Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Hensley who wrote (14774)	4/28/1998 11:10:00 AM
From: John Hensley	Respond to of 20981

Here's some more: inside-edition.com

To: John Hensley who wrote (14774)	4/28/1998 11:14:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 20981

Feminist Crackpots = Designated Media Shills for Democrat Party IBD E D I T O R I A L Sexual Politics Date: 4/28/98 Federal Judge Susan Webber Wright defined deviancy down when she threw out Paula Jones' sex suit against the president. Now let's see if the Supreme Court keeps it down. The high court will rule on a Chicago woman's case that mirrors Jones' in key respects. She claims her boss sexually harassed her. She rebuffed him, yet was promoted anyway. Wright ruled Jones had no case because she wasn't demoted or fired after refusing Bill Clinton's ''boorish and offensive'' advances, as Wright herself described them. Jones is appealing Wright's decision. Now, along with his fellow jurists on the Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas will weigh in on the Chicago case. In doing so, he will, in effect, be passing judgment on Clinton. This is too ironic by half. Seven years ago, sexual harassment charges almost kept Thomas off the bench, and they touched off a war against office Don Juans across the nation. But the charges, compared to the ones against Clinton, look downright frivolous. Thomas' alleged sins? Asking out an employee and making off-color remarks in the office. (He was single at the time.) Clinton's alleged sins? Groping and pawing an employee and then exposing himself to her. (He was married.) Fallout? Feminists demanded Thomas' head, while now they intone that Clinton should get back to the ''business of the nation.'' Sexual politics? You bet. Thomas is a conservative. He has the ''wrong'' agenda. Clinton is a liberal. He has the ''right'' agenda. In Clinton's case, the elite felt frenzied media coverage of sex charges, albeit numerous and serious, perverted his ability to ''do his job.'' Yet the cultural elite made Thomas out to be a pervert unfit for the job. Indeed, feminists and their friends in the media made such a stink that sexual harassment became the office catchphrase of the '90s. And Anita Hill was canonized - the same ''victim'' who never filed a formal complaint against Thomas, and who now defends Clinton against his sex charges. She's not alone in her hypocrisy. Feminist icon Gloria Steinem absolves Clinton of crimes against womankind. Bad as he is, she argues, he still knows to pull his pants up if a woman says ''no.'' And the head of the ill-named National Organization for Women, Patricia Ireland, says her group won't be filing a brief in support of Jones' appeal. Why? Because Jones is affiliated with ''disreputable right-wing organizations.'' More politics over principle. Since a Democrat's been caught with his pants down, the cultural elite has made a U-turn. Where they pushed for the most expansive sexual harassment laws before, now they praise Wright's narrow view of the law. But it's a strenuous legal reach to find no merit in Jones' case. According to Jones' testimony as recounted in Wright's 20-page opinion, Clinton grabbed Jones in that hotel room, pulled her body to his, slid his hand up ''toward her pelvic area'' and then tried to ''kiss her on the neck'' - all without her consent. Jones ''escaped.'' But Clinton pressed on. He ''lowered his trousers and underwear, exposed his penis (which was erect) and told (her) to 'kiss it.' '' Jones refused and headed for the door. The then-governor made a point to remind her that he was good friends with her department boss. Two types of sexual harassment are illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. One is ''quid pro quo'' harassment. That's when a boss orders a sexual favor as a term of employment. The term can be clear or implied. Wright ruled that Jones' claim didn't meet that test. Strike one. Then there's ''hostile environment'' harassment. That's when a boss' sexual conduct creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive workplace. Plaintiffs must prove frequency or severity. Severity is defined as physically threatening or humiliating acts. Surely Jones can claim that, right? No, says Wright. Strike two. It's too bad Jones missed the five-year statute of limitations for filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. She more than likely would have won. A manual from corporate consultant CCH Inc. of Chicago reports that unwanted sexual touching is enough to establish hostile environment. ''If a supervisor sexually touches an employee, the EEOC will normally find sexual harassment,'' the manual states. ''For example, harassment was found when a harasser slid his hand under the victim's skirt and squeezed her buttocks.'' Jones also sued Clinton for causing emotional distress under Arkansas sexual harassment law. She had to prove conduct that was ''extreme and outrageous and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.'' In Wright's view, it's not outrageous for a governor to drop his pants and order a state worker to orally service him. ''Odious,'' yes, she writes. Outrageous, no. Strike three. If you believe the cultural elite, Thomas is a misogynist and Clinton is a harmless cad. What hypocrisy. With the Clinton case, feminists may have done irreparable damage to their cause. They've shown that they don't speak for women, but rather for liberal politicians. investors.com