August 18, 2016

"'Rape is about power, not sex.' For those for whom it’s about power, those are the serial rapist guys, and they hate women and want to punish us."

"But I don’t think that’s in every case. I think good men can rape, and be sorry, and not do it again. This is very bad feminism."

Writes Rebecca Schoenkopf, in Wonkette, carrying on the venerable tradition of women making exceptions for Bill Clinton's sexual transgressions as she confesses to her own transgression — being a very bad feminist... or, ooh, not really... it was just this one time... I got carried away... Bill is so dreamy... he's not a bad man... he just does very bad things some times — just that one time! — I'm still a good girl — good feminist — I just engaged in very bad feminism that one time... and I'll never do it again... unless Bill needs me... oh, that Bill...

And this is why we can't have good feminism. Women — the majority of humanity — who could come together and demand respect and protection for our bodies are susceptible to getting peeled off individually by a man they feel powerfully drawn to and simply must make an exception for. He's not really bad. He said he was sorry and he'd never do it again. And there she is, the erstwhile feminist, mouthing the biggest domestic violence cliché in the world.

But it's not a cliché, not this time, because my guy is so special, mama. If you only knew his heart like I do.

***

There's a poll at Wonkette. The results look like this right now:



AND: To continue this theme of why we can't have good feminism: The woman who rose the highest is Hillary Clinton, and she did it by siding with the man, rejecting alliance with women. Staunch commitment to the sisterhood is not the winner's strategy. That is the lesson we're inscribing into American history as we create The Story of The First Woman President.

102 comments:

YoungHegelian said...

However awful the Clintons have been in their private lives simply doesn't matter to the Democrats.

They don't believe in Virtue in the Aristotelian sense anymore. They believe that the only moral good is the political good & the "correct ideology" that goes along with it. The Democratic machine has stated this over & over in public --- "I'd personally blow Bill Clinton for keeping abortion legal". Ted Kennedy was the "Lion of the Senate", not some perv whose stupidity & cowardice killed a young woman.

If the Democrats believed in the importance of Virtue in any fashion, do you think that Hillary would be the candidate by coronation?

MadisonMan said...

It's interesting to watch self-proclaimed feminists twist themselves into knots trying to defend Bill and Hillary on this topic.

SGT Ted said...

Women will tolerate behavior from an alpha that they won't tolerate from other men. When it comes to raw sex appeal, Bill Clinton is an alpha to these "feminists".

They will justify it claiming politics, buts it's all about their crotch tingles, really.

Brando said...

There's a real avenue to exploit the rift between the faux feminist defense of Bill Clinton and the younger generation that has been conditioned to believe rape victims unconditionally. The faux feminist defenses of Bill in this case have been nauseatingly hypocritical, and they should be confronted with this constantly. It's pretty clear Bill is a creep, and decent likelihood he raped that woman (and who knows who else--the idea that he "only raped once and otherwise was good" is harder to swallow than what Lewinsky wouldn't swallow).

I guess I'll give that writer credit for actually writing about it. The Clintons just hope Broaddrick disappears.

Brando said...

"It's interesting to watch self-proclaimed feminists twist themselves into knots trying to defend Bill and Hillary on this topic."

They're feminists of convenience. In their world, the rapists couldn't possibly be that sensitive, handsome "aw shucks" guy who supports abortion rights and talks about how much his wife is an equal partner. No way a guy like that could ever rape!

BDNYC said...

This part floored me:

There is simply no reason Hillary Clinton would have known jackshit about it; Bill Clinton was always lying to her, and she loved him, and she kept believing him when it was long past silly to do so. “Honey, I raped that nice lady” isn’t a thing he would have opened up to her about, and “thanks so much for the campaigning you did for my husband” just doesn’t sound like a threat in any possible universe.

Can the author really be so dense? The Clinton Sex Scandal MO has always been (1) Bill does something naughty, (2) Hillary finds out, then (3) Hillary cleans up the mess. Bill might have kept Hillary in the dark about some of his side pieces, but when he rapes and injures a woman, he needs Hillary's help to make it all go away. The fact that Hillary knew only adds to the evidence that he did something wrong.

David Begley said...

Hillary has only been rewarded by feminists.

Hillary and Bill struck an ultra corrupt business deal for their own personal profit. The real jackpot starts in 2017. If elected, they are unstoppable. One billion by the end of her first term.

rehajm said...

Staunch commitment to the sisterhood is not the winner's strategy.

Every one of those women is going to vote for Hillary.

Clayton Hennesey said...

This seems to be an area totally unexploited so far, that is, the moral bankruptcy and moral complicity of Hillary Clinton supporters.

The media is flooded with the horribles of Trump supporters, J. D. Vance's condescending anecdotal memoir included.

But there is virtually no pointing fingers and naming on the Hillary side. "Oh, you proudly support Hillary. So you embrace rape enabling, pay for play, and national security violations. How can you even look your children in the eye, [NAME HERE]?"

