Horror movie: woman becomes considerate wife

Hollywood seems to be caving into feminist demands, and swamping us with movies having women in lead roles. But this is not good enuf for the Left:

The fourth installment in the Jurassic Park franchise features hunky Chris Pratt, lots of people getting devoured by dinosaurs, and some backward sexual politics. ...

But Jurassic World is not good. In fact, it’s aggressively bad. ...

Yes, Jurassic World is not about corporate greed, anti-militarization, crass commerciality, disrupting the food chain, or dinos eating the shit out of people. No. It’s about a woman’s “evolution” from an icy-cold, selfish corporate shill into a considerate wife and mother.

This time I agree with yesterday's tweet:

I now no longer know if I'm being trolled, if people are in on the joke, if it's causing genuine anger, or if society is simply doomed.

Complaining about conservation law wherever the dinosaurs are seems to be a joke, but the above appears to be a straight political opinion from a leftist political site.

News Jobs movie trashes him for lacking empathy

I posted a rant against a movie about a modern genius, and here is another such move. Here is a London Guardian review:

Steve Jobs: Man in the Machine first look review – Apple founder's sour side
4 / 5 stars

Alex Gibney portrays Steve Jobs as a modern-day Citizen Kane, a man with dazzling talent and monomaniacal focus, but utterly lacking in empathy

Having tackled the Scientologists in his most recent film Going Clear, documentary maker Alex Gibney takes on a cult that is even more ardent, and with considerably more members – that of Apple. His unsparing portrait of Steve Jobs will prove extremely displeasing to devotees, but it’s a riveting and important corrective to the myths Jobs helped to propagate, ...

The film points out that Jobs’s genius was in personalising computers – Lisa being the first – but it also reveals that this impulse came from a pretty messed-up place. As well as being deeply ambivalent about being a father, Jobs also felt at once rejected and anointed by the fact that he was adopted. Jobs has somehow transmitted that mess to us too. Our iPhones connect us to faraway friends and family, yet we spend increasing amounts of time alone with them, seduced by machines that can never really fulfil us.

Gibney’s film concludes that Jobs had the monomaniacal focus of a monk but none of the empathy of one, and it makes a powerful case. Jobs’s was an astonishing life of such significance that it will probably be studied for centuries, and Gibney does not downplay his genius. Yet the kernel of the film is probably the ex-girlfriend who says that Job “blew it”. How so? Jobs achieved things that the vast majority of us would never dream of. Yet Gibney’s film forensically anatomises the contradictions, the ruthlessness, and the pointlessly crappy behaviour that reveal Apple’s ideals to be a sham, even while the products themselves continue to prove almost irresistible.

Maybe I will have to watch the movie. The man did have his flaws, but does this movie really concentrate on an ex-girlfriend badmouthing him for lacking empathy?

I have previously noted that powerful people lack empathy, and even Pres. Obama is mocked for lacking empathy.

The Alan Turing Movie stinks

I finally watched The Imitation Game, the movie that supposedly tells the true story of mathematician Alan Turing. The true story would have been a good movie, but this was about 90% fiction. The screenwriter Moore said:

When you use the language of 'fact checking' to talk about a film, I think you're sort of fundamentally misunderstanding how art works. You don't fact check Monet's 'Water Lilies'. That's not what water lilies look like, that's what the sensation of experiencing water lilies feel like. That's the goal of the piece.

I should remember that line, and use it the next time someone catches me in a factual error.

Here are the makers describing what the movie is about:

Nora Grossman: When we were first were developing this screenplay we were very concerned with making this NOT your traditional bio-pic - not a sort of Merchant-Ivory period piece - and that was a guiding factor when we were developing the project. This was a sort of gay rights movie but also a thriller, Turing was the father of computer science and a gay man - so we wanted to draw on all the facets of this life to appeal to modern audiences - as well as World War Two enthusiasts, computer theorists, gay advocates - all kinds of people. ...

Graham Moore: This was a film about love, not a film about sex - and Alan Turing's love for Christopher is fundamental to his life. Alan fell in love with Christopher Morcom when he was a teenager and it was the great love of his life - I don't think he ever fell in love again, really, and we wanted to show how fundamental that relationship was to him. I think Christopher the person and Christopher the machine are really the sort of second character in the movie.

Turing is portrayed as a gay hero or martyr, but they sure have a funny view of that role. He never actually has sexual relations with anyone. He is portrayed as an emotional cripple as a result of some childhood bullying and tragedy. His homosexuality only comes into play as he is blackmailed by a Soviet bible-quoting spy into betraying his country and rejecting his fiancee. And in leading to his suicide 10 years later after a policeman suspects him of being a spy. Most of this is fiction.

His death was probably an accident. Supposedly he ate a cyanide apple, but no one even tested the apple for cyanide. He died a year after he completed the punishment for having sex with a teenaged boy, so it is doubtful that the events were related.

Homosexuality is secondary to being an Aspie hero and martyr. Throughout the movie, Turing is portrayed as having a mental illness that causes him to have no friends, to have no sense of humor, to not cooperate with his co-workers, to alienate his superiors, and to do silly things like separate the peas and carrots on his lunch plate. His best friend is the machine that tries German crypto keys, and he is devastated when it is destroyed at the end of the war.

Again, most of this is false. This article says humor was a big part of him. This Wash. Post article gives a glimpse of why Turing was admired, none of which is in the movie accurately.

