I'm not a huge pop culture guy. I'll watch some TV, occasionally go to a movie, and don't find much popular music all that interesting. But sometimes pop culture confronts me.
In this case I've recently seen a bit of a kerfuffle over left wing/environmental icon Leo DiCaprio and his latest girlfriend. Apparently the 48 year old playboy is currently dating a 19 year old woman. It would seem that those on the left aren't bothered by this, while some on the right deem this unseemly. As far as I'm concerned, I can understand the concern, although I'm not particularly bothered by it. From the perspective of someone who is gravely concerned about the power dynamics in M/F relationships, or from someone who is likely to make a big deal about a 20 year old male dating a 17 year old female I can see why this age gap could be concerning. But the folks who usually object to those sorts of things aren't the one's I'm hearing express concern. Those folks have been pretty silent on the subject. Of course those folks are also pretty silent on DiCaprio's lavish carbon intense lifestyle. I guess for some people, what you say matters significantly more than what you do.
14 comments:
Setting aside Leo, my position is that despite the concern of a potential power imbalance, I don't believe that's as common in these age disparate relationships as some would insist. So long as either is of legal age, this stands as one of so many potential issues which arise between two who don't look beyond the superficial.
Though my daughter married a dude in her age group, he represented to her an exception to the rule. She found the vast majority of boys in her age group to be woefully immature. I think this is a common feeling among girls regarding dudes in general.
Art,
My point with this post isn't so much the age gap, as it is who is the most upset by this. It's the people who bash their political enemies for attempting to date younger women when they were in their lat teens or early 20's. It's the same people who do get upset at the power imbalance when the more powerful person isn't one of their own. It's the people who've stayed mostly silent on the Epstein and Weinstein situations, or the Clinton/Lewinsky affair. As usual, it's more about the double standard and hypocrisy than about Leo and his girlfriend. Of course Leo gets a pass on polluting the environment as well as this young woman.
I didn't miss your point...I just went on a tangent regarding the age difference. But yeah, one must pull teeth from the leftists to get any consistent response to stories of older men/young girl situations if the "culprit" is a lefty. But that's how they roll. Bad behavior isn't as bad when a lefty perpetrates it.
I disagree with Leo or any 40 year old man dating a 20 year old woman. But it's their decision. I disagree with Trump or other 50+ year old men sneaking into the women's changing room to ogle young women/girls. I'm pretty consistent on this point.
I disagree with men with power using that power to attract young women. And when they're in elected office, I especially object to that. I'm pretty consistent on the point.
It would be easier to take more seriously conservative complaints about male actors using their power and privilege to date young women if they spoke out even louder about politicians in THEIR party doing the same. I would never consider voting for Leo for president. You, on the other hand, considered (or maybe actually voted for) Trump.
/hypocrisy exposed.
I'll simply note that you left out DFL donors and cronies like Weinstein and Epstein from your examples. I guess the hypocrisy was exposed.
The notion that the left isn't hypocritical on this issue, is absurd.
Dan,
It seems like you don't understand what the point of this post actually is. I don't care that you can jump in with your usual attempt to make it sound like this is only a problem on the right, and perpetuate the lie that the right is silent about this sort of thing.
The point is how people on the left are responding to this specific situation. The point is that Leo is pretty bulletproof with the left because he says the tight things about the right topics. He talks a good game on the environment and other issues, even as his life contradicts what he says. But he gets away with it because words mean more than actions to a lot of people.
Craig...
"I'll simply note that you left out DFL donors and cronies like Weinstein and Epstein"
And...
"make it sound like this is only a problem on the right..."
You read and entirely fail to understand.
Unlike you all, I have consistently been opposed to ALL men in places of wealth and power abusing that power. It doesn't matter if it's Clinton or Weiner or Trump, it's always wrong and such men lose my support. The problem is not hypocrisy on my part. I'm not the one who voted for an overt pervert and abuser of power.
That was me, Dan
First of all your "unlike you all" is simply a flat out lie. Either prove that we "all" are not "opposed to ALL men in places of wealth and power abusing their power". You can't and won't but will claim that you did or don't have to.
Yet for all your bluster, you never include any DFL folks in your lists of offenders. Really, you didn't vote for Clinton and Biden?
This is kind of a reverse trees/forest situation. You think that because you sort of mention the forest, you don't need to pointy out specific trees.
"I disagree with men with power using that power to attract young women. And when they're in elected office, I especially object to that. I'm pretty consistent on the point."
Unless the men of power are named Joe Biden or Martin Luther King, Jr. Then, he shuts the hell up.
YOU VOTED FOR A PERVERT DEVIANT CON MAN WHO STALKED AND MOLESTED WOMEN AND BOASTED ABOUT IT. It's not like you didn't know his character. And yet, YOU voted for him.
I called for Clinton to step down for much less moral failure and corruption. I never voted for Clinton.
Indeed, forest/trees. You think because you sort of are mildly offended by Trump AND YET vote for him, that this means you've taken a strong stand against his moral deviancy. I've consistently acted upon my values.
Maybe more of a kettle/pot scenario.
you don't need to pointy out specific trees.
I've pointed out Clinton, who was probably the most prominent of Democrat men in high positions.
For what it's worth, I've not pointed out ONE SINGLE conservative actor or any low-level conservative politicians for their misdeeds, so it's not really strange that I haven't mentioned the actor, Leo.
Consistency is a good thing.
"YOU VOTED FOR A PERVERT DEVIANT CON MAN WHO STALKED AND MOLESTED WOMEN AND BOASTED ABOUT IT. It's not like you didn't know his character."
That's how YOU describe him. The rest of us honest people merely noted what was accurate...that he cheated on his wives. The rest are accusations, the result of his less-than-serious locker room type talk in contexts common to the vast majority of men everywhere. Just as some dudes are known for bragging about bagging chicks who never put out for them, Trump did as well and despite your insistence he lies so much one can't believe a word he says, these types of expressions you hatefully, desperately and in your grace-embracing manner, choose to take as gospel truths.
In the meantime, you voted for Joe Biden, praising him as a "good man"...far better a person than Trump...despite a woman who remains willing to undergo lie-detector examines for the accusations against Biden she remains adamant is true...if only he would, too. He has invaded the space of many women and girls, and his own daughter speaks of him in a manner which has led to her own emotional problems.
In the meantime, you elevate to sainthood one Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., despite transcripts of recordings of his many deviant orgies...recordings which are only a few years from being released (they should be released immediately)...affirmed by close friends, including Ralph David Abernathy, who only mentioned it in his own book because the truth was already out there and he felt his integrity would be in question if he did not mention it in his own book regarding his time with King.
Dan's claims about Clinton are meaningless given his support for both Biden and King. Dan is only consistent in his hypocritical double standards.
Post a Comment