Victor Davis Hanson is making the attempt at a macro level, but unfortunately too many Republicans are far too polite to point out the obvious on the personal level.

Darrell said...

How about the other dozen or so Clinton rapes? You'd probably need a really fucking big "I'm sorry!" to wipe away those, wouldn't you?

Jake said...

"There is simply no reason Hillary Clinton would have known jackshit about it; Bill Clinton was always lying to her, and she loved him, and she kept believing him when it was long past silly to do so."

Of course. Hillary was just another victim of Bill. She was in love and blind to his indiscretions. That's why there isn't any "contemporaneous evidence" of Hillary attacking Bill's other victims. Oh wait...

Curious George said...

"YoungHegelian said...
However awful the Clintons have been in their private lives simply doesn't matter to the Democrats.

They don't believe in Virtue in the Aristotelian sense anymore. They believe that the only moral good is the political good & the "correct ideology" that goes along with it. The Democratic machine has stated this over & over in public --- "I'd personally blow Bill Clinton for keeping abortion legal"." Yep

"Ted Kennedy was the "Lion of the Senate", not some perv whose stupidity & cowardice killed a young woman."

It was stupidity and cowardice. It was being a cheat, bad driving, and selfishness.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Rape is about power, not sex.

I've heard this claim repeated ad nauseam. Is there any evidence to back it up? I'm not a rapist*, nor do I hate women, nor do I tend to try to assert power over other people, so I really don't have any first-hand knowledge. But I do have a typical male sex drive, and I can certainly picture how that, in the hands (loins?) of someone with less impulse control and a deficient moral compass, could lead to rape. I can't really imagine hatred or lust for power driving any significant amount of rape. Am I missing something?

*At least not by any reasonable definition. I have had sex with my wife at times when she was drunk to the point that feminists would say she could not have consented. She enjoyed it.

AReasonableMan said...

One of the commenters on this article makes the point that Ken Starr had access to all of these alleged victims of Bill Clinton and did not find any of them sufficiently credible. It would be hard to paint Ken Starr as anything other than doggedly determined to bring Clinton down, willing to use any credible witness to do so.

rehajm said...

Ted Kennedy was the "Lion of the Senate", not some perv whose stupidity & cowardice killed a young woman.

Watching Olympics coverage on MSNBC they ran a commercial where an on air personality from the network laments that there are no more commanding Democrats in Congress anymore overlayed with video of Ted Kennedy. It turned made my stomach.

tim maguire said...

The problem with feminism is the problem with all interest groups--the movement inevitably becomes about power and preserving the power becomes more important than advancing the interest. From the Catholic Church in late antiquity to the civil rights movement today, I am aware of no exception, no group that avoided this trap.

tim maguire said...

Blogger Ignorance is Bliss said...
Rape is about power, not sex.

I've heard this claim repeated ad nauseam. Is there any evidence to back it up?


It's semantics. Rape is about power, not sex, because and only because we define it as an act of power, not sex.

MadisonMan said...

One of the commenters on this article makes the point that Ken Starr had access to all of these alleged victims of Bill Clinton

Could you list them?

AReasonableMan said...

MadisonMan said...
Could you list them?


Gennifer Flowers, Paula Corbin Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick.

Lyssa said...

I have a 3 year old son, and a 1 year old daughter, so there's a good chance that H. Clinton will be the first president that they remember, and, of course, they'll learn about her historical achievement as the first woman president. I'm trying to figure out how and when to address this with them. Ugh.

Greg Hlatky said...

...the movement inevitably becomes about power and preserving the power becomes more important than advancing the interest.

It's been said that every movement starts as a crusade, evolves into a business and ends as a racket.

MadisonMan said...

@ARM: Thank you. Can you guess why they might not want to be involved in an investigation? Are you looking forward to more Bill Clinton sexual shenanigans when he's first man -- or whatever the moniker becomes? I'm not.

@Lyssa, you tell your daughter that she, too, can become President if she connives to marry a future President and then runs on his coattails!

Ignorance is Bliss said...

AReasonableMan said...

One of the commenters on this article makes the point that Ken Starr had access to all of these alleged victims of Bill Clinton and did not find any of them sufficiently credible.

Did he not find them credible? Or did he not find that their allegations amounted to federal crimes? Or were evidence related to the federal crimes he was investigating?

AprilApple said...

Bill; Clinton a sexual predator who doesn't take no for an answer.


His wife is a sociopath who lies continuously and will rape us in other ways.

Jane the Actuary said...

Yes, it stinks that, in the end, we're just a third world country, acquiring our First Woman by means of family dynasty, rather than, as in civilized countries, via normal political processes.

traditionalguy said...

Could this mean that there are women that like to submit to a powerful man with the instinct that they can influence that power not to hurt them and perhaps control that power to use it against others? But the man they try that with only refuses to be manipulated, and he punishes them for making the attempt?

Anyway you cut it, rape is about using the power to wound another person, and this is used to the point that tactical RAPE has been accepted as a weapon in tribal warfare since Kings and Priests first sold demonic religions to the young men. The key to bad rape is Tribal Identification so our tribe's women are not raped and the other tribe is raped.

