.
What does he believe he "deserves"? To receive oral sex from someone at whom he is screaming obscenities? Mel desperately needs a new understanding of foreplay. A "smooth talker" he ain't. What Mr. Gibson deserves is to have to perform oral sex on a Jewish man before Mel uses the jacuzzi.
He also deserves to be charged with threatening Oksana Grigorieva's life, with physical and sexual abuse, with verbal assault, and with being a domestic terrorist. That's what he
deserves. Unlike some media, I'm not going to write him off as a drunk or a madman. He's a sober and sane man who, like so many other men, is one mean pro-rape, pro-battery terrorist. That's what he is. The alcohol doesn't teach its drinkers how to be bigoted and while any woman who screamed like him would be called a "crazy b*tch" and a shrew before she finished the first line, he gets called "drunk" because he can't be negatively stigmatised
as a white het man. We've got to add to the mix of ethnic entitlements and patriarchal privileges some
other negative element, whether it be inebriation or insanity. What do we call WHM who don't have those other conditions to blame for their behavior? (Besides
educated experts and
artistic geniuses, I mean. You see what I mean? We don't have negative terms just for being white and male and heterosexual, the way we do for every other demographic.)
And Sean. Someone needs to find his face and smack it at least 007 times, because he's one cocky patriarch who demonstrates above
he doesn't know when to shut up. Maybe he can explain why it is that when women won't let
him have the last word,
he can't behave like a responsible adult and walk out of the room. Is it because it's a room in his castle? He makes it sound like, "women" will just go on and on and on like an Energizer Playboy bunny and there's no "off switch" other than slapping them into submission. He makes them sound like Mel Gibson, except that they aren't physically violent and sexually abusive like misogynist men. I have to wonder, if Mel went off on him the way he goes off on Oksana, would we find ol' Sean's hand print emblazoned on one side of Mel's face? I guess not--because ol' Mel would punch the bastard back. Sean Connery's abusive authoritarianism needs to go somewhere other than across women's faces, open-handed or not. His male supremacy, while unbecoming, becomes him nonetheless. Any man's woman-hating becomes who he is, not in a good way. If it hangs around long enough it moves into his mind and body in such a fashion that naming his behaviors misogynistic stops being adequate. He BECOMES a misogynist. Same with whites' supremacist attitudes. After enough demonstrations and expressions of it, some whites don't need to do anything to reek of racism. You can smell it coming a mile away. Make that two miles with ol' Mel. There's a reason
Sean Connery allegedly wanted Mel Gibson to play the next James Bond baddie.
There was no special memo, but today, like yesterday and probably a hell of a lot like tomorrow, is "Protect The Patriarch Day". It is celebrated many ways, by many men. Women participate, but honestly, if men stopped participating--with the demonstrations and expressions and all, and if het men stopped defending and protecting other het men who abuse women AND ALSO STOPPED ABUSING WOMEN--and instead honored women's wishes and well-being--a whole lot would change. Men, without desire, put this burden on women to make patriarchy wither, to regulate and restrain men's sexual, physical, and emotional behavior, as if men were puppies or puppets. But patriarchs are powerful and dangerous--more like stereotypes of teethy
pit bulls and
Chuckie (think: patriarchal Pinocchio).
Men like Mel and Sean are strong enough to murder men but are only entitled, in the patriarchal by-laws, to murder women. They proclaim to love and honor women on a regular basis. What they don't seem to get is that the promise says "honor"
not "honor killing". At 3000 women a year in the U.S.--the same number of human beings who died from the Al-Qaeda attacks on September 11, 2001--we have a terrorist assault on women by U.S. men every year. That annual atrocity is adorned with none of the outrage and unleashing of bombs onto white het men. There's no years-long invasion and ceaseless effort to capture of the terrorists. There's no government military action designed to put defensive forces in the suspected husbands' hide-outs to make sure the women aren't murdered. There hasn't been and will not be a freedom-fighting campaign on behalf of mercilessly massacred U.S. wives and girlfriends, the way we do it if the enemy is seen as "foreign" or at least "alien". We have no memorialised and sanctified ground zero for women; any floor space or carpeted room is ground zero. When other people enter the space where the domestic terrorist struck her down, it never becomes sacred--only scary. Not holy; just haunted.
