Skip to comments.GLORIA STEINEM in 1998: "The First Grope's Free!"
Posted on 10/04/2003 6:45:22 PM PDT by L.N. Smithee
(The following is the first thread that I authored as a registered member of Free Republic. The original thread is locked for replies, and it cannot be bumped, so I have copied it and re-posted it.)
I chose to re-post this thread because of a eerie feeling of deja vu I had when I read this response on the thread TV presenter 'groped' by Schwarzenegger may sue:
I was reminded by one particular phrase in that post of something that Gloria Steinem wrote in a New York Times editorial defending Bill Clinton after the mainstream media (and the then-silent feminist radicals) came to the realization that Slick wasn't going to be able to weasel out of an indictment in the Paula Jones lawsuit.
He probably did pat a couple of fannies here and there. I don't think he was looking for action..
And what if he was? He was a great looking guy having a good time in Hollywood. I bet he had a 95% "hit rate." And if he got a little carried away 25 years ago, I don't see the big deal as long as he did understand that "no means no" and didn't force himself on anyone. No one has alleged that he has, and every rock is being unturned by the Dem-bots.
Unlike many politicians, Arnold didn't use the threat of his position to badger for sex. Clinton and his Arkansas State Police procurers come to mind.
49 posted on 10/04/2003 3:06 PM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
The following are my comments on that editorial.
GLORIA STEINEM: "The First Grope's Free!"
March 23, 1998 L.N. Smithee
We've had the dumbing-down of educational standards. Now, courtesy of none other than alpha feminist and Clintonphile Gloria Steinem, we have the scumming-down of sexual harassment standards.
Responding to many cries of "hypocrisy" some have made about prominent feminists' perceived failure to speak in support of the women accusing President Clinton of sexual harassment, Ms. Steinem wrote in an editorial (March 22nd in the New York Times): "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 [Kathleen Willey] 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..."
Steinem goes on to say: "In her original story, Paula Jones...claims [after she refused his offer of oral sex] that he said something like, 'Well, I don't want to make you do anything you don't want to do'...As with the allegations in Ms. Willey's case, Mr. Clinton seems to have made a clumsy sexual pass, then accepted rejection..."
Wait--there's more! "Monica Lewinsky's case illustrates the rest of the equation: 'Yes means yes'...Welcome sexual behavior [between employer and underling] is about as relevant to sexual harassment as borrowing a car is to stealing one."
(That last quote really lends itself to politically incorrect woman-car comparisons, but I'll leave that to you--I want to stay focused.)
This is wonderful news for all you poor randy good-old-boys who, after finally "getting it" about sexual harassment, have trained yourselves to keep their hands off the ladies. Hear ye, hear ye; The word has come down from a femimist icon: As long as you "accept rejection", and you never do it a second time, what we were told was harassment isn't; it's just, as us football guys say, an incomplete pass! So practice those smooth moves, fellas--the first grope's free! Go ahead, have that new girl sent up to the office for "orientation" (wink!). And if she doesn't say "no", congratulations--you've got yourself your own personal Monica (high-five)!
But seriously; Steinem compared the Willey story favorably with the Bob Packwood and Clarence Thomas accusations--"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." But she never addresses that there is no reason for the victim of an unwanted first advance to assume that it would necessarily be the last--even if he stopped when she said "no".
Working women, imagine Steinem as your supervisor after you had just received "a gross, dumb and reckless pass during a low point in [your] life" from the big boss. Would you expect her to tell you, "Well, he let you pull your hand off his crotch, didn't he? Straighten your blouse and your skirt up and get back to work, and I don't wanna hear any complaints." Or perhaps, as in a scenario like that of Paula Jones: "So? He didn't stick it in your face or pull your head down. Come on, girlfriend, you're telling me you've never just LOOKED AT ONE before?" You would have thought that Steinem would find such behavior as an alarming sign that more of the same was in the offing, but that's not what she tells us now. I guess that "hostile environment" is NOT in the eye of the beholder, after all.
By Steinem's newly-clarified standards, those women who accused Bob Packwood of one-time only harassment events owe him an apology. Also, Packwood's diary entries detailing his many consensual escapades with female staffers should not have been deemed relevant to his ethics investigation. I don't recall Steinem splitting hairs at that time.
However, the most outrageous statement in the piece is this: "What if President Clinton lied under oath about some or all of the above? According to polls, many Americans assume he did...Perhaps we have a responsibility to make it O.K. for politicians to tell the truth..."
IT'S ALWAYS BEEN O.K. FOR POLITICIANS TO TELL THE TRUTH! What's NOT O.K. is when the truth is something they are compelled to LIE about! Steinem has a very curious new approach she wants us to adopt--don't make them lie about their shameful acts; let them be honest about them, and, in exchange, let's not hold them accountable.
In the face of fellow feminists such as Patricia Ireland and even Rosie "Bob Dole Sucks!" O' Donnell agreeing that, if Willey is not lying, Clinton is guilty of sexual misconduct, Steinem obviously has felt the pressure to conjure up a reason to support him as his activities are seeming more and more Packwoodesque. It says a lot that she could only do as well as this contradictory mess.
Dr. Laura Schlessinger passed along this comment from a listener: "If my wife's boss grabs her breast and stops when she says 'no' and that's NOT sexual harassment, is it not assault and battery if I quit hitting him after he says 'stop'?"
Pearls Before Swine on Arnold's alleged harassment:
And if [Arnold] got a little carried away 25 years ago, I don't see the big deal as long as he did understand that "no means no" and didn't force himself on anyone. No one has alleged that he has, and every rock is being unturned by the Dem-bots.
Gloria Steinem on Clinton's alleged harassment:
The truth is that even if [Kathleen Willey's] allegations are true, the president is not guilty of sexual harassment. [Clinton] is accused of having made a gross, dumb and reckless pass at a supporter during a low point in her life.
She has testified that she pushed him away, later went to see him three more times in the same private setting without any repeat of unwelcome behavior and never experienced job consequences, positive or negative. In other words, Clinton took "no" for an answer.
In her original story, Jones essentially said the same thing. She went to then-Gov. 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 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 Willey's case, Clinton seems to have made a clumsy sexual pass, then accepted rejection.
In five short years, the laughable defense presented by one of the founding mothers of radical feminism to defend Bill Clinton is being used to defend a Republican.
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
It is in the breaking news sidebar!
There's a "three decade" or "thirty year" thing in the Wilson business; we find this same "thirty year" issue rising up in the case of that English woman who says Arnold grabbed her buttocks.
It's like there's a master propagandist out there who has "thirty years" on the brain!
Great catch, L.N.
Not at my house, whether it's Clinton, Kennedy, or Schwartenegger. Whatever happened to class?
"Bump" is pushing the thread's title to the top of the list so others will find it.
"Ping" is alerting other Freepers who have expressed interest in the thread's topic by including them in the "To:" field. There are also "ping lists," so that interested users see all posts on a particular topic.
It wasn't just "first grope's free", it's lay back, take it, and then if you got problems, put some ice on it...
It's hard to prove someone was drunk on video. That one clip of him sliding his hand up her leg doesn't prove he was high, just that he was horny.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.