The following exchange is from Dialogue Group 8, Thread 17.

1. Monica Lewinsky
Fri, Dec 25, 1998 - 9:50 PM/EST
Joy

What do you think of this? I heard on CNN that records show that Monica Lewinsky tried many, many times to take a double cappucino to George Stephaunopolis at the beginning of each day. But his staff always refused her. According to the CNN report she had somehow 'heard' he liked double cappucino's and was just trying to 'be nice'. Just wondered if anyone was wanting to express opinions about Monica.

2. Monica Lewinsky
Sun, Dec 27, 1998 - 7:26 PM/EST
Deborah

I feel very conflicted about Lewinsky.

First of all, I cannot but think how wretched it would be to go through the rest of my life being "the" Monica Lewinsky. Branded a bimbo, and all that. I suppose that people live it down (after all, when was the last time you heard anything about Elizabeth Ray?) but if she wanted to be taken seriously as a professional, she has a long humiliating road ahead.

Secondly, I sympathize with two very different feminist party lines on this situation:

One is that this is just one example of millions of reprehensible situations in which a very powerful older man took advantage of a relatively powerless younger woman, even if the sexual relationship was totally consensual.

The other is that it's an insult to women's sexual autonomy to imply that a woman over the age of consent cannot choose for herself or pursue the partner of her choice without being stigmatized as a bimbo or treated as a victim.

I see the merit of both arguments, and I still don't know what to think. What's a feminist babe like myself to do?

Best regards from Deborah

3. Monica
Tue, Dec 29, 1998 - 10:59 PM/EST
Frederick

Monica, by some accounts, was after Clinton from the day she set foot in the White House. She stalked him, caught him, and now she's bringing him down.

It reminds me of the tremendous power that women have over men when it comes to the sexual and emotional spheres of life. Some women seem to regard it as their birthright to be able to use this power in whatever way it most benefits them regardless of any other considerations, and then to blame the man when things go sour. That is exactly what Monica has done.

I don't agree with either feminist premise. No, Monica was certainly not the victim, and know, women should not feel free to pursue anyone they wish, anytime they wish, for their own selfish purposes regardless of the consequences or the moral dimensions of the situation. Monica can and should be chastised for using her access to the President and her feminine wiles to seduce him, a married man.

4. Responsibility
Wed, Dec 30, 1998 - 10:10 AM/EST
Gemini2

I suppose I'm a post-feminist. I agree with Frederick: it looks as if Monica was after Bill from Day One. She was no victim of an older man. If anything, he was the victim of a conniving younger woman. Although in this case, it's hard to call either of them a victim with real conviction. They both knew what they were doing, they both were over 21, and they both knew what they were doing was wrong, and they did it anyway.

But I don't see where Monica has ever blamed Bill for the situation. Seems to me she's admitted what she did and taken responsibility for her actions.

What really shocked me about the Tripp tapes was Monica's admission that after she and Clinton had been involved for months, she told Tripp that she was "surprised" that she felt love for him. So obviously, it wasn't a case of a young woman falling for some man and then getting involved. She calculatedly got involved, then surprised herself by actually caring for the guy. She intended to be an opportunist from the beginning. What a cold little chick! I feel sorry for her. What kind of upbringing must she have had?

5. Frederick
Wed, Dec 30, 1998 - 5:02 PM/EST
Deborah

I have an impression that you are frightened or angry about feminism. Am I way off? Please say more about your point of view.

Best regards from your feminist babe buddy (Deborah)

6. Feminism
Wed, Dec 30, 1998 - 9:28 PM/EST
Frederick

To Deborah:

Feminism covers a lot of ground.

There is the feminism that most people agree with these days, such as equal pay for equal work, equal opportunities, equal education, equal etc., etc. I don't even know anyone who has a problem with these aspects of feminism, and I certainly have no problem with them myself, which is to say that the core issues of feminism have been accepted by society in general: Feminism of this sort has won, leading some feminists to say that we are in a stage of "postfeminism" these days. (This was even in Time Magazine a few months ago.)

Then there are the "feminisms" with which I have problems. Feminists themselves are conflicted over these issues, which bear mainly on the issues of individuality vs. responsibility to others, especially one's family, and radical egalitarianism, in which equality is defined by outcome, (e.g., less than 50% NFL players being women is not acceptable) and egalitarianism that advocates a level playing field and acknowledges the fact that men and women tend to make different choices in life. That these differences in personal choices stem from immutable biological and constitutional differences between the sexes, which leads naturally and normally to differences in outcomes, such as the makeup of NFL teams.

