[Vision2020] Amy's still not "getting it" - and Tim is?
Edna Wilmington
edwilming@yahoo.com
Tue, 27 Jan 2004 19:49:00 -0800 (PST)
Forum Members,
See my replies to Mr. Ramalingam inline below:
--- Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam@hotmail.com>
wrote:
---------------------------------
<quote>
I never suggested that Clinton harassed Monica. That
discussion referred to the Jones suit. The contact
with Monica was consensual.
<end quote>
That's correct. Mr. Ramilingam denies that what
occurred was harassment, but his basis for asserting
that Clinton didn't harass Lewinsky is that there was
no evidence of Clinton "exercising indirect firing
authority," etc. On that basis alone, the question is
settled by Mr. Ramalingam's standard, but it's not
settled by typical standards observed by feminists, or
for that matter, employment law. Fact is, the law and
the courts can take into account the mere threat of
retribution by the harasser.
Many staunchly egalitarian feminists deny that real
consent was even possible in Monica's circumstance,
given the power position occupied by President
Clinton. Feminists have been known to argue that the
*prospect* of his harassing her would have been
present no matter what. A lot of the debate in
liberal mags, cited earlier by Ms. Smoucha, centered
on this question.
Observe how this concept plays out, less subtley, in
the alleged sexual relationship between Thomas
Jefferson and his slave, Sally Hemmings. Let's assume
it happened as popularly believed, and the genetic
evidence doesn't point to another close relative of
Jefferson. Some feminists claim there's no way
Hemmings had full freedom to consent because of
Jefferson's "power position" as a slaveholder. My
only aim was to point out that perhaps Mr. Lohrmann's
point was consistent with that feminist notion.
<quote>
Are you trying to suggest that ANY of the Thomas
behaviour was consensual?
<end quote>
No, not as described by his accuser, but remember,
Thomas vigorously denied the charges. Not only that,
but had harassment been sufficiently proven, Thomas
would almost certainly never have been confirmed as a
Federal Supreme Court Justice.
My point? Liberals (and feminist groups) cared very
much about alleged sexual harassment when it involved
a conservative federal judge (the hue and cry was
outrageous); however, when their guy got accused,
there seemed to be a double standard applied by some
(though not all).
Conservatives are often guilty of the same type of
hypocrisy. Enter Rush Limbaugh.
By the way, my reason for bringing up Tripp's fate was
this: If the sexual tryst with Monica wasn't actually
sex, and if it was just a personal matter, and
everyone should just lighten up, then why tear this
lady's (Tripp's) life apart for sharing the tape? Big
deal. So what? It wasn't sex, anyway.
Not so fast. This demonstrates that Clinton's White
House knew what he did was wrong, how it damaged him
and the Democrats, and Tripp had to pay. It further
demonstrates the *prospect* of Lewinsky facing the
same meat grinder had she not simply put out, smiled,
and shut up.
Edna Wilmington
>From: Edna Wilmington
>To: Sunil Ramalingam , timlohr@yahoo.com,
asmoucha@hotmail.com
>CC: vision2020@moscow.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Amy's still not "getting
it" - and Tim is?
>Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 00:34:10 -0800 (PST)
>
>Forum Members,
>
>There's at least one potential problem with Mr.
>Ramalingam's legal theory: Monica put out. Why would
>President Clinton harass her by exercising indirect
>firing authority when she gave him what he wanted?
>
>I know, they were in love, but what might El
>Presidente have done if Monica didn't put out and
>threatened to report him for propositioning her, or
>better yet, if she did put out and then threatened to
>go public?
>
>Might she have faced a similar fate as Linda Tripp
>over at the Pentagon? What was her lawsuit about?
>Yeah, that's right, the $595,000.00 lawsuit she won.
>That's quite a chunk of change for pettiness. Woops,
>I must be a cynic or conspiracy theorist. Of course,
>the White House had nothing to do with those Pentagon
>leaks.
>
>Anyone remember how much this stuff mattered during
>the confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas?
>
>Edna Wilmington
>
>
>--- Sunil Ramalingam
>wrote:
>
>---------------------------------
>
>Tim,
>
>You write:
>
>"What is it about 1. a state's chief executive
>exposing himself to a low-level underling over which
>he could indirectly have firing authority; 2. having
>sex with women under him in the White House; 3.
>groping women who work for him. etc. that you don't
>call sexual harassment."
>
>Did you take employment law in law school? If you
>did, then you already know that conduct as or more
>egregious than what was alleged ( and that you refer
>to in #1) is not necessarily sexual harassment under
>the law. If it occurred, yes, it was tremendously
>crass. But did anyone allege that Clinton ACTUALLY
>exercised what you call his indirect firing
authority?
> No, because that didn't happen. Did she suffer any
>negative consequences on her job in terms of reduced
>pay or hours? No. What were her damages? Not
>enough, if any, to get an attorney without an axe to
>grind.
>
>Do I think #s 2 & 3 are sexual harassment? Depends,
>doesn't it, on whether they are consensual or not?
If
>not, then they may possibly rise to sexual
harassment;
>again, don't you want to know about damages before
>making an absolute statement? If they are
consensual,
>then they're not sexual harassment; it's still not a
>good idea, but that's another matter.
>
>Are you saying the Arkansas Bar took action because
of
>alleged sexual harassment? You know better than
that.
> And let's not pretend it was about sexual
harassment,
>as you claim. It was about a group of lawyers who
>were able to use the Jones suit to pry into his life
>until, like an ass, he stepped on the item he should
>have kept in his pants all along. After that it was
>about perjury, not sexual harassment.
>
>Sunil
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
> Check out the coupons and bargains on MSN Offers!
>_____________________________________________________
>List services made available by First Step Internet,
>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
>
>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.comŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try
it!
>http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
---------------------------------
Get a FREE online virus check for your PC here, from
McAfee.