In the movie, Turing decides to let the Germans kill the brother of one his 5 co-workers who are doing all the decoding of German messages. In reality, England had thousands on the decoding project, but none had the authority to order military attacks.

There are many scenes mocking Turing as an aspie. For example, his co-workers say that they are going for lunch, and he does not understand that they are inviting him. Of course they did not say that they were inviting him, and it makes just as much sense to interpret the scene as showing his co-workers being poor communicators. But the movie is all about Turing, so he is the one being blamed for the poor communication.

In another scene, a young Turing complains people often mean something other than what they say. This is used as a reason for him to get interested in cryptography, but it is also an Asperger stereotype. That is, Turing is the type to say what he means and mean what he says. A lot of men are like that, but in Turing it is presented as a pathology.

Some people do claim that Turing had Asperger syndrome (high-functioning autism), based on this list of symptoms:

School report described him as "antisocial"
Only one friend at school
Unable to control younger boys at school or manage co-workers
No attempt to socialise with academic superiors
Interests in science, mathematics, chemistry, codes and ciphers, nature
Always ate an apple before bed
House was cluttered with whatever he was interested in at the time
Always put the cork back in the wine bottle at the end of a meal
Often worked through the night
Wrote about his work to people with no scientific background
Stiff gaze in photographs
Lack of eye contact
Awkward appearance
Characteristic response to presentation of new ideas (stabbed fingers and said "I see, I see")
High pitched voice
Misunderstood enrolment form for Home Guard
Over-analysed colleagues' approaches
Poor handwriting
Always got ink on his collar at school

Really? How can people regard this stuff as symptomatic of a serious mental disorder? Well, not everyone does, as Asperger was removed from the DSM-5.

I know this is just a movie, but Hollywood nearly always portrays mathematicians as insane, such as in A Beautiful Mind and Good Will Hunting. No one complains about it. If you do, the common response is that mathematicians really are crazy. Or point out that Hollywood stereotypes a lot of other groups also.

The TV and movie aspie traits seem to be based on Hollywood stereotypes, as opposed to diagnosable symptoms. The TV show The Big Bang Theory has a character Sheldon Cooper who is widely regarded as an aspie, even tho the producers deny that they had any such intent and he does not match the textbook symptoms. The movie Turing is like the TV Sheldon in that he arrogantly picks fights by claiming that he is smarter than everyone else, and is a pain to everyone around him. Real-life aspies are not nearly so confrontational.

These stereotypes are apparently firmly held. I once talked to a woman who confidently asserted that Sheldon would lose custody of any child in family court, and would deserve to lose it. When I asked her why, she got all emotional and said she could not explain it, but it is obvious.

Maybe she is right, as some deep prejudices are at work here. If nerds and scientists are really such bad parents, then it should be fairly easy for statistics to prove it. But there is no such evidence. Sheldon's obnoxious traits probably would irritate the judge, but that should not change a decision, if the system worked properly. If you want to see the emotional and illogical thinking of a non-scientist mom, check out this Free Range Kids post.

The average dopey woman or psychologist would probably say that Penny would be a better parent than Sheldon. If Penny marries Leonard and he takes charge of the relationship, then maybe she would be a good mom. Otherwise, she would be a nightmare.

This movie has been widely praised as deserving of Oscars, and as promoting the LGBTQIA cause. I do not think that it helps their cause. The movie took the story of a great man, and rewrote it as a story of a man ruined by homosexuality. Homosexuality leads him to betray his country, his fiancee, and himself. He would have been much happier if he married his fiancee.

The movie's real hatred is for mathematicians. Yes, it needed fact checking. Besides all the gross factual misrepresentations, this movie does not give the feel of Turing, his work, his personality, code-breaking, or any of that. His biggest idea of the movie is to use guesses about the messages to cut down on the key search. That is the most obvious idea of all. What were they doing for their first year of work, if not that?

The real Turing was a computer pioneer who had some brilliant ideas that are easily explained. The movie would have been much better if it explained what he really did, as opposed to inventing all these crazy stories about things that never happened.

The movie is expected to get the Oscar for best adapted screenplay. That means that the critics approve of turning a factual book into nonsense. I do not accept the argument that movies necessitate such fabrications. It also got nominations in the other big categories: best picture, best director, best actor, and best supporting actress.

I get judged by judges, psychologists, and social workers who probably get their prejudices from movies like this. Thanks, Hollywood. I wish you never made this rotten movie.

Update: This movie did indeed win Best Adapted Screenplay, as expected. Here is another rant about how bad it is:

The most disappointing thing about the Oscar-nominated film The Imitation Game can be summed up in the way that Alan Turing, the brilliant mathematician played by Benedict Cumberbatch, answers his boss, Commander Denniston, when Denniston asks him why he needs to build a machine to crack the Germans’ unbreakable code.

“It’s highly technical,” Turing says, dismissive. “You wouldn’t understand.”

Turing may as well have been speaking to the audience, not just his sneering commander, because for a movie about a technological pioneer making a technological breakthrough, The Imitation Game barely deals with technology at all.

Instead of an inventor, it shows a stereotype. Instead of a machine, it shows an obsession. And instead of inspiring us to follow in the footsteps of a person who shaped technology, the film inspires us only to get out of the way of the next genius who can.

That drew this comment:

The movie got four things right!