Holding adult male perpetrators to account ought not be the responsibility of those who endure their terror and torture. Isn't enough that they survive it? This outing is men's work, not his victims'--especially when they're dead. Woman and girls may forgive him, but there's no honorable reason for men to let him off the hook. Think
"Roman Polanski", the professionally and internationally protected girl-raper and how many celebrities want him roamin' the Earth as a free man. What part of "girl-raper" calls for forgetting what he did? Does time really render him a non-criminal? Did the statute of limitations run out? Does it run out for girls and women with post-traumatic stress from being incest, sexual assault, and rape survivors? Talk about a double standard!
More
Master Card than
American Express, the motto for those with the special privileges that come with being a wealthy white het man: don't leave the home where you commit the crimes without them.
Patriarchal societies are generally organised to make women dependent on and subservient to men in various ways which very privileged white het men complain about as
an endemic misandry problem utilising a form of logic that can only be called seriously ill. Sociopathic ill-logic, in fact. Some men forbid women to live outside of men's control, and when women leave him and sue their male supremacist asses, the het men consider alimony "unfair". This motivates some of those men to track down and slaughter the women before she can sue. At least then she won't get his money, and she won't get loved
by anyone else. In his delusions, you must understand, she was
loved by him but didn't
appreciate it. "Anti-misandrists" argue back--"But he often takes his own life too!" The issue that is missed by these not-so-gentle-men, is: Why doesn't he take his own life FIRST? Why does his misery require him to murder her? Anti-misandrists usually look perplexed and confused at this point in the discussion. Men
not killing women never occurred to them.
Check Mel's rants for the not-so-subtle misogynist messages.
They're all there. Abusive men are so NICE and all. Why do women seem to have a problem with being
possessed? Geesh. Talk about feminism going too far! Yeah, about that "misandry problem", rich white straight boys. Try living in reality as someone who has none of those political and economic privileges and social entitlements, and get back to me on the experience of endemic hatred for "who you are".
This is how it works. (It's not rocket surgery.) Male privileges entitle males to possess things, like people who aren't male. "Boys will be boys" in time means "boys will be men". But men will be boys too, because men are also entitled to not have to grow up emotionally. They can be emotional infants, and too often are. They whine, screech, and scream just like babies, toddlers, and spoiled little brats--but in a lower register. And when they do it they consider it being supremely logical, rational behavior. Didn't Mel state HE was the person in the right and he can't understand why she'd be upset with him and that she owed him? His outbursts we've all heard this past week
demonstrate this astounding lack of reason.
“You said you were annoyed with me - FOR WHAT F-CKING REASON?!?
Mel: You used me and you are telling me and proving to me what you were and what I suspected! F*ckin’ user! You f*ckin’ used me! I will never forgive you! (crazed panting)
Oksana: It’s bullsh*t.
Mel: I will never forgive you for what you’ve done to me you f*cking bitch! (out of control)
Oksana: You ruined my life! And you didn’t give me a penny.
Mel: You ruined MY life first! I ruined your life? How did I ruin your life? I gave you sh*t! You gave me nothing but f*cking grief! Alright? And bad publicity, you c*nt! How did I ruin your life?
Mel rather disingenuously ignores the fact that she gave him oral sex on demand. So that would, effectively, make
him the "f*cking user". And the abuser. And the arrogant, selfish, self-centered b and c and n words. When will white het men stopped projecting what they too often are onto the rest of us? They invented these words--they are are the product of WHM imagination, and they speak to the socialised nature of race-, sex-, and class-privileged men.
So back on point: It's because Oksana
didn't give him oral sex that he can never forgive her and threatens to kill her. When a man as entitled as Mel doesn't get what he wants, he goes wild. Or, in Sean's case, he simply smacks the woman upside her face. (But I'll bet he doesn't do it as coolly and calmly as his male supremacist tone indicates.) Someone ought to collect these rants and outbursts and put out a DVD called "Boys Gone Wild". And drop them off at the nearest anti-patriarchal prosecutors' offices.
