Miyam Bialik, Harvey Weinstein

 
Miyam Bialik claims to be a "bleeding-heart liberal" even after she donated money to the Israeli military as it was slaughtering people in Gaza in 2014. They killed over 525 children and left thousands more injured and maimed. She was outraged that anyone would dare criticize God's Chosen People. She grew up in Reform Judaism and is now Orthodox, yet she calls herself a "proud feminist".

The term "bleeding heart" refers to the heart of Christ, by the way.

She has a PhD in neuroscience but refused to vaccinate her children. She found out who Jenny McCarthy's pediatrician is, took her children to him specifically because he was anti-vaccine, then claimed that her pediatrician being okay with it justified her refusing to have them vaccinated.

Bialik friend Jenny McCarthy assaulting modestly dressed Christian teen.

Now Bialik has written an article in the New York Times about Weinstein and his sex crimes. She starts out talking about how people made fun of her looks, how she dresses and behaves modestly and no one's ever harassed her.

"I still make choices every day as a 41-year-old actress that I think of as self-protecting and wise," she wrote. "I have decided that my sexual self is best reserved for private situations with those I am most intimate with. I dress modestly. I don’t act flirtatiously with men as a policy."

If she's never been harassed or had any contact with Weinstein or anyone else involved, why was she commenting at all? When people pointed out the obvious, that she was blaming Weinstein's victims, she responded by claiming that they took her comments out of context.

Bialik went on Facebook and Twitter: “A bunch of people have taken my words out of the context of the Hollywood machine and twisted them to imply that God forbid I would blame a woman for her assault based on her clothing or behavior. Anyone who knows me and my feminism knows that’s absurd and not at all what this piece was about. It’s so sad how vicious people are being when I basically live to make things better for women.”

There wasn't much context to take anything out of. All the criticism of it I've read discussed the article as a whole.

From the Israeli paper, Haaretz:

...She seems to buy into the theory that Orthodox Jewish education peddles — as do other fundamentalist religions — that covering oneself up and avoiding unnecessary physical contact with men makes women less vulnerable and more empowered. When you don’t expose skin, you can still be exposed to danger. All one has to do is read the testimony of pious Orthodox women who have been assaulted (often by upstanding Orthodox men and rabbis in their own communities) to dispel this myth.

The article continues:

Some of us feel we’ve been around the block with Bialik before. Her self-described “bleeding heart liberal while socially conservative” brand may be geeky, religious, vegan and modest, but it’s as much a lifestyle brand as Gwyneth Paltrow’s is, replete with multiple books and a website.

...

In the past, however, when her words appeared on friendly turf like her own website, and before that the Jewish parenting site Kveller, she was somewhat shielded from the public reaction — even when it came to hot-button issues like Zionism and Israel.

Now that she is playing in the big leagues of The New York Times op-ed page, she can no longer get away with complaining that her words are being “twisted” or distract us with a Facebook Live confessional. She must either stand by her clear implication that it is her “conservative choices” and not being “the hot girl” that have somehow kept her safe from the Harvey Weinsteins of the world — or apologize for saying so.