1. Alan Turing was gay.
2. He was briefly engaged to his coworker lady friend.
3. He worked on Enigma.
4. He died after the war.

Besides that it was a complete fiction. "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" was more historically accurate. ...
Sadly, the real story is way more interesting and moved much faster than the movie.

The true story would have been a much better movie.

Update: I did not watch the Oscars. Did it really have some gay guy prancing around in his underwear? And Moore, the Turing scriptwriter, whining about how he tried to commit suicide so he was like Turing? I am glad I did not watch it.

Update: Moore's Turing acceptance speech was so gay that he had to publicly deny that he was gay. Seems to me that he could have shown his liberal cred by saying that he was bisexual or a cross-dresser or something.

Update: Moore also has White House connections:

Moore’s mother is Susan Sher, who was Michelle Obama’s chief of staff and is now coordinating the push to have Obama’s presidential library located in Chicago. But their relationship is beyond professional – they’ve been friends for years.

Update: The gays and lesbians praised Moore, until he announced that he was not gay. They were offended that he would compare gays to bullied non-gays:

But it’s also important to note that being gay simply isn’t the same as being a “geek.” Moore may see them as comparable (and, though he has identified himself as straight, his affect may have opened him up to homophobic bullying), but the truth of the matter is that the social force behind anti-gay prejudice is far stronger and more pernicious than the animus against social outcasts.

So Moore looks and acts gay, but unless he is taking it in the rear end, his concerns do not count. These people are sick.

Likewise Patricia Arquette got heat for complaining about treatment of straight white women, while ignoring all the other groups.

Your values are stupid

From yesterday's comics:



This WuMo cartoon is mocking the politician, but I am starting to side with the him. My values are right. The people who run our society have a whole set of ideas that are stupid. I am giving up trying to post rational argument. No rational argument will convince them.

I have posted arguments in favor of free speech, but do I need to explain why it is bad to allow the murder of a bunch of French cartoonists? I don't think so. Of course everyone is against murder, but what will they do about it? Two years ago, Pres. Barack Obama apologized to the Islamic world for a YouTube video, and had the maker arrested. He only favors free speech in the movies when his Hollywood campaign donors are asking.

Media defending the UVa frat rape hoax story

I posted skepticism about the UVa frat gang rape story, and now others are openly calling it a hoax. But the mainstream feminist media is defending the story, even if it turns out to be false.

Rebecca Traister writes in the New Republic:

The dismantling of Erdely’s story — both by anti-feminist agonistes and by those genuinely dismayed by possible journalistic error — would mean that Jackie’s story of being beaten and raped by seven fraternity brothers will be dismissed, and that the reading public will be permitted to slip back into the comforting conviction that stories like Jackie’s aren’t real, that rapes like that don’t happen, that our system works, and that, of course, bitches lie.

That's right. If it turns out, as is likely, that Jackie and Erdely perpetrated a hoax, then the story will be dismissed.

Yes, rapes like that do not happen. That is why I was skeptical. Yes, bitches lie. That is why it is plausible that this story is a hoax.

Just look at how she wants us to believe the story, even if it is false!

The NY Times reports:

But some have also raised questions about the article. Its writer, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, a contributing editor at Rolling Stone, has faced criticism because she has acknowledged in interviews that she did not contact or interview the men accused of the rape. News organizations, seeking to be fair, usually seek comment from those suspected of criminal conduct.

In an interview Tuesday, Ms. Erdely said that she stood by her reporting.

“I am convinced that it could not have been done any other way, or any better,” she said. “I am also not interested in diverting the conversation away from the point of the piece itself.”

Yes, it could have been done better. She could have contacted the accused men, and could have looked for evidence verifying Jackie's story.

But notice her response: exposing her hoax is a diversion from the point of the story!

The subject of the article, who was identified by only her first name, had requested that her assailants not be contacted, and Rolling Stone decided that her situation was too delicate to risk going against her wishes, according to people familiar with the reporting process who declined to be identified because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

This is laughable. The Rolling Stone and Washington Post are going down as using hoax newspapers to promote a political ideology. The National Enquirer has higher standards.

I am reminded of an interview I once read of the director of a movie about the life story of a leftist activist. He was asked several questions of the form "Let me ask about the scene where ... did that really happen?" Each time, the director said no. Finally, the director said something like: "I don't know what you are trying to get at here. I decided at the outset that we were not going to let the facts get in the way of telling this man's story."

This attitude appears common in Hollywood, as shown by recent biographies of scientists Stephen Hawking and Alan Turing. Those big-budget movies got rave reviews on everything except the facts.

I would think that true rape victims would lead the charge in favor of honest reporting. But then I would think that black people would not align themselves with a 100% guilty thug like Michael Brown of Ferguson Missouri. (It appears that they now have a better example to protest, in the Death of Eric Garner.) As it is, I am inclined to believe that sensationalized rape stories are probably false as the mainstream media are happy with one side of the story.

The bitter ex-wife of Dinesh D'Souza

Dinesh D’Souza made a couple of anti-Obama movies, and then the feds charged and convicted of a felony for over-donating to a political campaign. I don't have any opinion about that, but I was struck by the this letter attempting to get him a stiff sentence:

Dear Judge Berman:

I write in response to the sentencing memorandum and attachments submitted by my former husband, Dinesh D'Souza, in support of his upcoming sentencing hearing, currently scheduled for September 23, 2014. I was married to Dinesh D'Souza for more than 20 years and together with him for over 26 years. I know Dinesh better than anyone and can attest to his flawed character and lack of truthfulness. Please accept this letter as my effort to correct the record Dinesh creates by his false and misleading submissions to the Court regarding me, the extent and nature of his criminal conduct, and my relationship with our daughter, Danielle D'Souza. I trust the Court will carefully consider my letter and impose a fair, appropriate and just sentence. ...