And then there was the Japanese Imperial Army proving his Tribe's superiority over mongrel Asians.

Original Mike said...

I don't understand, ARM. Ken Starr did not believe Monica Lewinsky?

AReasonableMan said...

MadisonMan said...
Can you guess why they might not want to be involved in an investigation? Are you looking forward to more Bill Clinton sexual shenanigans when he's first man


Starr had subpoena power, Lewinsky was a hostile witness. Starr was able to get any information he wanted.

I am not defending Clinton, just trying to see the truth. There is no question that Clinton is an undisciplined individual, for all he knew Lewinsky was a Russian or Israeli plant aiming to compromise him. He was not fit to be president. That doesn't make him a rapist.

AReasonableMan said...

Original Mike said...
I don't understand, ARM. Ken Starr did not believe Monica Lewinsky?


No, I was just listing all the witnesses Starr had available to him. As far as I know, no genuinely new information has come out since the Starr investigation. If Starr were convinced that there was something that would stand up in court he would have acted on that, there seems very little doubt on that point.

rhhardin said...

Feminism is a female thing, part of a sex difference. It's not about abolishing sex difference.

It's sending men on quests, but directed at all men instead of a single one.

The latter has survival value; the former does not. The former is the topic of knowing looks between men.

rhhardin said...

Feminism wants a castrated woman, not a castrated man.

- somewhere in Derrida's _Spurs_

Matthew Blaine said...

"Women - a majority of humanity..."
Demonstrably false factoid. Also, a composition error. Not all females are women. Some are girls. Heck, not all females are even females anymore.

Curious George said...

"AReasonableMan said...
No, I was just listing all the witnesses Starr had available to him. As far as I know, no genuinely new information has come out since the Starr investigation. If Starr were convinced that there was something that would stand up in court he would have acted on that, there seems very little doubt on that point."

Not how it went ARM:

"Despite Broaddrick’s denial in her affidavit, Jones’ lawyers included Yoakum’s letter and Broaddrick's name in a 1998 filing.[9] The letter suggested that the Clintons had bought Broaddrick’s silence, describing a phone call where Broaddrick’s husband asked Yoakum to say the incident never happened and said that he intended to ask Clinton “for a couple of big favors.”[12] This, along with the discrepancy between the letter and Broaddrick’s affidavit, attracted the attention of independent counsel Kenneth Starr, who was investigating Clinton for obstruction of justice. After being approached by the FBI, Broaddrick consulted her son, a lawyer, who told her she could not lie to federal investigators.[4] After they promised her she would not be prosecuted for perjury regarding her affidavit in the Jones case, Broaddrick recanted the affidavit.However, she insisted that Clinton had not pressured or bribed her in any way, and so Starr concluded that the story was not relevant to his investigation and his report only mentioned the recanting in a footnote."

And what court?

Bad Lieutenant said...

It's pretty clear Bill is a creep, and decent likelihood he raped that woman (and who knows who else--the idea that he "only raped once and otherwise was good" is harder to swallow than what Lewinsky wouldn't swallow).

Come now Brando, surely Monica was not the weak link here. The President of the United States reaches climax due to your hard work and you won't receive his passionate effusion for the treasure it is? You deny him and instead he has to resort to a sink?

No, no, no. Bill was withholding his essence from her. Some twisted drama playing in his twisted skull. I'm sure she wished for more, and a real man (if profoundly unwise) would have given it to her. A real man...but W.J. Clinton is so far from a real man that the Andromeda Galaxy fits in between.

How do you not know this? Or is it I who am wrong? (Of course, I am one who found her attractive.)

Let's Vote!

Not on that BJ was a predator, this is beyond obvious. (And women seem to love it. What lessons then should be drawn by men? Hint, Quod licet Jovi non licet bovi won't play in America)

TreeJoe said...

I truly don't understand this part of the modern women's movement. Let me draw a parallel: Currently the director/star of "Birth of a Nation" is being hounded publicly 17 years after he was accused of rape, investigated, put on trial, and exonerated. He has always admitted he had sex with the woman in question along with another man, that alcohol was involved, and that he behaved badly towards her after she accused him. But in modern women's language, she remains labelled the victim and he the rapist and he is being dragged down.

By comparison, we know with absolute certitude that Clinton abused his power in office with an intern in a situation that would result in any other Chief Executive being forced to step down. He has a 30+ year history of accusations from various women. He is known to have flown on a billionaire's plane approximnately 2 dozen times, including trips to his private island and multi-destination junkets, and the billionaire is a convicted pedophile with plenty of stories surrounding his preferences.

Peep....peep peep.....

The lengths at which this double standard will go are astounding.

TwilightofLiberty.com said...

Strong posts this morning, ma'am. Good reads. As a younger dude I was often confused at the feminists' worship of a guy who serially harassed/abused the women around him. IIRC, it was Tammy Bruce who helped me see the light in her "New Thought Police" book from 2003. Another good read.

