Tuesday, November 14, 2017

Feminist Enablers

Many of us have made the point on many occasions. Yesterday, Caitlyn Flanagan made it clearly and forcefully in The Atlantic.

Her point: that the liberal Democratic establishment and what she calls “machine feminism” bears responsibility for the epidemic of sexual harassment by progressive feminist men. Led by the enabler in chief herself, these leftist feminists rushed out to defend Bill Clinton against credible charges of sexual assault, sexual harassment and rape.

Flanagan describes Clinton’s crimes:

Yet let us not forget the sex crimes of which the younger, stronger Bill Clinton was very credibly accused in the 1990s. Juanita Broaddrick reported that when she was a volunteer on one of his gubernatorial campaigns, she had arranged to meet him in a hotel coffee shop. At the last minute, he had changed the location to her room in the hotel, where she says he very violently raped her. She said she fought against Clinton throughout a rape that left her bloodied. At a different Arkansas hotel, he caught sight of a minor state employee named Paula Jones, and, Jones says, he sent a couple of state troopers to invite her to his suite, where he exposed his penis to her and told her to kiss it. Kathleen Willey said that she met him in the Oval Office for personal and professional advice and that he groped her, rubbed his erect penis on her, and pushed her hand to his crotch.

It was a pattern of behavior; it included an alleged violent assault; the women involved had far more credible evidence than many of the most notorious accusations that have come to light in the past five weeks. But Clinton was not left to the swift and pitiless justice that today’s accused men have experienced. Rather, he was rescued by a surprising force: machine feminism. The movement had by then ossified into a partisan operation and it was willing—eager—to let this friend of the sisterhood enjoy a little droit de seigneur.

While Hillary Clinton was out front attacking the women who had dared accuse her husband, and whose charges, if true, would have seriously compromised her own quest for the presidency, Gloria Steinem stepped forth to defend Bubba:

The notorious 1998 New York Times op-ed by Gloria Steinem must surely stand as one of the most regretted public actions of her life. It slut-shamed, victim-blamed, and age-shamed; it urged compassion for and gratitude to the man the women accused. Moreover (never write an op-ed in a hurry; you’ll accidentally say what you really believe), it characterized contemporary feminism as a weaponized auxiliary of the Democratic Party….

And then she wrote the fatal sentences that invalidated the new understanding of workplace sexual harassment as a moral and legal wrong: “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.”

As I have often noted, the liberal response to Clinton’s behavior paved the way for Harvey Weinstein:

The widespread liberal response to the sex crime accusations against Bill Clinton found their natural consequence 20 years later in the behavior of Harvey Weinstein: Stay loudly and publicly and extravagantly on the side of signal leftist causes and you can do what you want in the privacy of your offices and hotel rooms. 

It’s time, Flanagan concludes, for the Democratic Party to have its own reckoning, for it to measure how much its willingness to excuse Bill Clinton gave a green light to other progressive men:

The Democratic Party needs to make its own reckoning of the way it protected Bill Clinton. The party needs to come to terms with the fact that it was so enraptured by their brilliant, Big Dog president and his stunning string of progressive accomplishments that it abandoned some of its central principles. The party was on the wrong side of history and there are consequences for that. Yet expedience is not the only reason to make this public accounting. If it is possible for politics and moral behavior to coexist, then this grave wrong needs to be acknowledged. If Weinstein and Mark Halperin and Louis C.K. and all the rest can be held accountable, so can our former president and so can his party, which so many Americans so desperately need to rise again.

Life is not looking very good for the Clintons these days. It couldn't happen to nicer people!


trigger warning said...

It seems to me there are three options:

(1) Believe Anita Hill and disbelieve Paula Jones
(2) Believe Paula Jones and disbelieve Anita Hill
(3) Adopt the Rule of Law and the "innocent until proven guilty" [aka the "blue dress"] doctrine.

I choose (3).

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Move on. It’s just sex. Everyone does it.

Another historical high point for a nihilist Democrat Party, the same Party that said “Whose values?” when seeking to deflect attention from Bill’s philandering reputation during the 1992 election.

In 1992, Hillary joined Bill on the set for “60 Minutes” episode that revived his campaign. In 1996, she sat in pink under the Lincoln portrait to babble about right-wing conspiracies.

Enabler, indeed. Move on. Nothing to see here.

Sam L. said...

Party Loyalty Uber Alles. Stand Up For Your Sex? Not if she's Republican!!!1111!!!

Ares Olympus said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Stuart Schneiderman said...

When I said that I would not allow long rambling disquisitions, I meant it. Keep it under 140 characters.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Stuart!

James said...

" I meant it. Keep it under 140 characters." Uh Oh, looks like my comments have to be economical and worst of all make sense from now on.

Sam L. said...

James, there's no money in making sense.

James said...

Sam L.
"James, there's no money in making sense."
How odd, that's what a democrat told me.

Ares Olympus said...

Below is 140 characters, a tight fit. Even Twitter accepts 280 now. Perhaps this works like tickets for speeding? You can speed, but you have no reason to complain if you're pulled over.

This reminds me "The real sin isn't what you do, but what you do to cover up what you did." (As well as covering up what others have done.)