There are certain buzz words that set me off. When I hear the word "patriarchy", then I know I'm dealing with a feminist who resents being shackled with any sort of personal responsibility to anyone else, including, or even especially, her own children, and who is averse to taking any sort of responsiblity for her own actions and decisions -- a feminist who shifts blame for her own problems to others, especially to men, as a matter of course.

When I hear the name "Foucault", then I know that I'm dealing with a feminist whose resentments extend even to the limitations and inconviences that nature itself puts on women -- women who have a problem with their own sexuality and the sexuality of others.

I could go on at some length about this, but I'll pause and see if I've answered your question.

I used to get rather worked up about these issues until I realized how limited is the scope of influence of the feminisms with which I have objections.

7. The following is not PC
Thu, Dec 31, 1998 - 8:59 AM/EST
Hey-Mike

When it comes to feminism, I keep remembering the phrase, "Ideas are not responsible for the people who follow them." Personally, I think gender equality is more than an idea but a fundamental right. The problem is that in stating that as I did, I omitted the requisite of common sense. Certain feminists I have known (briefly) could justify the installation of urinals in the ladies' locker room (where male reporters still can't go after games as opposed to men's locker rooms where female reporters can not only go but also dictate behavior!)

When I first heard of ERA I thought it was something that would be written into law almost before everyone had read it. And then, out of nowhere it seemed, Germaine Greer and Gloria Steinham(sp?) are on national television saying things like, "Well, 'history' is 'his-story'." In that instant I knew that ERA was doomed. I have no idea why these two women (and many others) set out to derail and impede the feminist cause but they did a hell of a good job. (remember - this is all my opinion here).

It's hard to take an issue seriously when its vanguard is burlesquing it. Simply, there was no need to be confrontational on every issue and that was the chosen path which wound alienating a slew of early on supporters. Making major issues out of things like changing 'chairman' to 'chairperson' seemed silly then and still does now. The term was gender neutral to begin with and the issue to trivial to focus on when such huge items as equal pay and job discrimination are on the board. Personally, if Camille Paglia had been ERA's standard bearer, I think it would have been enacted in the seventies. She's not. I still have to put up with, "Fill him up!" at gas stations and, "When God created man she was kidding." (Launch thread on 'male-bashing' here)

8. Frederick and Mike
Thu, Dec 31, 1998 - 10:01 AM/EST
Gemini2

Thanks for some interesting male perspectives. I agree with most of what both of you have said. One thing I take issue with, though, is Frederick's statement about the word "patriarchy."

Frederick, I think you've made a misstatement in saying that any woman who uses that word is one who is unwilling to take responsibility for her family, etc. Where do you get that notion?

The fact is, until very recent times, and some would argue, up until this time, we do live in a society where most of the powerful people are men.

Webster's defines "patriarchy": 1: social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line; 2: a society organized according to the principles of patriarchy.

All of our organizations have been based on a top-down, hierarchical structure, which is distinctly patriarchal, based on the masculine competitiveness and top-dog, underdog paradigm. Recently, more "feminine," cooperative, team-based structures have shown their value, in Total Quality Management, etc. The old ways are going away, simply because they don't always work. Today's workers will no longer stand for being told what to do and how to do it. They want some ownership and participation in what they do.

This is just one area where patriarchy used to be the rule and now is being questioned. Even in government, I see a paradigm shift, as we question how much the government should be acting as the beneficent father of the American family.

Anyhow, I don't think a woman's talking about patriarchy necessarily makes a woman an irresponsible parent, as you have suggested. She's merely recognizing a system which exists.

9. P.S.
Thu, Dec 31, 1998 - 10:07 AM/EST
Gemini2

And Frederick, I do agree with your suggestion that some women blame men for all their troubles. To me, this is the very antithesis of feminism. It reinforces a notion of weakness and victimhood, when what's needed is an affirmation of strength and self-determination. True, patriarchy exists. The real question is, how does a woman deal with it, work with it, succeed within it/despite it?

It seems that virtually all groups who feel powerless in a society begin by blaming those who have the power for not giving them some. But those who succeed are those who move past blame and into action. Power is not given. It's something that we must know within our own consciousness that we have before we can assume it.