Mike said...

I don't think Starr was looking for rape victims, ARM. If so, he didn't dig deep at all. Bill, like many sociopaths, started young, raping college girls first then moving on to mature women:

* In 1972, a 22-year-old woman told campus police at Yale University that she was sexually assaulted by Clinton, a law student at the college. No charges were filed, but retired campus policemen contacted by Capitol Hill Blue confirmed the incident.

* In 1974, a female student at the University of Arkansas complained that then-law school instructor Bill Clinton tried to prevent her from leaving his office during a conference. She said he groped her and forced his hand inside her blouse. She complained to her faculty advisor who confronted Clinton, but Clinton claimed the student ”came on” to him. The student left the school shortly after the incident. Reached at her home in Texas, the former student confirmed the incident, but declined to go on the record with her account. Several former students at the University have confirmed the incident in confidential interviews and said there were other reports of Clinton attempting to force himself on female students;

*Broaddrick, a volunteer in Clinton’s gubernatorial campaign, said he raped her in 1978. Mrs. Broaddrick suffered a bruised and torn lip, which she said she suffered when Clinton bit her during the rape;

* From 1978-1980, during Clinton’s first term as governor of Arkansas, state troopers assigned to protect the governor were aware of at least seven complaints from women who said Clinton forced, or attempted to force, himself on them sexually. One retired state trooper said in an interview that the common joke among those assigned to protect Clinton was “who’s next?” One former state trooper said other troopers would often escort women to the governor’s hotel room after political events, often more than one an evening;

* Carolyn Moffet, a legal secretary in Little Rock in 1979, said she met then-governor Clinton at a political fundraiser and shortly thereafter received an invitation to meet the governor in his hotel room. “I was escorted there by a state trooper. When I went in, he was sitting on a couch, wearing only an undershirt. He pointed at his penis and told me to suck it. I told him I didn’t even do that for my boyfriend and he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled away from him and ran out of the room.”

* Elizabeth Ward, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state crown. Last year, Ward, who is now married with the last name of Gracen (from her first marriage), told an interviewer she did have sex with Clinton but said it was consensual. Close friends of Ward, however, say she still maintains privately that Clinton forced himself on her.

Mike said...

* Paula Corbin, an Arkansas state worker, filed a sexual harassment case against Clinton after an encounter in a Little Rock hotel room where the then-governor exposed himself and demanded oral sex. Clinton settled the case with Jones recently with an $850,000 cash payment.

* Sandra Allen James, a former Washington, DC, political fundraiser says Presidential candidate-to-be Clinton invited her to his hotel room during a political trip to the nation’s capital in 1991, pinned her against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She says she screamed loud enough for the Arkansas State Trooper stationed outside the hotel suite to bang on the door and ask if everything was all right, at which point Clinton released her and she fled the room. When she reported the incident to her boss, he advised her to keep her mouth shut if she wanted to keep working. Miss James has since married and left Washington. Reached at her home last week, the former Miss James said she later learned that other women suffered the same fate at Clinton’s hands when he was in Washington during his Presidential run.

* Christy Zercher, a flight attendant on Clinton’s leased campaign plane in 1992, says Presidential candidate Clinton exposed himself to her, grabbed her breasts and made explicit remarks about oral sex. A video shot on board the plane by ABC News shows an obviously inebriated Clinton with his hand between another young flight attendant’s legs. Zercher said later in an interview that White House attorney Bruce Lindsey tried to pressure her into not going public about the assault.

* Kathleen Willey, a White House volunteer, reported that Clinton grabbed her, fondled her breast and pressed her hand against his genitals during an Oval Office meeting in November, 1993. Willey, who told her story in a 60 Minutes interview, became a target of a White House-directed smear campaign after she went public.

rhhardin said...

As Klavan put it, feminism wants to turn first-rate women into second-rate men.

Bob Boyd said...

"The lengths at which this double standard will go are astounding."

You ain't seen nothin' yet.
It's for the greater good, you know.

Chuck said...

So in other words, a Hillary Clinton presidency could set back the cause of feminism the same way that the Obama presidency set back the cause of racial harmony.

Gusty Winds said...

are susceptible to getting peeled off individually by a man they feel powerfully drawn to and simply must make an exception for

She was addicted,
To what the dick did,
And the pleasure and the pain it inflicted....

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

It makes perfect sense from an evolutionary viewpoint.

Steve M. Galbraith said...

"Women — the majority of humanity — who could come together and demand respect and protection for our bodies are susceptible to getting peeled off individually by a man they feel powerfully drawn to and simply must make an exception for."

If Clinton had a "R" or was pro-life/anti-abortion rights - and was just as powerful or attractive - do you think they'd be excusing this behavior?

These women are finding excuses for his past because of ideology and raw politics not because of a "man they feel powerfully draw to."

Bruce Hayden said...