The most painful part of his conduct is his use of our daughter to bolster his character. Dinesh has allowed, and perhaps encouraged, her to submit a letter to a federal judge that he knows is patently false. I am hurt and dismayed by untrue statements in our daughter's letter.

Contrary to the statement made in Mr. D'Souza's sentencing memorandum, it is my former husband who has an abusive nature. In one instance, it was my husband who physically abused me in April 2012 when he, using his purple belt karate skills, kicked me in the head and shoulder, knocking me to the ground and creating injuries that pain me to this day.

Further, it was Dinesh who filed the dissolution-of-marriage proceeding on October 4, 2012 - not weeks but several months after he committed the federal offense for which he is to be sentenced. And while he justifies his criminal behavior due to being overly stressed from our marriage, it was Dinesh who admitted to having an affair with Ms. Joseph and getting engaged at that time, while we were still married - all before he filed for divorce. We were not separated or legally separated as he has made these false claims in public and to the media. Dinesh lied to me, he lied to the government, he encouraged others to lie for him, and now he has allowed our daughter to submit multiple false statements to a federal court in order to avoid punishment. Dinesh D'Souza is not a truthful person.

There ought to be a law against spouses and ex-spouses testifying. Note that she goes so far as to call their daughter a liar.

So she dated him for 6 years and then married him for 20 more. That makes her an expert on his flawed character?! If she knew his flawed character better than anyone, why did she marry him?

I have heard other women rant endlessly on how their ex-husband is a horrible psychopathic scoundrel, and how they don't understand why others do not recognize how bad he is. He is really good at fooling people, they say.

Sorry, not convinced. The more scathing the attack, the more it convinces me that Hell has no fury like a woman scorned.

There are also thousands of comments on the net about a female game designer who got trashed by an ex-boyfriend. Supposedly she betrayed him and seduced a reviewer in order to get a favorable review. And she is a social justice warrior. And her game is depressing. And she is a woman encroaching on a man's world. I don't want to pile on here. I very much doubt that she deserves the all the shaming. For details see #GamerGate.

Divorce Corp conference on family law

I posted the Divorce Corp movie trailer in January. Now the same guys are hosting a Family Law Reform Conference in Virginia on Nov. 15-16. One of the topics is "Are Family Courts the New Mafia?".

I don't know the backstory here, but the more attention they draw to the issues, the better.

Stupid Lifetime movie Betrayed

I watched the made-for-TV movie Betrayed on the Lifetime channel last Sunday. It was terrible.

I realize this junk is aimed at women, but this seemed worse than usual. I didn't pay enough attention to recite the plot, but I'll try. The hero was a pregnant woman who was stringing along her rich husband as well as an adulterous lover. She told her lover that the kid was his and kept promising to run off with him, but first she needed to convince her husband that the baby was his and get millions in a divorce settlement. They both foolishly support her while she is dishonest with both of them.

Another guy tries to extort money out of them. She selfishly lets the three guys fight it out, and the extortionist ends up dead. In the end, she threatens to frame the other two (her husband and lover), and abandons both of them. She vows to raise the baby herself, and proudly tells them it is a girl, not a boy. If they try for custody or visitation, she will accuse them of murder. And she will have her husband's money to raise her lover's kid.

The movie title seems to imply that she was betrayed, and justified in her action. Maybe I wasn't paying attention, but I didn't see it. She was betraying them. And the typical Lifetime viewer was probably saying "yo girl!".

It is just a stupid movie, and may only reflect the view of the producer or director. But I assume that they did some market research, and they decided that the movie fulfills a fantasy of the women who watch the Lifetime channel. Scary.

Alimony contributed to suicide

The late Robin Williams had personal problems:

Robin Williams will return to TV after nearly three decades – because two divorces have left him short of cash.

The comic’s breakups cost him £20 million and he claims to need a ‘steady job’. He is also selling his £20 million California ranch due to his sizeable alimony payments.[...]

The 62-year-old, said: ‘Divorce is expensive. I used to joke they were going to call it “all the money”, but they changed it to “alimony”.

It’s ripping your heart out through your wallet.’

The joke is that it is a contraction of "all his money". There is also a story that he had Parkinson's disease, so divorce probably isn't the main story. CH quotes this and rants:

If America is fated to be a post-Malthusian, r-selection reproductive free-for-all, then let it be in every way. That means, women are cut loose from the male alimony and child support teat to fend for themselves and accept the consequences of their decisions. Relying on men for support, pre- and post-marriage, is a luxury afforded K-selection societies, and that luxury comes with certain duties that modern women have largely chosen to abandon. If justice is fair and not wholly rigged against the interests of men, the divorce rape culture will be dismantled and an ex-husband’s life may be saved.

Williams starred in Mrs. Doubtfire, as I remarked before:

I happened to watch two big divorce movies on cable TV channels last week, Kramer vs. Kramer (1979) and Mrs. Doubtfire (1993).