“I deserve to be blown first before the F-CKING JUCUZZI! Okay, I’ll burn the f-cking house down!!! HOW DARE YOU?!!”
[source for all Mel's demonic dialogue is
here @ radaronline.com]
This kind of militant sexual self-absorption is one of men's privileges, not afforded to women. It's rarely heard in such a raw state, which is why men can claim any woman who speaks against him as a sexual abuser is called a liar--and he is believed by a public that knows full-well what these misogynistic men do, but don't want to be humiliated by speaking out about it. Or tracked down and killed. Men's excuse for the silence is just collectively self-serving. These het men want what they want when they want it from women, or girls, and they have an informal agreement not to out one another for taking it from girls and women when they can, using threats, drugs, force, money--
by any means necessary.
His vitriol would have to be recorded for her to get a fair hearing, and even now the misogynists (who pathetically and patriarchally call themselves "anti-misandrists") call her derisive and ugly names--in part because she secretly recorded him and allowed other people to hear him do what he thought he could do privately with legal immunity. And the names they call her are similar to the names the abuser uses to degrade her. So its another round of misogynist assaults, which is also why so many women won't speak out about what entitled men do--there's nothing more demoralising that telling the truth about what men do that is warfare and then being regarded as a self-centered liar who has to then endure being harassed and threatened by his friends, allies, and war buddies. You'll notice the number of orders for protection that men take out on women is significantly less than what women take out on men. There's a reason, and the "anti-misandrists" will tell you all day long it's because the women are calculating and just want to screw him over--perfectly nice little victimised boy-man that he always is in his own eyes.
Socially speaking, why are men's privatised abuses of women
not a problem for wealthy white het men collectively, but any woman finding a way to expose those abuses
is a problem for those men such that they organise to change laws to better protect their assets and cover their asses? This goes beyond a double standard. This is a massively powerful racist and patriarchal standard which entitles white men to abuse women of all colors without consequence, and degrades and punishes all women for doing anything at all to stop them.
Why does the media and music industry only report how hard patriarchy is on the predators, procurers, and pimps, but when women write honestly and in an uncompromising way about the degrees to standard patriarchal practices sexually traumatise them, the female experts are called "feminazis"? Perhaps you're not aware of the ill-logic of "masculist" men who want it when they want it however they can get it. Here's a sampling from
a self-defined antifeminist, masculist man's blog. Note in the unabridged post his utterly unbridled contempt for women of all races, sexual orientations, and political persuasions. Again, a portion of his and another white het man's militantly patriarchal pontification:
Men can tell if a woman has prostituted herself dozens or hundreds of times. This makes her very undesirable. Conversely, men can tell if a woman is an amateur who has never prostituted herself and this would cause fascination at the very least if she seems to be acting like she is a prostitute. This is the effect that a gorgeous young policewoman would have if she acted as a decoy. She would be presenting a level of quality that does not really exist in the real sex business. Heck, if men knew a woman was a cop, she would be that much more attractive for flirting with them.
(I don't know of any men who are turned on by some amazon bull dyke look alike unless these "men" like the idea of being cuffed and things shoved up thier asses or like being dominated by women.)
Keep in mind that most prostitutes are ugly and/or lower class and/or underprivileged non-whites. It is for this reason that most middle class white American males would never consider touching a prostitute. We are scared of disease first and foremost. Even on the Turkish Riviera, where US and British feminists pretend exists a burgeoning sex slave market, the Ukrainian prostitutes are all chain smokers who are extraordinarily undesirable (and are thus probably not there involuntarily).
(No,most guys don't because of some stigma put there by women and the church,putting it down,much like Jim is doing. What Jim forgets is that most men like a return on their investment and a kiss on the cheek or a handshake after buying her dinner and drinks just isn't going to cut it.)