Someone suggested in another thread that Trump is starting his paid advertising, and that some of it will probably be pretty brutal. Why not hit the Clintons from this point of view. Modern young feminists brought up in the zero tolerance campus environment have little sympathy for this sort of thing, and little loyalty to the Clintons of old. It would hurt Crooked Hillary where it hurts, potentially peeling off some of one of her most important demographics. Sure, they would more likely vote for Jill Stein, but that is far better for Trump than if they vote for Crooked Hillary. Should be interesting.

tim in vermont said...

So, ARM, Broaddrick's 5 witnesses were all lying? Why didn't Starr prosecute them?

Fabi said...

Ken Starr was not investigating rape allegations.

Curious George said...

"Blogger tim in vermont said...
So, ARM, Broaddrick's 5 witnesses were all lying? Why didn't Starr prosecute them?"

As it has been pointed out, Starr had no interest in Broaddrick's claims as they didn't pertain to the Jones case.

buwaya puti said...

Doesnt matter, and the pretzel-logic is normal for this sort of thing. The scribblers scribble for a purpose, and that is propaganda in the service of their paymasters.

You all take the mcguffins in all this too seriously.

Its all about power and money, nothing else at all. Anything can be rationalized if there is enough at stake.

Brando said...

Yeah, I don't really get that "rape is about power" argument. Are we so sure rapists aren't just about sex? Or is sex itself always about power, too?

SGT Ted said...

Bill Cosby is being hounded and Bill Clinton is being excused. I'm smelling racism from the Progressives here.

Laslo Spatula said...

""'Rape is about power, not sex.' For those for whom it’s about power, those are the serial rapist guys, and they hate women and want to punish us."

If rapists didn't have the outlet of rape who knows what horrible things they might do.

I am Laslo.

SGT Ted said...

Yeah, I don't really get that "rape is about power" argument. Are we so sure rapists aren't just about sex? Or is sex itself always about power, too?

Rape has to be recast as "being about power" in order to advance the Neo-Marxist narrative of modern feminism; that society is about men maintaining power over women, using rape as a tool.

Feminists extremists, like Catherine MacKinnon say all sex is rape and is considered an honored academic, rather than the tinfoil hat kook that she is. Which shows you that modern feminism is now just a vehicle for kooks and the mentally ill to wield power.

AReasonableMan said...

Curious George said...
Not how it went


You, and a few others, seem to be arguing that Starr had credible evidence that Clinton raped someone, anyone, and Starr simply ignored this while relentlessly pursuing less serious issues. I find this difficult to believe.

buwaya puti said...

Starr was hired to paper over the whole thing. He drowned the investigation and prosecution in process.
He was subsequently rewarded.

tim in vermont said...

This is how 'reasonable' people analyze stuff: First impute a motive to each of the players, then ignore the evidence and decide who is telling the truth based on their 'motives. '

Gahrie said...


If Clinton had a "R" or was pro-life/anti-abortion rights - and was just as powerful or attractive - do you think they'd be excusing this behavior?


Look at what happened to Bob Packwood. He was a Republican, but much more Liberal than Bill Clinton, and much more reliable on feminist issues. The feminists destroyed him for much less than what Clinton did.

jacksonjay said...

What has become of Clinton Defender By Any Means Necessary, Gotta Pee Lil Lena Dunham? She seems to have disappeared from the Althouse landscape. I recognize that the Professor has a new obcession, but I miss the musings of THE Millenial Voice of Rape. Can she defend Bubba as a good man? I get the feeling that feminists will defend any reprobate who agressively supports the right to flush their wombs of inconvenient truth, as long as he wears the right label.

DCPI said...

Contemporaneous account

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/stewardess-bill-groped-met-ells-magazine-plane-antics-article-1.800236

Sebastian said...

"Good feminism." Ah, yes. Of course, it was always a little tricky to pursue female privilege by claiming to want "equality." And of course, the goodness of feminism, as of any other pseudo-prog affectation, is situational. In prog politics, from the nineteenth century onward, ideologies have been tools: if they served the larger cause and the achievement of power, fine; if not, not. At the moment, Hill's feminism is good enough. As long as Bill is politically viable, no "feminist" will reject him for his misdeeds. Bill Cosby, by contrast, is dispensable, indeed a threat, so his misdeeds are useful to exploit.

tim in vermont said...

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/1999/03/is_juanita_broaddrick_telling_the_truth.html

Here's the evidence ARM, you spin it.

Bob Boyd said...

Refresh my memory.
What were all the wonderful accomplishments which more than compensate for Bill's...um...misunderstandings with women?
I know you have to break a few eggs, but was there an omelet?
I've grown forgetful.

pdug said...

"rape is about power not sex" was invented to point out that for the victim, its an experience of violence, not sex. But the rapists pretty much still think they're getting [forced] sex. They cannot satisfy their urge without the sex, or substitute other things. Its a sex-desire, and that's just obvious.

Its was invented for that and because Eldridge Cleaver said he raped white women as an act of asserting black power

Sebastian said...