These movies must have been made by people who experienced a nasty divorce. Otherwise, the stories are not very plausible. Particularly hard to take, in both movies, is the attitude of the wife/mother in seeking child custody, and the action of the family court in ignoring the merits of the father's case.

Williams is a pathetic character in the movie. Apparently he was about to make a pathetic sequel:

Robin Williams resented having to do a second Mrs Doubtfire film but felt compelled in order to keep money coming in, a close friend of the actor has told the Telegraph.

Williams, who had been working on four projects when he was believed to have taken his own life this week, was said to have been dreading making more films as they “brought out his demons”. …

“Robin had promised himself he would not do any more as he invested so much in his roles that it left him drained and particularly vulnerable to depressive episodes,” the friend told the paper.

“He signed up to do them purely out of necessity. He wasn’t poor, but the money wasn’t rolling in any more and life is expensive when you have to pay off two ex-wives and have a family to support.”

The cartoon moms are dead

I sometimes post about anti-father biases, but here is a pro-father bias, according to an article in The Atlantic:

Bambi’s mother, shot. Nemo’s mother, eaten by a barracuda. Lilo’s mother, killed in a car crash. Koda’s mother in Brother Bear, speared. Po’s mother in Kung Fu Panda 2, done in by a power-crazed peacock. Ariel’s mother in the third Little Mermaid, crushed by a pirate ship. Human baby’s mother in Ice Age, chased by a saber-toothed tiger over a waterfall. ...

A decade after my Peter Pan years, I began watching a lot of animated children’s movies, both new and old, with my son. The same pattern held, but with a deadly twist. Either the mothers died onscreen, or they were mysteriously disposed of before the movie began: Chicken Little, Aladdin, The Fox and the Hound, Pocahontas, Beauty and the Beast, The Emperor’s New Groove, The Great Mouse Detective, Ratatouille, Barnyard, Despicable Me, Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs, and, this year, Mr. Peabody and Sherman. So many animated movies. Not a mother in sight.

The cartoonist Alison Bechdel once issued a challenge to the film industry with her now-famous test: show me a movie with at least two women in it who talk to each other about something besides a man. Here’s another challenge: show me an animated kids’ movie that has a named mother in it who lives until the credits roll. Guess what? Not many pass the test. And when I see a movie that does (Brave, Coraline, A Bug’s Life, Antz, The Incredibles, The Lion King, Fantastic Mr. Fox), I have to admit that I am shocked … and, well, just a tad wary. ...

In a striking number of animated kids’ movies of the past couple of decades (coincidental with the resurgence of Disney and the rise of Pixar and DreamWorks), the dead mother is replaced not by an evil stepmother but by a good father. He may start out hypercritical (Chicken Little) or reluctant (Ice Age). He may be a tyrant (The Little Mermaid) or a ne’er-do-well (Despicable Me). He may be of the wrong species (Kung Fu Panda). He may even be the killer of the child’s mother (Brother Bear). No matter how bad he starts out, though, he always ends up good.

He doesn’t just do the job, he’s fabulous at it.

I have watched a bunch of Shirley Temple movies from the 1930s. She usually played an orphan. Sometimes there was a father figure, but never a mother.

The article does not really explain why the movie moms are dead.

Common sense on Rawhide

I just watched this 1962 Rawhide episode:

The Boss's Daughters
Favor's herd is prevented from passing through private land that is the only tenable route going north to the Kansas destination. However the landowner will relent if Favor gives his permission to allow the landowner to adopt Favor's two young daughters (who happen to be visiting Favor) when he marries Favor's sister-in-law, who has been caring for the children. If Favor is opposed to giving up his children, and if he refuses the adoption scheme, he will be forced to either fight his way through the private land or head the herd south and around through the dessert, losing much or all of his herd to the severe elements.

The daughters look and act just like my daughters. Except that Favor's daughters are loyal to their real father. And the men settle their disputes with guns, wire cutters, cattle, and man-to-man confrontations, instead of shrinks, feminists, and judges.

After listening to an argument about "what's best" for his daughters, and how he would have visitation privileges comparable to how often he sees them anyway, the dad (Favor) says:

But logic and reason ain't got nothing to do with it. There is a big difference between thinking and feeling. No, I am not going to lose them at all. ... They are my daughters, and they belong with me.

Well put. He faced the same family court logic and reason that says that a dad should be willing to give up his kids as long as he is still writing support checks and getting visitation privileges, because that is what's best. No, it is not best. People had more common sense back in 1962.

The modern family court is a great mistake. We were much better off in an era where men were men and women were women. I am an anachronism like Favor or Clint Eastwood (who also starred on Rawhide).

The whole thing needs a reboot

I mentioned the movie Divorce Corp, and now there is an extended YouTube interview about it.

The guy very clearly explains what is wrong with child support, the best interest of the child (BIOTCh), the lawyers, and the judges. He says:

Almost all of the incentives are upside down in family law. [at 21:00]

The whole thing needs a reboot. [at 38:30]

He mentions judges who try to shut down blogs, in violation of free speech. I guess I missed it in the movie theaters. It got good reviews on IMDB, and you can buy the DVD or the upcoming book that is promised to better document the supporting facts.

Mel Gibson wife burns money on lawyers

The UK Daily Mail reports:

It is a decision she surely regrets

For Mel Gibxon's ex Oksana Grigorieva has filed for bankruptcy less than four years after knocking back a $15m child custody settlement offer from the Braveheart star.

