Monica Lewinski, slut or victim ?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@iiandyiiii

She owns a teeny-tiny piece. Society treated Lewisnky like shit for many years. At most, Hillary said something demeaning about her a handful of times.

Right… and Trump owns a teeny tiny piece of the resurgence of white supremacy. At most, he only said things that encouraged or showed tolerance for white supremacy a handful of times. And that white supremacy shit is going to be around for years, long after Trump is out of office. Amirite?

Absolutely. It was far more than just criticizing – it was constant dehumanizing and demeaning media about her.

Yep and Hillary was at the front of the crowd of torches and pitchforks. And other feminists were right behind her, ready to throw her under the bus to absolve Bill so he could keep nominating pro-choice justices.

And we’re profoundly misogynistic in a million different ways – chiefly that millions of women have been abused, assaulted, or raped, with no justice or consequences for most of their abusers. And while some limited progress has been made, this remains true, and most abusers get away with their abuse.

We are profoundly misogynistic in a million different ways? OK, name 10 ways we are profoundly misogynistic. Sexual crimes is one and it seems like we are falling down there (along with the rest of the world).

You think that cops don’t arrest rapists or don’t pursue rape cases because our society is profoundly misogynistic, are cops tolerant of rapists? Prosecutors are not prosecuting rapists because society is profoundly misogynistic, are prosecutors tolerant of rapists? Juries are not convicting rapists because society is profoundly misogynistic, are juries tolerant of rapists?

Let’s see what some experts believe is the problem with rape prosecution in this country https://www.uml.edu/news/stories/2019/sexual_assault_research.aspx:

Passing the buck when prosecutors feel there is a low chance of conviction at trial:
“The researchers’ analysis, which included a review of police and court records along with in-depth interviews with police investigators and prosecutors, suggests that one major problem is the overuse and misuse of “exceptional clearance” and “open/inactive” designations when prosecutors think they cannot win at trial.”

Victim attrition where victims just get tired of reliving their rape through the safeguards we have built into our judicial system: “Cases often take years to prosecute, and sometimes victims don’t want to relive the assault over and over again, especially when they’ve moved on with their lives,” she says."

He said She said, difficulty to get to beyond a reasonable doubt: They were similarly reluctant to go forward in “he said, she said” or consent-defense cases with no third-party witnesses and no evidence of physical injury or the use of a weapon.

So basically unless we override the presumption of innocence, many rape cases are “he said/she said” and difficult to prosecute without physical evidence.

But as I said earlier, this seems to be a place where we could be doing better.

And maybe Don Jr. is the smartest of the Trump kids. This is about equally as impressive.

So we are better than most of the world but we are profoundly misogynistic. If we are profoundly misogynistic and we are better than most other countries, then you are effectively saying that the whole world is profoundly misogynistic or worse.

Can you define what you mean by profound because it really seems like you are just using the word to avoid typing in ALLCAPS.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Dewey_Finn

It seems obvious to me that one whose spouse cheated on them would be angry with their spouse and the person with whom they cheated, whether or not a political career is involved. So if Hillary Clinton called Monica Lewinsky a slut either privately or publicly, it would be understandable. (Though as I recall, Hillary publicly said very little.)

I guess the question is why I seem to be imposing this higher standard on Hillary that i might not apply to other women in a similar situation. I think there are a few reasons.

Bill had a history of infidelity. And acting like this 22 year old intern seduced her husband and almost broke her marriage was a bit much.

“In general, Bill Clinton’s history has put Hillary Clinton in a difficult position. She can either call him to account publicly — and possibly leave him — or she can keep silent or defend him, knowing that in doing so, she discounts the experience of women who say he harmed them.” Hillary Clinton: troubling comments on Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky - Vox

She was using a public forum to place blame on the 22 year old intern rather than her husband and I felt that she was in large part protecting her political capital. Nothing since then has ever made me reconsider her motives.

The way that feminist organizations diminished the claims made by others against Clinton and prioritized Bill’s ability to nominate pro-choice justices made me feel that many people in the women’s movement were willing to throw these individuals under the bus for the “greater good” and I can understand that. The right to an abortion was still not cemented in jurisprudence the way it is now. But noone is pure, noone is blameless.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Horatio_Hellpop

The “power imbalance” is being overstated here. She was a young intern… from an Old Money family, whose father was a fairly major contributor. She was the Jewish equivalent of a Kardashian, or a third-generation Kennedy, the generation that fucked au pairs and skied into trees. Among the interns, I suspect she had kind of an exalted status even before the affair began.

