Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
March 22, 1998
Feminists and the Clinton Question
If all the sexual allegations now swirling around the White House turn
out to be true, President Clinton may be a candidate for sex addiction
therapy. But feminists will still have been right to resist pressure by
the
right wing and the media to call for his resignation or impeachment. The
pressure came from another case of the double standard.
For one thing, if the President had behaved with comparable
insensitivity
toward environmentalists, and at the same time remained their most
crucial champion and bulwark against an anti-environmental Congress,
would they be expected to desert him? I don't think so. If President
Clinton were as vital to preserving freedom of speech as he is to
preserving reproductive freedom, would journalists be condemned as
"inconsistent" for refusing to suggest he resign? Forget it.
For another, there was and is a difference between the accusations
against Mr. Clinton and those against Bob Packwood and Clarence
Thomas, between the experiences reported by Kathleen Willey and
Anita Hill. Commentators might stop puzzling over the President's
favorable poll ratings, especially among women, if they understood the
common-sense guideline to sexual behavior that came out of the women's
movement 30 years ago: no means no; yes means yes.
It's the basis of sexual harassment law. It also explains why the
media's
obsession with sex qua sex is offensive to some, titillating to many and
beside the point to almost everybody. Like most feminists, most
Americans become concerned about sexual behavior when someone's
will has been violated; that is, when "no" hasn't been accepted as an
answer.
Let's look at what seem to be the most damaging allegations, those made
by Kathleen Willey.
Not only was she Mr. Clinton's political supporter, but she is also old
enough to be Monica Lewinsky's mother, a better media spokeswoman
for herself than Paula Jones, and a survivor of family tragedy,
struggling
to pay her dead husband's debts.
If any of the other women had tried to sell their stories to a celebrity
tell-all book publisher, as Ms. Willey did, you might be even more
skeptical about their motives. But with her, you think, "Well, she needs
the money."
For the sake of argument here, I'm also believing all the women, at
least
until we know more. I noticed that CNN polls taken right after Ms.
Willey's interview on "60 Minutes" showed that more Americans believed
her than President Clinton.
Nonetheless, the President's approval ratings have remained high. Why?
The truth is that even if the allegations are true, the President is not
guilty
of sexual harassment. He is accused of having made a gross, dumb and
reckless pass at a supporter during a low point in her life. She pushed
him away, she said, and it never happened again. In other words,
President Clinton took "no" for an answer.
In her original story, Paula Jones essentially said the same thing. She
went
to then-Governor Clinton's hotel room, where she said he asked her to
perform oral sex and even dropped his trousers. She refused, and even
she claims that he said something like, "Well, I don't want to make you
do anything you don't want to do."
Her lawyers now allege that as a result of the incident Ms. Jones
described, she was slighted in her job as a state clerical employee and
even suffered long-lasting psychological damage. But there appears to be
little evidence to support those accusations.
As with the allegations in Ms. Willey's case, Mr. Clinton seems to have
made a clumsy sexual pass, then accepted rejection.
This is very different from the cases of Clarence Thomas and Bob
Packwood. According to Anita Hill and a number of Mr. Packwood's
former employees, the offensive behavior was repeated for years, despite
constant "no's." It also occurred in the regular workplace of these
women, where it could not be avoided.
The women who worked for Mr. Packwood described a man who
groped and lunged at them. Ms. Hill accused Clarence Thomas of
regularly and graphically describing sexual practices and pornography.
In
both cases, the women said they had to go to work every day, never
knowing what sexual humiliation would await them -- just the kind of
"hostile environment" that sexual harassment law was intended to reduce.
As reported, Monica Lewinsky's case illustrates the rest of the
equation:
"Yes means yes." Whatever it was, her relationship with President
Clinton has never been called unwelcome, coerced or other than
something she sought. The power imbalance between them increased the
index of suspicion, but there is no evidence to suggest that Ms.
Lewinsky's will was violated; quite the contrary. In fact, her subpoena
in
the Paula Jones case should have been quashed. Welcome sexual
behavior is about as relevant to sexual harassment as borrowing a car is
to stealing one.
The real violators of Ms. Lewinsky's will were Linda Tripp, who
taped their talks, the F.B.I. agents who questioned her without a
lawyer and Kenneth Starr, the independent prosecutor who seems intent
on tailoring the former intern's testimony.
What if President Clinton lied under oath about some or all of the
above?
According to polls, many Americans assume he did. There seems to be
sympathy for keeping private sexual behavior private. Perhaps we have a
responsibility to make it O.K. for politicians to tell the truth --
providing
they are respectful of "no means no; yes means yes" -- and still be able
to
enter high office, including the Presidency.
Until then, we will disqualify energy and talent the country needs -- as
we
are doing right now.
--
Two rules in life:
1. Don't tell people everything you know.
2.
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