The hard-up Russian pianist made the move due to prohibitive legal debts said to be in the range of $250,000. ...

During her bitter custody battle with the Mad Max actor she sacked more than 40 lawyers.

At the end of it all the Oscar-winning star was ordered to pay just $750,000 to Grigorieva, which he is stumping up in installments.

The 2011 decision came a year after she turned down a rumoured $15m offer of settlement.

According to the documents she is receiving $20,000 a month in child support for Lucia, while her former flame Timothy Dalton pays her $2,500 a month for their son Alexander.

Their settlement was the end to a lengthy feud, which made headlines across the world when the she accused Gibson of attacking her.

No love lost: This mugshot of the Mad Max star was taken after he pleaded no contest to simple battery in 2011

The confrontation took place on January 2010 - just three months after Grigorieva gave birth to their daughter.

Firing 40 lawyers must be a record. Normally I would be inclined to blame the lawyers for turning down a good settlement and for failing to give reasonable financial advice.

But it is hard to believe that all 40 lawyers were bad. This is obviously an intransigent bitch who went crazy with possessiveness about the baby. These bitter child custody battles should be impossible, because joint custody should be automatic.

This is not the Australian woman who bore Mel Gibson 7 kids and ditched him after his DUI arrest. She got $400M.

Actress has kid living in Europe

I reported on the actress Kelly Rutherford's child custody battle in 2012, and it is now getting coverage from Fox News O'Reilly and the NY Post:

Former “Gossip Girl” star Kelly Rutherford’s complicated custody battle is heating up again. She gave the Post the latest update at the Nanette Lepore show Wednesday at Lincoln Center.

Page Six previously reported that her costly custody battle with ex Daniel Giersch for her two children led Rutherford to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. This came after a California judge ruled that the children must live with their German father in France after his visa was revoked.

Rutherford’s been fighting ever since to get her kids back.

O'Reilly seems to be sympathetic to her, saying that the dad deserved to lose his visa.

The California court actually ruled in favor of 50-50 joint custody, and Rutherford has spent $1.5M in legal fees trying to get sole custody.

Hollywood empowers lesbians

The LA Times reports:

Ellen Page has been met with an outpouring of celebrity support after she fought back tears during an emotional speech Friday in Las Vegas in which she came out as gay. Utilizing her totem as an actress, Page early in her address singled out the entertainment industry as one that "places crushing standards on all of us."

Did those crushing standards turn her into a lesbian? It sure seems to me that Hollywood loves gays and lesbians. The Christian family man is the oddball.

Page also talked about her dedication to roles where women are empowered and independent. Her best-known movies are Juno (2007), where she rapes and underage boy and keeps the baby, and Hard Candy (2005), where castrates a man suspected of some bad behavior. Are those really empowered roles?

Allen-Farrow victimization continues

The Woody Allen story rages on. AP reports:

Unclear what will happen next in Woody Allen controversy

A week bracketed by op-ed letters of accusation and denial of child molestation left little clarity and scant hope for resolution in a bitter saga that has haunted Woody Allen and the Farrow family for more than two decades.

The back-and-forth between Allen and his adopted daughter, Dylan Farrow, breathed new fire into a long dormant scandal, but what happens next is uncertain, with the possibility of legal recourse and continued scrutiny in the weeks and months ahead.

No, this has been resolved. There is no evidence of abuse that would hold up in any court.

A pink site reports:

On the heels of Woody Allen‘s open letter in The New York Times where he denies every having molested his daughter and blasts her mother, Mia Farrow, for having orchestrated the claim, Dylan Farrow is fighting back.

“For 20 years, I have never wavered in describing what he did to me. I will carry the memories of surviving these experiences for the rest of my life,” Dylan said in a statement obtained by RadarOnline on Saturday.

Dylan then gave a point-by-point rebuttal to Allen’s insistence that he [had NOT] abused her and was exonerated by investigators more than 20 years ago.

“Nothing he says or writes can change the truth,” Dylan said today.

I am not sure that I can trust a site with pink headlines and which misses such a crucial "not". Of course Allen cannot change the truth. She seems to be using the word "truth" to mean her ability to tell a fabrication.

NY Times columnist Nicholas Kristof is the one who publicized this story, and he wrote:

Dylan, Allen’s adopted daughter who is now married and living in Florida under a different name, tells me that she has been traumatized for more than two decades by what took place; last year, she was belatedly diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. She says that when she heard of the Golden Globe award being given to Allen she curled up in a ball on her bed, crying hysterically. ...

I asked her why she’s speaking out now. She said she wants to set the record straight and give courage to victims: “I was thinking, if I don’t speak out, I’ll regret it on my death bed.”

These are extremely tough issues, and certainty isn’t available. But hundreds of thousands of boys and girls are abused each year, and they deserve support and sensitivity. When evidence is ambiguous, do we really need to leap to our feet and lionize an alleged molester?

But I want to leave you with a sense of Dylan’s resolve. She declares:

This time, I refuse to fall apart. For so long, Woody Allen’s acceptance silenced me. It felt like a personal rebuke, like the awards and accolades were a way to tell me to shut up and go away. But the survivors of sexual abuse who have reached out to me — to support me and to share ...

Kristof is always writing about human rights abuses and social injustices on the other side of the world. I always assumed that he was sincerely exposing problems, even if he was a bleeding haart liberal. Now I think that he is just another dishonest leftoid propagandist.

