Post-Weinstein, The Problem Is NOT Sexual ‘Harassment’

Pam Barker | Director of TLB Europe Reloaded Project

The problem that Zuesse alludes to below, of the predatory, calculated, Weinstein style power-play behavior being misclassified in the MSM merely as – loosely speaking – a form of sexual ‘harassment,’ indeed permits the average mindless media consumer to be lured into believing that any fairly innocent, one-off instance of crude behavior toward women out in the general public is as bad, that it is of precisely the same nature.

Yet this kind of false equivalency is being not merely propagandized but instituted at a serious level.

Breitbart reported this week how the London metropolitan police are now seriously considering classifying sexist on-street behavior toward women as reportable hate crimes, the relevant criterion being that it is sufficient for a woman simply to perceive it as such. See Wolf-Whistling Could Become a Hate Crime in London, Say Police.

It defies all common sense that wolf-whistling at a woman in public, for example, could constitute a ‘gender-based hate crime’. After years of propagandizing to put women out in the workforce, how on earth did we become so fragile and helpless on our own behalf?

Has the Weinstein house of cards been deliberately played out so as to render men at large, all of them and not just white men, aggressors and perpetrators? Is 51% of the (now multicultural) population being conditioned in yet another Establishment divide-and-rule tactic that kicked off with celebrities and finishes with an entire population divided down the middle? A divide which – importantly – cuts right through ethnic groups as well as the white community.


The Problem Is NOT Sexual ‘Harassment’


The U.S. press is now a uniform chorus shouting against America’s widespread ‘sexual harassment’ by men in power, but the press misrepresents the issue fundamentally by calling it ‘harassment’, which brings to mind (and which until recently was normally used for) ‘low-class’ or poor men whistling at physically attractive women who walk by and who might reasonably feel insulted — or even endangered — by male strangers who are unashamed to view them publicly as being primarily attractive flesh for their enjoyment on their beds or in their back-rooms. Nothing of what the press is reporting is actually that; it is fundamentally different from that; and the difference isn’t merely ‘semantical’ but is instead very substantive. This false characterization of sexual exploitation as ‘sexual harassment’ is universal in the American press.

There is an enormous difference between “harassment” and “exploitation”. However, in America’s pro-power legal system, there isn’t (the legal distinction is almost non-existent), and the U.S. ‘news’ media adopt the existing power-serving system unquestioningly, so that in legal terms, they can get away with calling it merely “harassment.” But they are not supposed to be agencies of the law; they claim instead to be ‘journalists’ (or else they are merely propagandists). And if they are journalists, then the common-parlance definitions are the ones that should be applied by them.

So: what are the ordinary synonyms for “harass” and “exploit”?

The thesaurus synonyms for “harass” are “harry, hound, badger, pester, plague”; and, at that same thesaurus site, is specified as being a part of the second of the three given definitions of “harass”: “2. To irritate or torment persistently”; and the third definition given there is: “3. To make repeated  attacks or raids on (an enemy, for example).” Both of those two definitions of “harass” exclude any merely single instance of the bad behavior as fitting to constitute “harassment,” though in many of the cases that are now prominently reported in the U.S. press, the woman escaped from the ‘harasser’ after just a single instance of the frightening behavior from the sexually exploitative man. The #1 definition provided at that site is: “1. To subject (another) to hostile or prejudicial remarks or actions; pressure or intimidate.” This definition doesn’t require any “repeated attacks.” But it ignores altogether the core of what all of these woman have been reporting, which is sexual exploitation.

The #1 definition of “exploitation” is fundamentally different: “treating someone unfairly so as to benefit from their work.” Consequently, the meaning of “sexual exploitation” fits perfectly all of the instances that the press are currently obsessing upon. But all of them nonetheless call it instead “sexual harassment.”

A legal definition of “harassment” is “the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands.” It excludes any mention of exploitation. But all of the many instances that the U.S. press are now obsessed with entail exploitation as the central feature. Consequently, the honest word to apply to all of them is “exploitation.” The problem in all of them is “sexual exploitation.” The problem in all of them entails the power-relationship — which is unmentionable in the ‘free’ and ‘democratic’ and ‘equalitarian’ America of today. To call these mere ‘harassment’ is thus to lie.

There is a problem, but it is not ‘sexual harassment’: it is sexual exploitation. And it goes beyond that, to problems with the American system of ‘justice’, and with ‘journalism’ in America, which has too much of a crossover into being PR or public relations or, more boldly called, the “propaganda” professions, which make their incomes from promoting the interests of America’s most powerful.

Other examples of key facts that the U.S. press behaves more like propagandists and thus refuses to report, can be found here, and here, and here, and here. So: while there is a problem here, the core of it is power, and this problem implicates the American press so as to reward the misrepresentation of sexual exploitation as being instead mere ‘sexual harassment’. It’s much more serious than that. It is deeper-rooted. And it is more pervasive. It cannot be addressed effectively by misrepresenting what it is. The first step to effectively addressing any problem is to identify accurately what the problem is. Employing the truthful term here, “exploitation,” would be an essential part of doing that.


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.