Well there went three hours of my life...

Actually it was rather educational. And Jeff's endless patience and rhetorical skill is nothing to sneeze at. I'm more than pleased that someone of his caliber, steeped in the terminology and techniques of academia, is willing to duke it out for the conservative/libertarian corner.

If that's the essence of your feminism though, beware--you are probably an "anti-feminst" by the terms of the non-establishment establishment feminists (just don't you dare call them "gender feminists"!).

I guess by their terms I am an "anti-feminist" too, though I was comforted to realize that this is not necessarily the same as "sexist trogolodyte", depending upon how you define your terms.

Geez Louise!! Now that my brain is all in a pretzel, I have an urge to grab a crowbar and beat the hell out of some unfortunate hobo, just to clear out my testosterone channels and reassert myself as an Alpha Male member of the Patriarchy.

I have the advantage of having the flu, and knowing I can't follow anything too intricate at the moment.

Bottom line: I am what I am. I probably strike a lot of people as a gender traitor, but that's fine.

I'm not sure anyone can say Clinton exploited Monica. She was of age and decided to make out with a big powerful daddy figure.

There was of course the "stalking" charge. Of more relevance was Paula Jones. Her charges were serious if unverified. But the "you never know what you'll find if you wave a hundred dollar bill in a trailer park" remark was certainly unjustified.

But monica as feeble exploited victim, I guess you see yourself in this, nice middle class girl, not working class trash like Paula. Clinton was sleezy, but so was she.

No one denies that Monica was the initiator in those encounters. Or that she was technically an adult. But I believe a lot of people would prefer that the commander in chief of the U.S. be made of stronger stuff, and be able to resist such temptations.

And I found it rather ironic that a lot of women who had previously asserted that extreme power differences made consent less meaningful suddenly reversed their thinking when it came to Clinton. This applies to Jones even more than Lewinsky, of course.

"No one denies that Monica was the initiator in those encounters. Or that she was technically an adult. But I believe a lot of people would prefer that the commander in chief of the U.S. be made of stronger stuff, and be able to resist such temptations."

Technically an adult? Do you want to raise the age of consent? Do you think she could consent to an abortion?

The counter argument is that if the Commander in chief can't get a BJ, who can?

Actua;lly, rather than prim puritans, people have always admired charismatic lusty leaders in politics. The Europeans were quite berfuddled about why we were making a fuss over monica.

Can anyone say J-F-K?

The difference is that in those days, there was a bit of restraint in the press. Polirtical correspindents knew enough to report on just those things that were vital to the country.

Having said that, it would be interesting to think about how or if a woman president would be treated differently.

Maybe Hillary will both get back at Bill and proivide us a real world opportunity to see about it!

The point is, it was almost whiplash-inducing to watch feminists change their stance regarding power differences and consent in sexual situations--or at least carve out a hefty exception for sexist members of the Patriarchy who happened to favor abortion rights.

I can't remember where it was I read--maybe one of JeffG's long articles--about how Clinton may have singlehandedly undone a whole lot of what Anita Hill did. I don't know about that, but he certainly managed to expose a huge vein of hypocrisy.