Kristof pretty clearly says that Woody Allen should not get an award for his movies because of an unverified and uncertain allegation from 20 years ago against him.

NPR radio reports:

FOLKENFLIK: McBride has written extensively about the coverage of sexual abuse.

MCBRIDE: Because Woody Allen has a reputation out there, we somehow feel like his right to protect his reputation trumps her right to tell her story. And I don't think it does.

Yes, I do believe that slander and libel laws have a good purpose, and that is that his right to protect his reputation does trump her right to tell an apparently-false story.

Some feminists are offering support:

Some of the most vocal and aggrieved reactions to Farrow's letter have often come from women under 40. These include 27-year-old "Girls" creator Lena Dunham, who called Farrow's words "courageous";

No, Dylan Farrow is not courageous. She does not have the courage to face Woody Allen, or to face the press, or to use her current name. She may indeed be a crazy mixed up woman today, but that is more likely the fault of shrinks, n ot Allen. Whatever Allen did, it did not cause PTSD 20 years later.

Dunham may be courageous to portray herself as a crazy slut on her semi-autobiographical HBO show. But not to take cheap shots at Woody Allen.

You can read the 33-page 1993 child custody decision against Woody Allen. It is a disturbing window into the lives of rich movie-making celebrities with irresponsible child-rearing attitudes and practices. Why was Farrow adopting all those kids if she could not proved a good home for them? Things might have been different if DNA paternity tests had been available, and Allen had demanded one.

The more I hear about Dylan Farrow's mental trouble, the more I think that she needed a father, instead of being reared by crazy bitch Mia Farrow. Kay S. Hymowitz has a NY Times op-ed on How Single Motherhood Hurts Kids. Even if Allen had abused Dylan, she got worse treatment from Mia Farrow, the family court judge, and the shrinks.

Wives happier with men not doing housework

LA psychotherapist Lori Gottlieb writes in a popular NY Times article:

A study called “Egalitarianism, Housework and Sexual Frequency in Marriage,” which appeared in The American Sociological Review last year, surprised many, precisely because it went against the logical assumption that as marriages improve by becoming more equal, the sex in these marriages will improve, too. Instead, it found that when men did certain kinds of chores around the house, couples had less sex. Specifically, if men did all of what the researchers characterized as feminine chores like folding laundry, cooking or vacuuming — the kinds of things many women say they want their husbands to do — then couples had sex 1.5 fewer times per month than those with husbands who did what were considered masculine chores, like taking out the trash or fixing the car. It wasn’t just the frequency that was affected, either — at least for the wives. The more traditional the division of labor, meaning the greater the husband’s share of masculine chores compared with feminine ones, the greater his wife’s reported sexual satisfaction.

This is one of many research results showing that what women say they want is quite different from what actually makes them happy. The NY Times article is mocked by Chateau Heartiste, as he explains it much better than the newspaper.

Men can get their relationship advice from women and effeminate shrinks, or from the manosphere. It is remarkable how often the advice is diametrically opposed. The manosphere often has social science studies and field experiments to back up what they say.

In other research, a study claims that psychotherapies for newlyweds does not work any better than watching Hollywood movies.

Update: Here is a list of thinks men say to women, with advice from a woman to never say them, and advice from a man explaining how they can be used in flirting.

Woody Allen replies

I posted the Creepy Woody Allen story when I saw it in the NY Times, not realizing that it was going to be a huge national story, and a repeat from 20 years ago.

The publicity forced Allen to reply in the Sunday NY Times:

TWENTY-ONE years ago, when I first heard Mia Farrow had accused me of child molestation, I found the idea so ludicrous I didn’t give it a second thought. We were involved in a terribly acrimonious breakup, with great enmity between us and a custody battle slowly gathering energy. The self-serving transparency of her malevolence seemed so obvious I didn’t even hire a lawyer to defend myself. It was my show business attorney who told me she was bringing the accusation to the police and I would need a criminal lawyer.

I naïvely thought the accusation would be dismissed out of hand because of course, I hadn’t molested Dylan and any rational person would see the ploy for what it was. Common sense would prevail. ...

Here I quote Moses Farrow, 14 at the time: “My mother drummed it into me to hate my father for tearing apart the family and sexually molesting my sister.” Moses is now 36 years old and a family therapist by profession. “Of course Woody did not molest my sister,” he said. “She loved him and looked forward to seeing him when he would visit. She never hid from him until our mother succeeded in creating the atmosphere of fear and hate towards him.”

Many things are weird here. Allen and Farrow were never married, and kept separate apartments. They adopted kids together, but they are named Farrow, not Allen. They supposedly had one biological kid together, but now that is in doubt:

In a 2013 interview with Vanity Fair, Farrow stated that Ronan could "possibly" be the biological child of her first husband Frank Sinatra, with whom she claims to have "never really split up."[141]

Allen addresses the issue:

I pause here for a quick word on the Ronan situation. Is he my son or, as Mia suggests, Frank Sinatra’s? Granted, he looks a lot like Frank with the blue eyes and facial features, but if so what does this say? That all during the custody hearing Mia lied under oath and falsely represented Ronan as our son? Even if he is not Frank’s, the possibility she raises that he could be, indicates she was secretly intimate with him during our years. Not to mention all the money I paid for child support. Was I supporting Frank’s son? Again, I want to call attention to the integrity and honesty of a person who conducts her life like that.