OK, so how many of the 59% in that poll who think Bill is a rapist are nonetheless willing to put that rapist back in the White House?

As YH pointed out in the very first comment, the awfulness of the Clintons simply doesn't matter to Dems anymore. Principles and virtue, even rape, are irrelevant.

pfennig said...

What I find so particularly offensive about this piece is that the author seems to excuse Clinton because he was allegedly acting within the norms of the times and he should not be judged by our more enlightened standards. She writes:

"I can absolutely see Bill Clinton doing this (then, not now) and not even thinking about it as rape, but thinking of it as a dominant, alpha sex. I can see a lot of men doing that during that time period, before we started telling them in the '80s, "hey, that is rape, do not do that."

Being roughly in the same age group as Clinton, and considering myself to be an "alpha male" I reject the notion that in earlier times, Clinton's alleged behavior was acceptable or viewed as being acceptable. It was no more acceptable then than it is now.

Having prosecuted cases for sexual assault in the 1970s I can tell you that the alleged conduct was criminal back then as it is now. The notion that in the 1980s women started telling men what rape was is ridiculous. Moreover, beyond the criminality of the conduct, I would suggest that in the "old" days, it would also have been viewed as being immoral, a constraint that had much more power then than now.

If Clinton did these things, it wasn't because he didn't know it was wrong, but because he either couldn't control himself, or he didn't care.

Rae said...

Someone who agrees with me couldn't possibly be a monster.

tim in vermont said...

"Marcotte concedes that some of these accusations may be true, but that it's impossible to know whether or not they're sincere."

WTF? Why can't these women just take one for the team?

What I don't get is why the Clintons personally are so important to the Democrats? No other person is qualified, or at least as qualified as Obama was? It has to be them?

Steve M. Galbraith said...

"Look at what happened to Bob Packwood. He was a Republican, but much more Liberal than Bill Clinton, and much more reliable on feminist issues. The feminists destroyed him for much less than what Clinton did."

Well, Packwood was pro-choice and if I recall it correctly the feminists overlooked a number of allegations about him groping women over the years until it became too much.

I'm not sure they "destroyed" him but your memory may be more accurate than mine.

rhhardin said...

Gotta pee is turning up a lot as plot conveniences in DVDs.

Women didn't use to pee at all.

Rae said...

"What I don't get is why the Clintons personally are so important to the Democrats? No other person is qualified, or at least as qualified as Obama was? It has to be them?"

Pretty much yeah. The Democratic party has pretty much been cleansed of all who are not Clintonites or Obamaites. I suppose there is now a Warren/Sanders mini-wing now. There is no back bench.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

AReasonableMan said...

You, and a few others, seem to be arguing that Starr had credible evidence that Clinton raped someone, anyone, and Starr simply ignored this while relentlessly pursuing less serious issues.

Rape is not a federal crime. The most Starr could do would be to forward the evidence to a state prosecutor. I don't know if he did this or not, or if the relevant state prosecutor already had this same evidence. A state prosecutor might have disagreed about its credibility, agreed but, for political reasons chose not to prosecute Clinton, or agreed but, for an old case with a non-cooperating witness and no physical evidence, decided that this would be unwinnable in court.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Rae said...

Someone who agrees with me couldn't possibly be a monster.

I agree.

Stephen A. Meigs said...

Rape is about gaining sex rather than control. Forcible sodomy is about gaining control (often to get sex). Not that all sodomy isn't about control.

Michael The Magnificent said...

Well, the first grope is free, at least according to feminist Gloria Steinem, though I doubt that feminists extend that privilege to anyone but Bill Clinton.

And I firmly believe that had Clinton a pattern of groping women twice, that it'd be the two-free-gropes rule instead.

After all, Nina Burleigh would "be happy to give him [oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal."

AReasonableMan said...

Ignorance is Bliss said...
The most Starr could do would be to forward the evidence to a state prosecutor.


There is no evidence that this happened.

a non-cooperating witness

The witness was cooperating.

bigkat said...

professor isn't it rich! Steinem calling Trump the candidate of hate and a bully. where was she and NOW when the enabler in chiefs patron was abusing and raping women. was that the staunch support for the sisterhood you are referring?

buwaya puti said...

Starr did nothing that would amount to anything, deliberately.
He was an agent of the system, defending it against disruption.
Clinton being kicked out would most certainly have turned over a lot of rocks that no one wanted disturbed. Even on the Republican side. Among them no doubt Hastert, no doubt just one of many, who was easy to blackmail. Orrin Hatch no doubt was another. Gross corruption was endemic at the time.
The consequences of what was even then already deep rot is what we see today, in the form of economic paralysis.

FullMoon said...

"The following is the complete, unedited text of the final, corrected version of independent counsel Kenneth Starr's report to the House on President Clinton. "

Starr

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Wow, that 10% is really something--"is this still an issue?" That has to be disheartening to anyone who believes in the ideals of feminism, huh? Solidarity, sister...but not on yucky old issues--what difference at this point does it make? Sure, we all gave Bill a standing ovation at the Dem. Convention...

