Mainstream and social media are abuzz about Meryl Streep’s speech at the Golden Globes. And why should they not be after Streep declared an alliance between celebrities and the media, promising they will help each other? Yet, do you not think that anyone, famous or no, who wants to create an intimate bond with the media seeks to disarm freedom of the press? The very point of having a free press is that they are beholden to no one. However, Streep made clear that is not her desire. She seeks an international news outlet willing to promote the Hollywood agenda. The very thing that is least like the majority of Americans.
Streep essentially used her time at the podium to hold the American people hostage. Rather than do what she is paid millions of dollars to do, entertain us, she opted to shame us instead. With no regard to her fans who may have voted for Donald Trump, she attacked him. So, I ask you, standing before your multiple bosses, who control your monetary value, are you going to take the opportunity to insult some of them? No! That’s crazy. So, why did Meryl Streep do it? Was she within her celebrity rights to do so or was she being the very bully she claimed to be against? That’s the question we’ll answer here.
That is a typical bullying tactic. Get people where they expect one thing then give them another. Bullying takes many forms. Yet, the fundamental tactics remain the same. Do bullies ever attack alone or do they wait for an audience? Do they have the capability to look at their side objectively or just assume everyone who disagrees with them is wrong?
When someone goes to excessive lengths to make sure her lone opinion is perceived as all-consuming truth you must ask yourself why. What is the motive? What in this person’s history makes her a bullying expert? Does she have a reputation for working with bullying organizations? Has she used her lucrative career to shine a light on bullying? And if the answer to these questions is no, then you must ask is she being self-serving now?
Streep is close friends with Hillary Clinton. Clinton lost the election to Donald Trump. Streep calls our President-elect a bully. Not even after 9/11 did we see the media and celebrities commenting so viciously or proclaiming such devastation. The loss of thousands of lives apparently pales in significance to their candidate losing.
In a desperate attempt to recover, celebrities began touting themselves as victims. They call our future president and anyone who voted for him a bully. But how do we define a bully? Is it not an angry, quarrelsome person who habitually antagonizes another? Or is it someone who goes to excessive lengths to publicly mock the opinions of those who differ from them? Isn’t is someone who attacks another because they have the audacity to be different than them?
History shows us that a bully who finds herself on the losing end turns the tables and claims victim status in a desperate attempt for a positive outcome. Remember the movie Mean Girls? Rachel McAdams character is clearly the bully throughout the movie. But when she finds her popularity is lost and those she once controlled are now thinking for themselves, she turns the tables. The bully takes on the role of victim in order to get what she wants. It’s a common bullying ploy.
Proclaiming to be victimized is nothing new. What we have to do is sort true bullying from self-serving propaganda of those who can’t stand to lose. In this case, we’re looking at Meryl Streep because she took the side of a bullying advocate with no history to support it. Rather than speak out for those bullied she gave a standing ovation to child molester Roman Polaski. Has she ever volunteered time or money to any bullying cause? In all her words did she bother to mention the biggest bullying headline in recent history? No, she did not.
Mere days, before Streep forced her “bullying” stance upon unsuspecting Americans a mentally disabled man was kidnapped, tortured and bullied in Chicago. Why would any self-respecting bullying advocate ignore such a splendid time to draw attention to this? Is it because it happened in Chicago, the home of another friend, Barrack Obama?
There is no doubt that Meryl Streep is disappointed and heartbroken for her dear friend Hillary Clinton. Who could blame her? But an attempt to claim victim mentality, shame a nation of voters and pretend to advocate bullying as a ruse to turn America against an incoming president is wrong.
Streep employed all the tactics of a well-seasoned bully. She made sure her unsubstantiated remarks were put before her wildly supportive clique. She used her position to shame what she views as weaker people who voted for Trump. She claimed victim mentality from her mansion in Hollywood while ignoring the true bullying victim in Chicago. And all of this she did to present herself as a higher authority than the average voter, to benefit her friend, and to appear as the voice of reason so all would applaud her. Meryl Streep doesn’t care about bullying or the average American. She is simply a mean girl trying to turn the tables.