I lived in DC while this was playing out. While I didn’t know her personally, I did see her out and about a few times on K Street and in Adams-Morgan. She was leaned on heavily to perjure herself and claim that Clinton raped or coerced her, and she refused to play ball. I think she made a mistake and then showed commendable character handling the consequences. Not a slut, and if she was anybody’s victim, she was Ken Starr’s.

I agree that ken Starr was a villian in this.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@BlankSlate

Would you ever make such a dumb argument about a man? It’s pretty simple: don’t fuck married people. If you do, you are just as shitty as the married person.

Why would it be any different with a 22 year old male college graduate?

Why would I hold a 50 year old adult male accountable but not a 50 year old adult female? Is the woman less capable of resisting flirtation and sexual advances by a younger person? That seems like a pretty paternalistic/sexist perspective.

I definitely hold the married person more accountable. The young college graduate never made a promise to anyone. The married person did.

Holding a 22 year old recent college graduate responsible for the infidelity of a 50 year old woman in a position of power is just as ridiculous as holding Lewinsky responsible for Clinton’s infidelity.

[iiandyiiii]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Right… and Trump owns a teeny tiny piece of the resurgence of white supremacy. At most, he only said things that encouraged or showed tolerance for white supremacy a handful of times. And that white supremacy shit is going to be around for years, long after Trump is out of office. Amirite?

Yep and Hillary was at the front of the crowd of torches and pitchforks. And other feminists were right behind her, ready to throw her under the bus to absolve Bill so he could keep nominating pro-choice justices.

We are profoundly misogynistic in a million different ways? OK, name 10 ways we are profoundly misogynistic. Sexual crimes is one and it seems like we are falling down there (along with the rest of the world).

You think that cops don’t arrest rapists or don’t pursue rape cases because our society is profoundly misogynistic, are cops tolerant of rapists? Prosecutors are not prosecuting rapists because society is profoundly misogynistic, are prosecutors tolerant of rapists? Juries are not convicting rapists because society is profoundly misogynistic, are juries tolerant of rapists?

Let’s see what some experts believe is the problem with rape prosecution in this country https://www.uml.edu/news/stories/2019/sexual_assault_research.aspx:

Passing the buck when prosecutors feel there is a low chance of conviction at trial:
“The researchers’ analysis, which included a review of police and court records along with in-depth interviews with police investigators and prosecutors, suggests that one major problem is the overuse and misuse of “exceptional clearance” and “open/inactive” designations when prosecutors think they cannot win at trial.”

Victim attrition where victims just get tired of reliving their rape through the safeguards we have built into our judicial system: “Cases often take years to prosecute, and sometimes victims don’t want to relive the assault over and over again, especially when they’ve moved on with their lives,” she says."

He said She said, difficulty to get to beyond a reasonable doubt: They were similarly reluctant to go forward in “he said, she said” or consent-defense cases with no third-party witnesses and no evidence of physical injury or the use of a weapon.

So basically unless we override the presumption of innocence, many rape cases are “he said/she said” and difficult to prosecute without physical evidence.

But as I said earlier, this seems to be a place where we could be doing better.

So we are better than most of the world but we are profoundly misogynistic. If we are profoundly misogynistic and we are better than most other countries, then you are effectively saying that the whole world is profoundly misogynistic or worse.

Can you define what you mean by profound because it really seems like you are just using the word to avoid typing in ALLCAPS.

You’re not getting any of the points I’m making and it’s increasingly clear that you’re probably not capable of it. I’m not interested in playing this silly game right now. The fact of all those millions of assaults and rapes with no justice should be more than enough to count as “profoundly misogynistic” to anyone with half a brain, and if you don’t get it then I don’t think I can explain it to you.

[Crafter_Man]

It’s pretty simple: Clinton behaved badly and Lewinsky behaved badly. Neither is a victim.

[septimus]

It’s much simpler than that.