Damn it'd be sweet if some Republicans started referring to Bill as "accused rapist Bill Clinton," and when challenged on it point out that x% of respondents to feminist blog Wonkette say they believe Clinton raped Broaddrick!

AReasonableMan said...

buwaya puti said...
Starr did nothing that would amount to anything, deliberately.
He was an agent of the system, defending it against disruption.


Have you changed your meds recently?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

AReasonableMan said...One of the commenters on this article makes the point that Ken Starr had access to all of these alleged victims of Bill Clinton and did not find any of them sufficiently credible.

That's rape apology, ARM--you're being a rape apologist. Hillary Clinton's website used to say women alleging they were sexually assaulted have a right to be believed (that was dropped this year--wonder why?), so by that standard all the women you listed are victims of Bill Clinton (and he's a serial sexual assaulter and rapist). The fact that you're using the lack of action of the part of a white heterosexual man (a man who was part of the white patriarchal anti-feminist "justice" system of oppression) as evidence that women who accused a powerful man of sex crimes...well, ARM, that makes you anti-woman, doesn't it? Why do you hate women so much, and how can such a hateful misogynist live with themselves? Stop supporting rape culture, ARM.

tim in vermont said...

"There is no evidence..." - ARM

Five witnesses under penalty of lying to federal prosecutors, the same charge that landed Scooter Libby in jail. That is "no evidence"?

Broaddrick could not recall the date where she stayed at the hotel, but Dateline NBC was able to find that she had in fact stayed there on April 25th, and that Clinton was in Little Rock that day without any events on his schedule.

My favorite rebuttal to the witness who found Juanita bleeding from the lip and with torn panty hose was that Broaddrick's husband had once hit her in the mouth, so "he must have done it again" and that lying slut Broaddrick blamed it on Bill! I added that last part.

That is not "no evidence." It is a credible accusation with no alibi of any kind offered by Bill.

But I guess it is "reasonable" to pretend that certain facts do not exist.

tim in vermont said...

Amazing that "feminists" have no problem using the fact that Broaddrick's ex husband beat her against her. Where are we, Saudi Arabia?

mockturtle said...

The women who supported Ted Bundy [one even married him in prison] after his arrest and conviction were feminists. Methinks there is something of the masochist in a woman who would act this way. Many feminists also defend Sharia law. This is NOT the feminism for which I fought passionately in the 70's.

tim in vermont said...

I'm not sure they "destroyed" him but your memory may be more accurate than mine.

They took his Senate seat. What more do you want?

buwaya said...

"Have you changed your meds recently?"

I've never been on any meds at all, ever.
I probably should be taking them for cholesterol and high blood pressure, etc.
But I am averse to living on pills.
I rarely drink either, if I have three drinks a week its a big week. I like my wine and beer but not really much of either, and mostly to be social.

In any case, Starr undertook perpetual investigations that deliberately came to nothing. Whatever the Clintons did or had done in a very shady career were handed to Starr, and he buried them all.

tim in vermont said...

At a minimum Clinton could have been asked for the logs of his security detail. They knew exactly where he was at all times, but nobody asked for them. I guess they just decided that the nutty slut was lying, so there was no need to look into it further!

AReasonableMan said...

tim in vermont said...
That is "no evidence"?


As usual, in your over-eagerness to score any point, you misread my statement, which self-evidently referred to Starr, not the witnesses.

Unknown said...

Feminists who defend Sharia law? Feminists who marry convicted serial killers? How do you know they were feminists? If so, it certainly is not representative of feminism. Hillary Clinton isn't the best representative of feminism either, she may be a good President nevertheless. At the very least, she will be a better President than Trump.

AReasonableMan said...

buwaya said...
Starr undertook perpetual investigations that deliberately came to nothing. Whatever the Clintons did or had done in a very shady career were handed to Starr, and he buried them all.


Basically, you believe that all Republicans are in cahoots with all Democrats and they show such incredible discipline that none of them ever stray off the reservation, ever. Personal ambition, integrity, sheer orneriness: none of these potential personal failings cause them to pull away the veil to reveal the inner workings of the machine, ever.

Not buying it.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

I can see a lot of men doing that during that time period, before we started telling them in the '80s, "hey, that is rape, do not do that."

This was before my time, so maybe some of you older folks can help out: was forcible sex (including violence) with an unwilling partner not considered rape, or not considered that bad, before the 1970s? I mean...we're not talking about a married couple, or a misunderstanding between two inebriated people here, or even a date-rape type of thing--this is pretty clearly the legal definition of rape even back then, right? Like, rape-rape, even to Whoopi Goldberg, yeah?

Professor, you've written about the change you've seen over time in attitudes regarding sexual harassment in the workplace, I think; do you agree with this writer that Clinton's behavior (I mean, his alleged rape) wasn't understood to be all that bad back before the 1980's?

Brando said...

