The world's most powerful man
prosecuted for dropping his pants
The scandal over Bill Clinton's sexual affairs was huge in the media for a number of years in the late 1990s and never seemed to end. It all started with the accusation of sexual harassment by Paula Jones in March 1998 and in a bizarre twist had focussed ever since on US President Clinton's relationship with a junior staff member in the White House, Monika Lewinsky.
Read the minority report here.
The scandal over Clinton's sexual misdemeanours resembled a show trial comparable to the Moscow trials of the 1930s. Perhaps the repercussions may not have ended in actual execution, but the constant media focus on the sexual morality issue here will impact on social values and behaviour in society in time to come. The media trial was therefore a very real way in which new rules and regulations about social and sexual conduct emerge. They are not exclusive to the US and will undoubtedly affect men and women in the rest of the Western world.
In the first instance the scandal related to a classic case of sexual harassment in which Clinton was accused of a "virtual rape" by Paula Jones. Clinton had invited her to his hotel room where he had allegedly then shown her his presidential pecker.
It's the Christmas turkey...
gobble gobble gobble
One expected feminists to be wholeheartedly in support of the woman in the case as she was ostensibly less powerful than the male "harasser", who in some respects could be viewed as her employer. Yet the evidence presented indicated that Clinton did nothing other than drop his pants as his sexual proposition. Her decision to go alone to his room in a hotel suggests that a claim of harassment was also dubious.
Ironically as the case developed some of the most prominent feminists in the US came out in support of Clinton, contrary to 20 years of their espoused ideology about the sexual power between men and women. Gloria Steinem's comments had some men reeling at what appeared to be a feminist endorsement for men to proposition women anywhere anytime anyhow. This indicates that not only were they opportunists in regard to their own ideology but that there may be a fundamental shift in the treatment of sexual "harassment", or from the man's perspective, sexual seduction, especially in the workplace.
The case became more bizarre with the emergence of the Lewinsky scandal. This emerged when it was discovered that President Clinton had an "affair" with the young intern, in his office. She was to be called as a witness to testify in the Paula Jones case.
literally shocking"
Ellen Fanning,
Parliamentary News Network,
Washington
"The naughty boy who never grew up."
Jennifer Hewett
Sydney Morning Herald,
Wednesday 19th 1998
Monica Lewinsky became a subject of intense media interest in her own right. Many feminists claimed that Clinton had once again abused his power. They claimed that she was a young, vulnerable woman who could easily be abused by a powerful man. Yet the evidence of their relationship indicated that Lewinsky was a social climber who got promotions with a blow job resume. It was really arguably that in this instance the woman had used her sexual power, but society doesn't see it that way.
In the intervening months it became apparent that Lewinsky was also a media bunny, certainly not a victim, because she made a fortune out of the 'sexual' experience with the President of the United States of the World and was the envy of thousands of women.
For a short time during the show-trial it appeared that Clinton was in the clear. One female judge decided that Clinton did not harass the original woman Paul Jones, because he had not persistently repeated his request for sexual favours. It was an important and eminently reasonable position that all men should have welcomed. But Jones appealed against the verdict. She was seen on television crying inconsolably, though by now she had her teeth straightened and a nose job, so she would look good on camera.
(She later received a payout of around US$1 Million, for being "forced" to look at the world's most powerful dick. Me too. Me too!!)
There was one particular aspect of the 'trial' that never received comment in the media. It has long been an issue for feminists that in a rape trial a woman's past sexual behaviour should not be referred to. It is considered irrelevant to the case and discriminatory because it assumes that if a woman is not chaste then somehow men think she deserves to be raped. Yet in this case a man had virtually his whole sexual history dragged before the public eye, when none of it has direct relevance to the original case.
One of the protagonists testing her listening device.
Bill Clinton's full sexual history, as far as may be known, was revealed, used as an anecdotal way of smearing his credibility as a defendent. And he was indeed a defendent in a trial by media, in which a series of frequently false accusations of sexual misconduct were made and broadcast around the world. It is was a classic double standard. There is often one law for men and another for women.
It may seem unfortunate to conclude that much of the lesson remains a negative one for men. A male who occupies a position of power may easily be pulled down and humiliated relentlessly by a lone woman who seeks glory and a financial reward, while playing on the stereotype of feminine vulnerability. A cabal of feminist or puritan advocates went a long way to support her legally and it therefore cost the male millions to defend himself. On the other hand, there is a persistent possibility that the general public saw through the circus aspects of this trial and simply recognised the truth of the issue. Clinton's popularity was not affected by the issue, because people perhaps recognised that he was in fact being persecuted simply for his promiscuous indiscretions. Most men would have envied him, and many women would gladly have been the subject of his advances.
This attitude may affect our whole treatment of sexual harassment both socially, in the workplace and in the courts. Women may in future reassess their ideological position on harassment in light of this media trial. Many men have been unfairly taken to court on the basis of false charges of sexual harassment by women who sought revenge. In some cases women's arguments have seen sympathetic treatment by judges who treat male behaviour, violence and intimidation with great seriousness. If she says that she was intimidated, then she was!
But the fact is that men do not have all the power. The Clinton case proves that even the most powerful man in the world is less powerful than a cabal of feminists and puritans organised to bring him to his knees in front of them. So ultimately who's blowing who?
Got something to say!? Contact Thinkbomb and leave a message. I no longer post messages but I do reply.
Don't forget, there is also a wealth of material on the page links below. Includes facts, opinions, satire, news and references.
Go to top