Imagine, however, a middle-aged man out on a date with a clean-smelling middle-class American college coed who surprisingly and amateurishly tells him after dinner that going further will cost him $200 and she's never done this before…I can guarantee that 95% of the men in that scenario would consider the proposition. Marc Rudov wouldn't have gotten his start criticizing men for buying their girlfriends and wives, if it were not true that most men are, in fact, willing to pay for sex. Prostitution, in theory, would be as natural as breathing. Humans just want it to be done discretely.
(No,western society wants to stamp it out. The fact that it is discreet is because the matriarchy may not know of that particular location for prostitution but if it does it will move against it.)
Stopping the entrapment of males by attractive young sex police should be a top 10 priority for the Men's Rights Movement.
That's just a drop in the sea. Men who obviously hate women are splattering this stuff all over the face of the Internet.
In such a society, men
are wrong often, but not in their own eyes. In such a society, men are or pretend to be ignorant about the damage they do and how dangerous they are because they choose not to see themselves as anything other than mother-ruled victimised babies--with the patriarchal protections of privilege and power firmly in place and thanks to Men's and Father's Rights Activists, they're getting stronger every day. Just watch the look in Sean Connery's eyes when he blathers on calmly with his woman-dominating nonsense. He thinks he's being smart, rational, and correct in his judgment. He's wrong on all counts. Will he ever admit that to himself? Probably not. He doesn't have to. What man is going to call him out on it? Surely not Mel Gibson. And certainly not any masculist, misogynist man who thinks women have too much power and control over men as it is. (Where, exactly, is that region of the world where that matriarchal man-hating is running rampant?)
In a patriarchal society, boys will become men who get to be irresponsible boys. That means that men will be misogynists unless responsible mature men stop them from being so. Emotionally immature infants and terrorist toddlers with the power of grown white het men will not organise an intervention on any woman's behalf. They will organise to protect their right to possess children they sexually assault.
The institutional and systemic support of dominants in various social hierarchies is a scary reality with many participants. Pay no attention to the female death toll. Or the fact that disproportionately she is poor and of color. Ignore the women being terrorised, beaten, harassed, raped, pimped, procured, and sold into slavery behind the that curtain of callousness and the din of domination. It's all designed to be a very loud veil of denial and defensiveness, of privileged protectionism, by masters who think they are slaves.
So it's not only that Mel Gibson is one self-absorbed scornful scumbag. He is that. Check out
this bit of self-serving shite where he discusses Tiger Woods' predicament. We must add to that reality another one: mass
media's moguls and misogynistic
mouthpieces will find ways to keep blaming women for men's plight of being caught being abusive... to women.
Now that all the malevolent male-violent audio is out, a critical mass needs to focus on
the woman--who Mel Gibson, or any man, verbally or physically assaults even when he admits to physically assaulting her. Even when he screams out how sexually abusive he is. His admission falls on dominants' deaf ears, and can sway the masses if he has enough celebrity clout. So his defenders will portray her as a gold-digger and him as... as what?
The victim? Misogynist men
hate it when women claim to be victims, because the fellas want us to believe women only ever victimise men. And there are plenty of
women to concur, preferring to be in the good graces of misogynists like Connery than targeted by men's Gibsonesque wrath. The fact that these women also get no respect from woman-hating men needs to be noted. Stockholm Syndrome is alive and its producing women who kick other women when they're already down for the count.
While Mel is a damned filthy patriarchal perp (pardon my English), we shouldn't expect his ex-spouse will not come to Oksana's defence. Robyn Moore, instead, proclaims her former husband to be
a completely wonderful father who never struck her or any of their many, many children. Doesn't a Christian white het man like Mel wanting so many children indicate an ego the size of his god's will?
His currently (and for some time now, to be honest) tarnished character will be buffered and buffed by her testimony. It's either Stockholm Syndrome from years of bondage or it's the precarious position she's put in due to fighting for a portion of his stocks and bonds: she is engaged in a battle to get $400 million from him. What are her options? Can she really tell the press he's an prick and a mutherf*cker? What parent of seven would jeopardise a hefty divorce settlement by standing by the woman her hubby was shagging while they were still wed? Is she really litigationally free to tell us the whole truth and nothing but the truth about ol' Mel, the philandering patriarch?