In my opinion, paternity fraud is a serious crime.

Ronan Farrow is now 26 years old, and that is his picture above. For 26 years, Allen thought that he had a son, and this boy thought that he had a dad. But look at his picture above. I do not see any resemblance to Woody Allen. He looks like Frank Sinatra. No DNA test has been done. Even if Mia Farrow is unsure about paternity, as she now says, she is a monster for her infidelity and deception. How does a woman even keep such a terrible secret for 26 years? Apparently they do, as it happens on the TV show Paternity court all the time.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that there is a 5% chance that Allen did something inappropriate or abusive or criminal. He was not charged with a crime. He was allowed to adopt more kids. He lost his child custody battle, but many good parents lose those battles without ever being guilty of anything.

If you believe in "innocent until proven guilty", then you should just disregard the unproven allegation

As a comment said, if a man can be ruined by such flimsy accusations, then no man is safe and we have a system that encourages false and vindictive allegations.

To me, Mia Farrow's paternity fraud does not matter toward Allen's guilt or innocence. Mia Farrow is more evil than Allen, but that does not make Allen innocent. What makes him innocent is that the allegations were never proved.

Update: NPR radio reports:

FOLKENFLIK: McBride has written extensively about the coverage of sexual abuse.

MCBRIDE: Because Woody Allen has a reputation out there, we somehow feel like his right to protect his reputation trumps her right to tell her story. And I don't think it does.

Yes, I do believe that slander and libel laws have a good purpose, and that is that his right to protect his reputation does trump her right to tell an apparently-false story.

Movie about crooked juvenile judges

There is a new movie, favorably reviewed, about the Penn. Kids for cash scandal. I posted before when the juvenile court judges plead guilty, withdrew their pleas, got sued, convicted, and sentenced.

If you cannot wait for the movie, listen to the free podcast of the Democracy Now episode:

Today a special on "kids for cash," the shocking story of how thousands of children in Pennsylvania were jailed by two corrupt judges who received $2.6 million in kickbacks from the builders and owners of private prison facilities. We hear from two of the youth: Charlie Balasavage was sent to juvenile detention after his parents unknowingly bought him a stolen scooter; Hillary Transue was detained for creating a MySpace page mocking her assistant high school principal. They were both 14 years old and were sentenced by the same judge, Judge Mark Ciavarella, who is now in jail himself — serving a 28-year sentence. Balasavage and Transue are featured in the new documentary, "Kids for Cash," by filmmaker Robert May, who also joins us.

The problem here is not just that these judges were cruel and crooked, but that there is so little public accountability for their bad behavior.

If there were justice, Irwin H. Joseph and Heather D. Morse would be in prison also.

Creepy Woody Allen story

I believe people are innocent until proven guilty, so I have to give Woody Allen the benefit of the doubt. But the NY Times has this creepy story from his adopted daughter:

What’s your favorite Woody Allen movie? Before you answer, you should know: when I was seven years old, Woody Allen took me by the hand and led me into a dim, closet-like attic on the second floor of our house. He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my brother’s electric train set. Then he sexually assaulted me. ...

For as long as I could remember, my father had been doing things to me that I didn’t like. ...

I was stricken with guilt that I had allowed him to be near other little girls. I was terrified of being touched by men. I developed an eating disorder. I began cutting myself. That torment was made worse by Hollywood.

Allen was not her real father. Allen and Mia Farrow did not even live together when they adopted her, as she was secretly having a sexual relationship with Frank Sinatra. Farrow had a rather nasty split from Allen, so she could have helped poison the attitudes of the adopted kids. The allegations only occurred when Farrow was upset that Allen was dating a teenaged Korean girl that Farrow was adopting. He portrays himself as neurotic and self-obsessed in his movies, and in real life he underwent psychoanalysis for most of his life. If you followed his story, you may know a lot more about him than me. There are no witnesses or tangible evidence for the alleged molestation, and about 20 years have passed without anything that would convince a court. Decide for yourself. I don't know what to make of this.

The accusation is quite vague. Wikipedia defines:

Sexual assault is any involuntary sexual act in which a person is threatened, coerced, or forced to engage against their will, or any sexual touching of a person who has not consented. This includes rape (such as forced vaginal, anal or oral penetration), groping, forced kissing, child sexual abuse, or the torture of the victim in a sexual manner.

So Allen could have merely threatened to kiss the 7yo girl, and that could legally be considered a sexual assault.

In a non-sexual legal context, an assault usually means just a threat. You hear terms like "assault and battery", where the assault is the verbal threat and the battery is the physical beating.

The eating disorder is not evidence of abuse. It is just evidence that hte poor girl was subjected to years of psychotherapy that convinced her that something horrible happened to her.

So we have a vague accusation, no corroborating evidence, a story instigated by a vindictive ex, no criminal record, no witnesses, 20 years ago, etc. I do not have any facts. I am not sure the NY Times should have even published the accusation. If you want to judge Allen, I suggest using facts. There is other evidence that he is a weirdo, but not that he is a child molester.

Correction: A comment below says that there is evidence from a witness. A nanny claimed to see something inappropriate.

Update: Apparently this has all been aired before, and there are many facts favoring Allen, and Allen defended himself in 1992. No one has alleged penetration. The evidence was inconclusive then, and there is no new info now. Do you want to jump to a conclusion based on an unsubstantiated allegation?