Just from a strictly amoral utilitarian perspective, I don't see why so called feminists don't just jettison the Clintons over these sorts of things. The loss in credibility for defending the guy must outweigh whatever marginal "benefits" the feminist movement gets from the Clintons. The Broaddrick story came out in '99 when Clinton was on his way out anyway, so it's not like he was doing them any good (hell, if they'd drummed him out of office it would have given Al Gore a head start on the presidency).

The only conclusion is that they have actually brainwashed themselves into believing that charming rogue Bill could never rape anyone because no woman would ever be unwilling to have sex with him.

tim in vermont said...

You, and a few others, seem to be arguing that Starr had credible evidence that Clinton raped someone, anyone, and Starr simply ignored this while relentlessly pursuing less serious issues - ARM

You seem to be arguing that Starr had "no credible evidence," or he would have sent it, but I admit, I could be wrong. Maybe you are saying that he did have credible evidence, but just didn't forward it, then again... maybe you are saying that he had "no evidence," well, you just told me that wasn't true. This "reasonableness" thing seems kind of slippery.


tim in vermont said...

Just from a strictly amoral utilitarian perspective, I don't see why so called feminists don't just jettison the Clintons over these sorts of things.

THAT'S WHAT I DON'T GET! It's almost as if their network of supporters made up some kind of, what's the word... oligarchy, whose will to power overrides the stated values of their own political party.....


NAAH! That's why I could never bring myself to dislike Bernie Sanders. His economics make no sense, but he was right about a lot of things, and managed to be in Congress and the Senate for a long time without getting rich.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Clinton's alleged behavior was acceptable or viewed as being acceptable."

-- You know that's not true, because if it was, no one would have felt bad coming forward about it.

boycat said...

Well, Packwood was pro-choice and if I recall it correctly the feminists overlooked a number of allegations about him groping women over the years until it became too much.

That's not exactly right. The feminists and the left generally put up with Packwood's shenanigans for decades, but in 1994 when the Republicans took control of the Senate, the Democrats, wanting the Senate back, began regarding each and every senate seat as a precious commodity, and so they saw the opportunity to get that seat back. And they did it that way.

boycat said...

The "rape is about power" trope was invented by lesbian feminists. They're the only ones who believe that.

Brando said...

"THAT'S WHAT I DON'T GET! It's almost as if their network of supporters made up some kind of, what's the word... oligarchy, whose will to power overrides the stated values of their own political party....."

It just doesn't seem like there's much for even leftists to like about the Clintons. They aren't reliably on their side, hell in some cases they were more effective at undermining leftism than any Republican was (remember, it was Bill Clinton who signed the crime bill with mandatory minimums, not Bush; it was Bill who signed welfare reform, I'm not aware of any big welfare reform bill signed by a GOP president; and for all the talk of Bush being pro "traditional marriage" it was Bill who actually signed a federal law to stymie gay marriage). And with that they are stuck with the moral failings and criminality of the Clintons. What's the upside?

I could sort of understand leftists backing LBJ (except for Vietnam, at least) because he did get things done that a lot of leftists probably couldn't. Or backing Obama, because he at least has been fairly consistent with his leftism, and compared with the Clintons he's a boy scout.

I think the Clinton love is almost entirely due to a reflexive feeling that "he has the right enemies"--if conservatives hate them so much, there must be something good for the leftists there.

buwaya said...

"none of these potential personal failings cause them to pull away the veil to reveal the inner workings of the machine, ever."

They are remarkably disciplined indeed - thats why nearly all of them leave office much richer than when they got in. Hastert for instance. The more you dig, the more you realize that so much is not coming to public attention, and both sides are in cahoots.

One small one I found some time back, a _bipartisan_ bill changing the rules for private pension funding requirements -
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr4348enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr4348enr.pdf
Stuck in whats ostensibly a highway bill of 2012 is private pension funding change permitting private pensions to, effectively, cheat on funding, and get away with @80% funding.
No surprise, a couple of years later, another bipartisan bill permitting cuts in private pension benefits -
https://theintercept.com/2016/04/20/bill-that-obama-extolled-is-leading-to-pension-cuts-for-retirees/

Thats just a couple. Dig, and you will find. Its one machine, and its got so many failings, such huge masses of them, that you can never be done digging. Its such an immense monument of corruption that its no longer visible, the people on it have no hope of perspective.

AReasonableMan said...

tim in vermont said...
This "reasonableness" thing seems kind of slippery.


Not as slippery as unreasonableness.

tim in vermont said...


Not as slippery as unreasonableness


That's very true, and I suppose you would know that best of all.

Bruce Hayden said...

@ARM - legally, rape, or even sexual harassment, was not relevant to Ken Starr's investigation, because they are not federal crimes. The only thing really relevant was perjury. Lying under oath, which he showed that Clinton had done. The only purpose for showing that Bill had done any of these things was to prove that Bill had lied under oath when he said he hadn't in a civil case against him by Paula Jones. It was the lying under oath that was the issue, and not the sex, or attempted sex, that he was lying about.