Add to that the many friends, colleagues, and allies who have or are about to buttress his ass stating that he is not and never has been a bigot, even though we've all heard just how bigoted he really is...
for YEARS.
When is a terrorist not a terrorist? When he's a
documented domestic terrorist, like Mr. Mel Gibson, who calls out for the press to leave Tiger Woods alone and complain about the troops being sent into Afghanistan. As if the 24/7 news channels can't do both.
The question is why they can't tell the truth about each story. Why can't they tell us what the U.S. military is really doing in Afghanistan, and why Western white men really do abuse women--using plenty of lethal weapons, including against the women in Afghanistan and Iraq and on
American Indian reservations? Why doesn't the dominant press make the connections between these atrocities? Surely it's not because they don't have enough time. Just interview Malalai Joya, Yanar Mohammed, Ruchira Gupta, Vandana Shiva, and Winona Flying Earth.
And don't edit or censor them. I'm waiting, CNN. Will you allow Anderson Cooper to "go there"?
There are many so connections between white het men's domestic terrorism of white women and white het men's international terrorism against nations where women of color live. It's not that the dots of blood are that far apart. It's that CNN anchors like Campbell Brown and Anderson Cooper don't have the permission from CNN's owners and shareholders to connect them. CNN isn't in the business of ending wars against women or nations. It is in the business of promoting the wars and making money for the war-mongers, the corporate and political leaders who run and flood the blood baths. Halliburton and Blackwater will get rich one way or another. Either from getting contracts to do their work in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Haiti. Bill Clinton will see to the latter. President Obama and G.W. Bush's warlords are ensuring the former. And CNN won't report on any of it accurately. So the bombs will blast and the body bags will be sent home. And for the living, post-traumatic stress will be with them until they die,
often at their own hands.
Post-traumatic stress is a condition found in those who have been severely harmed in ways that are overwhelming, yet the news media only report on the soldiers who have it, not the Afghan or Iraqi citizens. Why is that? Aren't the "foreign" civilians just as human?
It is quite a challenge to survive severe abuse and speak out about it, against one's abuser. Usually the oppressed stay silent, or come to rescue the abuser when he is being outed as such. We must not assume women who have been intimately involved with an abusive man like Mel Gibson don't have Stockholm Syndrome. I'm not saying all women who know him have been terrorised by him. I'm saying those who have been terrorised by him likely have some form of post traumatic stress and Stockholm Syndrome.
I'll get to the heart of the matter of his friends defending him at the end of this post.
For now, let's ask which of these rich white het men who show gross disregard for women's safety, well-being, and human dignity deserve to be allowed to have robust careers in Hollywood? When will Hollywood can their careers? Will women first have to die from their clenched fists?
SEAN CONNERY'S CURRENT CAREER PROJECTS:
Sir Billi (2010)
(post-production) (voice) ....
Sir Billi
MEL GIBSON'S CURRENT CAREER PROJECTS:
- Cold Warrior (details only on IMDbPro)
- The Drowner (details only on IMDbPro)
- Untitled Mel Gibson/Leonardo DiCaprio (details only on IMDbPro)
- How I Spent My Summer Vacation (2011) (filming) .... Driver
- The Beaver (2010) (post-production) .... Walter Black
- Edge of Darkness (2010) .... Thomas Craven
More analysis follows after this report, from
*here*.
REUTERS/Phil McCarten
Cast member Mel Gibson and Oksana Grigorieva attend the premiere
of the film "Edge of Darkness" in Los Angeles January 26, 2010.
It’s official. Mel Gibson has dethroned
Christian Bale as the ranting
king of Hollywood.
Audio clips released in the past couple of weeks have implicated
Gibson in what appears to be a verbally abusive exchange between
himself and his ex-girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva. The clips feature an
aggravated Gibson huffing and puffing as he yells at Grigorieva with
derogatory names and racist comments.
