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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mrknowitall who wrote (5448)	9/26/1998 9:27:00 AM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<Would you not seek out instances where it can be shown that the defendant lied about his or her sexual history?>> Do you honestly think there is anyone who hasn't? Though certainly some people have more to lie about than others. My point is not that digging up muck about someone's background might not help a sexual harassment case. It very well could. But I argue the influence is largely prejudicial, rather than fairly predictive. For years defendants in rape cases, especially acquaintance rape cases, would get off by smearing the plaintiff woman's sexual background. Prior sexual history was used to discredit her as a loose woman, who must have "asked for it." Then rape shield laws were enacted to largely prohibit such tactics. That's why similar rummaging in harassment suits should be disallowed. <<By the way, in the cases you site, politics has certainly made women's organizations real motives appear rather, shall we say, odd?>> I'm not sure what you mean by that. But I think the position that say Patricia Ireland, the Pres. of NOW, is taking makes quite a lot of sense. I'm actually relieved. If NOW had turned against the President on the theory that fully consensual philandering is a huge social and political sin (and not just liable to get you a divorce), we'd be in for some serious escalation of the sex police wars, seems to me. I think if Clinton were proved to have engaged in actual red letter sexual harassment, they would be a great deal more upset. The motivation and facts behind the Paula Jones lawsuit did after all appear very, very suspicious, I think, if you step back and consider it without a partisan or crusading predisposition. Further, although Paula Jones certainly alleges a crude indignity that no honest woman's group would condone if they believed it, it really was even as claimed a single and fleeting occurrence that hardly amounted to a continued belittlement at her job, and never lead to any retaliation against her. That's why the Judge dismissed it. And that leading feminists also took it as not only suspicious and non-credible, but also not the front line of what they are pushing for, I found reassuring. Doug