The following exchange is from Dialogue Group 15, Thread 9.

1. Question for Women Supporting Mr. Clinton
Tue, Feb 2, 1999 - 11:23 PM/EST
Joycie

I've wanted to ask this question for a long time to women who will give me a non-defensive answer. Why is it that most liberal women support the president when he obviously is the embodiment of everything the women's movement has been fighting against for years. He's a white, European male, a person of power who is obviously a womanizer. He talks about respecting women (says what they want to hear) and then makes remarks about Kathleen Willey's breast size, etc. He has put his wife in numerous embarassing situations with his affairs, etc. What is it about him that you like? I mean Clarence Thomas was demonized for allegedly talking in sexual overtones. I don't get the double standard. Why don't you believe the women that come forward about him? What gives?

4. Clinton, Thomas and women
Thu, Feb 4, 1999 - 3:41 PM/EST
P.J.

Joycie I understand the difficulty many conservatives have with what seems to be a paradoxical regard for Clinton the man and Clinton the politician.
First, let me explain why I think the allusion to Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas is misleading. Anita Hill did not claim damages or prolonged hurt by Justice Thomas's behavior. She did not seek compensation for his alleged sexual harrassment. Her interst was as a law professor who loved law (often from a moderate to conservative perspective) and personally knew him to be an inappropriate nomination to the highest court. You can disagree but her actions were motivated by what she felt was important to the principal of a lifetime judicial appointment.

Women who continue to come forth regarding Clinton's sexual advancements so far are not so unequivocably motivated by high principals. Many feminists such as myself might believe or disbelieve their stories. However, the party involved is more the victim than most of these women seem to be. For example, Paula Jones was not harmed so the courts ruled. And Monica Lewinsky was the initiator. The President should not and did not have to succumb to the flirtation. But a charge of sexual harrassment in that case would indicate a poor understanding of what sexual harrassment involves. As far as embarrassing his wife being a sign of his disregard for women, well that is reaching, isn't it? The relationship that he has with his wife is theirs and belongs to them. Neither you and I are privy to what they share and should not assume to judge them by what understandings you have with your spouse.

When you look to the women's movement for hypocracy regarding Clinton it may be through glasses that are befogged by a simplistic and contrary understanding of feminist thought.

5. Not a woman either
Thu, Feb 4, 1999 - 8:41 PM/EST
MAYORBOB2

P.J. -- I agree with what you are sayingEssentially, there are two Bill Clintons...the private one and the public one. Nobody other than he, Hillary, and Chelsea know the full dimensions of the private one...but it is at least one aspect of the private one that is on trial in the Senate.

The public Clinton is the one that, I am sure, is quite attractive to feminists and liberals alike (although I'm not sure that Clinton is a classic liberal). His public utterances on Civil Rights and Women's Rights and his proposals to develop or improve programs of education, health care, etc. make him politically attractive to liberals.

7. Simplistic and Contrary Understanding
Thu, Feb 4, 1999 - 10:52 PM/EST
Joycie

So, P.J., were you trying to be condescending or was it purely accidental? I would like to believe that Anita Hills motives were as high as you think they were. I strongly disagree, but that debate has been rehashed enough. You see the thing that bothers me with most liberal women is that the rules change, depending on who the "evil" man in question is. The post right after yours is case in point. You guys hate "voyeuristic power mongers" but Bill Clinton isn't one of them. ??? I have never seen the feminist leadership support a conservative woman. They are always suspicious of their motives. The man allegedly exposed himself to PJones! Why should she have to be treated that way? (Because she's not a feminist?) If there's not a double standard, and feminists seperate political life from personal life, then please explain the Bob Packwood fiasco.

I don't know a nice way to say this, but I'll try. From my perspective, it seems that many liberal women are willing to "sell out" to a creep if he will help them advance their other interests. And to me, they sell out other women. And it makes it seem they only care about the women in their group. That's how my "simplistic and contrary" view of feminists has been formed, and why I have a hard time with all this support for Bill Clinton. But really, what has he done for women that's so great that you're willing to tolerate all the stuff you claim to hate? Thanks for taking up my question.

8.
Fri, Feb 5, 1999 - /EST
P.J.

I sincerely apologize for sounding condescending. I meant merely to sound patient with the monotonous question repeatedly asked of feminists about their support for Clinton. I think that a well-intentioned inquiry about it would accept the answer that he has appointed women to positions of real consequence, not just window dressing. And that his political positions and support for issues of import to both working women and homemakers has been consistently in accord with their own. Where is the mystery in that?

As for feminists offering support for conservative women I would imagine that a variance in what is thought conservative might explain why that would be hard for one to notice. Christine Whitman of New Jersey is highly regarded by most feminists and she is hardly thought of as a liberal. She may not be conservative enough for some however.

As to the Anita Hill issue I don't want to rehash it at all. I didn't make the corresponding feminist issue-you did. I pointed out how they were very different. I also happen to believe her because her motives, as I mentioned in trying to explain what remains a mystery to you, seem perfectly reasonable and credible. You are certainly free to find her motives otherwise. Your suspicions may be more on target when you apply them to many others (on both sides) that pushed their agenda forward through her.

10. Enjoying our Exchange...
Fri, Feb 5, 1999 - 8:20 AM/EST
Joycie

Hi P.J. I guess that what you are saying about the positions of consequence make sense, but that's my question about selling out. The man appoints women on one hand then treats them like sexual playthings on the other. I can understand why feminists want a politician to advance the opportunities for women in politics. But it would seem to me that for the integrity of the party that, as a group, feminist women would not want support from this kind of a man. Just saying they don't appove but not calling for his resignation is, in effect, excusing the behavior. What message is it really sending if all women don't stand together to reject this man? They're saying it's all right to misuse a few if the rest get their share from him. Sexual disrespect is okay. And this is where I feel let down by the feminists. .

11. To P.J. - Forgot to Add
Fri, Feb 5, 1999 - 8:23 AM/EST
Joycie

Thank you for the apology. I asked the question because I really want to know. Thank you for talking with me.

12.
Fri, Feb 5, 1999 - 11:17 AM/EST
Kanne

Just to offer another feminist, or rather a supporting feminist, opinion to P.J's, I consider myself a rabid feminist and I do not support impeachment.

First of all, Clinton is not being impeached for sexual harrasment, and it is rather questionable whether he did in fact harrass anyone. As others have pointed out, M.L was a willing participant and Paula Jones, even by her account, turned down a crude pass and suffered no apparent repercussions.

It belittles sexual harrasment to equate Clinton's actions with real sexual harrasment.

I think that most feminists tend to think that Clinton is more sexually obsessed than most, but I don't think that this is a crime per se. And I'm not a big Clinton fan, but the fact that he has appointed women to a number of influential positions -- Reno, Albright, Ginsburg -- would hardly seem like he has derogatory views of women.

Finally, many feminists are not solely defined by their feminism. Yes, I am a feminist and I believe that women should have equal rights and opportunity. Joycie, you point out that feminists don't support conservative women. For me, at least, though I am a feminist, I am also a liberal. And I don't agree with the politics of someone like, say, Elizabeth Dole, so it would be foolish to support her MERELY because she is a woman. She is female and powerful, but then again she is also anti-choice, which I don't agree with. It is my opinion that all women should be feminists -- that is they should all support their own equal status with men, the original definition of feminism -- but they do not necessarily have to be defined soley by that feminism. So you could have conservative feminists, liberal feminists, or whatever else.