The dust barely settled before a
fifth tape was released today. Gibson
aggressively shouts at Grigorieva and blames her for his financial
difficulties. He alleges that he spent $5 million dollars on her which has
forced him to sell his possessions including a Lakers box.
“I ruined your life? How did I ruin your life? I gave you s–t, you gave
me nothing but f–king grief and bad publicity you c–t,” said Gibson
in
the clip.
Detectives responsible for investigating Gibson received copies of the
recordings this morning, according
USA Today.
Grigorieva and Gibson are currently in a custody battle for their
nine-month-old daughter Lucia.
* * *
From
*here* we find this:
On Monday, Whoopi explained her position on Mel. "I know Mel, and I know he's not a racist. I have had a long friendship with Mel. You can say he's being a bonehead, but I can't sit and say that he's a racist having spent time with him in my house with my kids. I don't like what he's done, make no mistake."
Goldberg also blamed his 2006 anti-Semitic tirade after being stopped by police on alcohol. "Drunks say stupid stuff to people all the time -- because they're drunk, they're out of control, they are not thinking, they are idiotic. I can't say anything about people like that because I know what they're like when they're drunk."
But her fellow hosts weren't as keen to forgive the actor. Joy Behar told The Insider that Mel is not welcome on 'The View.'
* * *
To Whoopi Goldberg:
Mel Gibson is a white supremacist-level racist, a full-fledged anti-Semite, an anti-gay bigot, and as virulent and dangerous a woman-hater as men can be without having their well-gnawed bones in his backyard. What your experience of him is, is
fortunate, and is
not at all indicative of what is inside him--and outside. Haven't you ever heard of white men behaving themselves, on occasion, when the situation calls for it? Keep in mind that if his racist/woman-hating rants weren't taped, we wouldn't know about them. Now that they are out--added to the patriarchal
pile of his past CRAP, I'd hope people who have regular airtime and clout would not defend him as "not a racist" or make excuses for him being an anti-Semite. Or a woman-hating abuser. Call him what he is, Whoopi, because a lot of people look to you to tell the truth. You have also been an apologist for
Roman Polanski. "It wasn't 'rape-rape'?" Isn't one "rape" enough?
Which singularly raped girls and battered women are you standing beside when you make public statements like these? What sort of message are you sending out to girls who will be or already are being incested, date raped, emotionally, verbally, and physically assaulted by males in their lives? Do their abusers really need influential women like you to publicly defend them?
I wish you and Jodie Foster, and all Mel's other friends and Hollywood colleagues such as
Bruce Davey,
Martin Campbell,
Danny Glover and
Randall Wallace would stop making excuses for Mr. Gibson's full-spectrum bigotry and violence against women. I realise they won't get bombarded with the harshly critical emails that you will Whoopi, both because you're on a daily television show and because there are unfair racist and sexist expectations on you to speak for most Black women. And, also unfairly, the pressure is on Jodie to speak out because she's done such fine cinematic work against men's terroristic violence against women. Sadly, our expectations are extremely low for men of any color to speak out on these subjects on behalf of women's human rights, but the pressure should be on them, even more than on you, to make statements about Mel's appallingly patriarchal actions.
Girls and women who are abused by men aren't supported by your silence Bruce, Martin, Danny, and Randall. Speak out against what he's done, if you have any courage and integrity on the issues of domestic violence and rape. Your silence will not protect women. Your protection of him won't either.
But Whoopi, please remember that Mel's a big boy and he can defend himself. He's got millions of dollars with which to hire the best defence attorneys an over-paid Christian white straight male supremacist actor's money can buy. He's got connections in Hollywood to generate pro-Gibson/anti-woman stories for the mass media to eat up. He doesn't need your support, and he doesn't deserve it. Please stop protecting the patriarchs. -- Julian Real
Alex DiBranco is a Change.org Editor who has worked for the Nation, Political Research Associates, and the Center for American Progress. She is now based in New York City.