There are at least 60 million acts of marital infidelity every month, and that’s only counting acts where “is” meant “is” and an orifice was penetrated. We live in a country where one can commit forcible rape of a 14-year old girl and get elected to the highest office in the land. Any discussion of the Clinton-Lewinsky affair which focuses on Clinton or Lewinsky is not just a waste of spittle or ink; it’s obtuse transference from the real villains in the affair: The traitorous slime-ball Kenneth Starr and his fellow anti-American hypocrites who now control the White House, Scotus and the U.S. Senate. How do they achieve such control? With the aid of dunderheads who can’t let go of a 25-years-ago made-up scandal, while rapists are rising today to the highest positions of power.

hth

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@iiandyiiii

You’re not getting any of the points I’m making and it’s increasingly clear that you’re probably not capable of it. I’m not interested in playing this silly game right now. The fact of all those millions of assaults and rapes with no justice should be more than enough to count as “profoundly misogynistic” to anyone with half a brain, and if you don’t get it then I don’t think I can explain it to you.

I present you with research and data explaining why all those alleged rapes and assaults that may not have resulted in someone going to jail and you respond by saying it’s profound because you say it’s profound.

So when I ask for your definition of profound it’s not because I don’t think that misogyny isn’t a thing it’s because I think you’re hyperventilating.

I am fully capable of getting good arguments, you just never made one and when I presented you with an explanation for the lack of convictions (I assume that is what you mean by “justice”), you have no response beyond “nuh uh”

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@septimus

How do they achieve such control? With the aid of dunderheads who …

hth

Just remember the conservatives say almost exactly the same things when Democrats take over.

Democracy can be messy, don’t kick anyone out of your tent unless you really don’t see any path to reconciliation with them. Your passion is no substitute for their vote.

[iiandyiiii]

@Damuri_Ajashi

I present you with research and data explaining why all those alleged rapes and assaults that may not have resulted in someone going to jail and you respond by saying it’s profound because you say it’s profound.

All of the reasons why these statistics exist that you presented are part of rape culture and the patriarchy. Victims and survivors are treated like shit, by and large, and thus they are less likely to cooperate with a process that just drags out their pain and mistreatment. They’re reluctant to testify because the system treats them like shit, slut-shaming them and worse, dragging them through the mud. Our society and culture slut-shames and denigrates women and girls whose sexuality doesn’t fall into extremely narrow parameters that society has designated as acceptable, adding to all this shit.

You even admit that we could be doing better.

In a non-misogynistic culture, there would be no consequences for women coming forward and honestly presenting their story. They wouldn’t have any fear of coming forward and speaking. Or in cooperating with police. Or in testifying. But in the present world, these things have a high likelihood of making a survivor’s life worse.

In a non-misogynistic culture, denigrating women and girls, and slut-shaming, would be anathema, and slut-shamers would be just as shunned as NAMBLA. There’d be no more possibility of such an abuser like Trump (or Kavanaugh, for that matter) ascending to high office as a shameless pedophile.

And yes, of course most of the world is misogynistic! If that’s not obvious to you, then you have little understanding of history. Women and girls are and have been treated like shit through most of the world for most of history.

Maybe you don’t find any of this stuff profoundly misogynistic, and that’s your prerogative. But I do, and many others do. And it’s still frustrating, if not terribly surprising, that so many people like you seem to think that the way this society treats women and girls is not utterly abominable.

[pool]

@iiandyiiii

All of the reasons why these statistics exist that you presented are part of rape culture and the patriarchy. Victims and survivors are treated like shit, by and large, and thus they are less likely to cooperate with a process that just drags out their pain and mistreatment. They’re reluctant to testify because the system treats them like shit, slut-shaming them and worse, dragging them through the mud. Our society and culture slut-shames and denigrates women and girls whose sexuality doesn’t fall into extremely narrow parameters that society has designated as acceptable, adding to all this shit.

You even admit that we could be doing better.

In a non-misogynistic culture, there would be no consequences for women coming forward and honestly presenting their story. They wouldn’t have any fear of coming forward and speaking. Or in cooperating with police. Or in testifying. But in the present world, these things have a high likelihood of making a survivor’s life worse.

