Given the wholehearted feminist support for Bill Clinton, who had, in fact, been accused of even worse, I surmised that feminists would rally to Gore's defense.
As of today, it looks like I was wrong. A brief read of the DoubleX blog show three feminists, Hanna Rosin, Emily Bazelon, and Emily Yoffe who find the woman's account plausible. Links here and here and here.
Clearly, it is good to remain some degree of doubt about these accusations. As commenter By the Sword wrote yesterday, it is all too easy for a woman to accuse a powerful or important man of every manner of abuse and to profit from it.
Unfortunately, this does not mean that all such accusations are false. I tend to agree with Glenn Reynolds here: "it could all turn out to be some sort of sham-- though it's looking less that way...." Link here. And Rachel Larrimore explains here how and why she overcame her initial skepticism about the matter.
Read the links and am wondering if hell is freezing over? Of course, Gore is not in a politically powerful position, and he happens to have this break when the public is souring on unfaithful men (Tiger, Jesse James, Edwards, Sanford). But maybe feminists are taking a second look now that the wives are no longer standing by their men.
ReplyDeleteI very much doubt that anything's changed.
ReplyDeleteGore wasn't being a charming cad but a rather desperate and obnoxious bonehead. Showing weakness, in other words, so the feminists are after his blood.