In a non-misogynistic culture, denigrating women and girls, and slut-shaming, would be anathema, and slut-shamers would be just as shunned as NAMBLA. There’d be no more possibility of such an abuser like Trump (or Kavanaugh, for that matter) ascending to high office as a shameless pedophile.

And yes, of course most of the world is misogynistic! If that’s not obvious to you, then you have little understanding of history. Women and girls are and have been treated like shit through most of the world for most of history.

Maybe you don’t find any of this stuff profoundly misogynistic, and that’s your prerogative. But I do, and many others do. And it’s still frustrating, if not terribly surprising, that so many people like you seem to think that the way this society treats women and girls is not utterly abominable.

I’m actually interested in this topic, not being facetious, in your opinion is it ever ok to call a woman a slut, to think of a woman as a slut?

Considering starting a new thread on the topic.

[The_Librarian]

@pool

I’m actually interested in this topic, not being facetious, in your opinion is it ever ok to call a woman a slut, to think of a woman as a slut?

Considering starting a new thread on the topic.

Nope.

“Slut” says more about the person saying it than about the person it is about.

[iiandyiiii]

@pool

I’m actually interested in this topic, not being facetious, in your opinion is it ever ok to call a woman a slut, to think of a woman as a slut?

Considering starting a new thread on the topic.

No.

[thorny_locust]

@pool

I’m actually interested in this topic, not being facetious, in your opinion is it ever ok to call a woman a slut, to think of a woman as a slut?

Considering starting a new thread on the topic.

No, it is not. And we don’t need a thread about calling women sluts, either.

[SteveG1]

@Hamlet

Had Clinton not committed perjury/lied under oath about it, you’d be correct. The (attempted) coverup was worse than the “crime”.

He should have said “Yeah I did it, so what and by the way fuck you” … but he didn’t. Then they would have been dead in the water, because … NOT A CRIME.

And YET, a fucking BLOWJOB was ALL the Repubs hired gun Starr could come up with.

But looky what we have now.

[ul]
[li]I didn’t do it.[/li][li]I did it but it isn’t illegal.[/li][li]It was perfect.[/li][li]I have the power to do anything I want.[/li][/ul]

Etc.

But NOW it’s all peachy because it’s THEIR traitor sumbtich doing it. And there’s been NO reprcussions for him.

[bengangmo]

@The_Librarian

Nope.

“Slut” says more about the person saying it than about the person it is about.

NOT SPEAKING OF MONICA NOW

What is an appropriate term for a person - of EITHER gender (I have heard the term applied to both around here, despite what dictionaries say) that does things like

• sets out to seduce a person they know to be married because they are married
• sleeps their way to the top
• “uses” sex in a dishonest, manipulative or otherwise “sleazy” way
• and for the bonus question - can sex ever be sleazy?

thinking that “slut” is misogynisitic is all well and good - but here’s the thing, just because I’m paranoid, doesn’t mean no one is out to get me.

[Chingon]

I mean you can keep calling women sluts if you feel the need to. It’s not illegal. Just don’t get all upset when they think you’re kind of a piece of shit.

[bengangmo]

@Chingon

I mean you can keep calling women sluts if you feel the need to. It’s not illegal. Just don’t get all upset when they think you’re kind of a piece of shit.

that doesn’t answer the question.

there are pejoratives for a whole range of behaviours,
and yes, piece of shit is perfectly appropriate for some sort of misogynisitic pig.

So hows about this - what sort of pejorative would you append to someone who sets out to deliberately attempt to spoil a marriage (that the married party takes the bulk of the blame doesn’t mean the second is blameless)

[mhendo]

@bengangmo

So hows about this - what sort of pejorative would you append to someone who sets out to deliberately attempt to spoil a marriage (that the married party takes the bulk of the blame doesn’t mean the second is blameless)

I don’t quite understand why you seem so hell-bent on having a special, unique word for one particular type of shitty behavior.

There are a whole bunch of appropriate descriptors for people who act like assholes, including “asshole.” Why does there have to be a separate one that applies specifically in cases where the shitty behavior involves sex or marriage?

[bengangmo]

because when I was growing up… a person who use sex in a shitty manner, particularly when marriage is involved is a slut. it’s a descriptor that works really well and has a nuance that others don’t.
just because it’s been misapplied in the past doesn’t make it double plus ungood