|Young Gloria Steinem pretending to work.|
This is only slightly related to the book project, but it has everything to do with the socialist mindset.
In recent days Herman Cain has been under fire for sexual harassment lawsuits that were settled decades ago.
Something else that happened decades ago was a sexual harassment scandal involving President Bill Clinton. From sometime in the 1970s until 1998, the standard for winning a sexual harassment suit was filing the accusation. Then something amazing happened: a protected warrior in the socialism struggle was accused of sexual harassment and perjured himself defending himself.
How did the feminist arm of socialism react to this? The mainstream voice of the Left published this:
Either it is a case of mass hysteria, or something happened between the dead tree edition of 1998 and when it was (online) Published: September 25, 2010. There are responses to the original that were published in March, 1998, but the original seems to be missing:
Are Feminists Right to Stand by Clinton?; Presidential Paradox
Zachary M Berman letter supports Gloria Steinem March 22 Op-Ed article asserting that even if allegations about Pres Clinton are true, he is not guilty of sexual harassment March 25, 1998
Are Feminists Right to Stand by Clinton?; Are Passes O.K. Now?
Matthew Hoy letter disputes Gloria Steinem March 22 Op-Ed article describing Pres Clinton's sexual assault of Kathleen E Willey as just 'gross, dumb and reckless pass' March 25, 1998
Are Feminists Right to Stand by Clinton?; Quest for Notoriety
Joan L Greenfield letter supports Gloria Steinem March 22 Op-Ed column defending Pres Clinton in White House scandals March 25, 1998So, did the New York Times edit out the passage, or was everybody looking at this for "the boss gets one free grope" rule:
Law in the Clinton Era; A Feminist Dilemma
Editorial disputes Gloria Steinem's contention that Pres Clinton's alleged actions against Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey did not amount to sexual harassment because, even if he is lying, he took no for answer after single crude overture; contends that Clinton case raises possibility that if President is seen as getting away with gross behavior, more bosses in workplace will feel free to behave abominably March 24, 1998
It’s the basis of sexual harassment law. It also explains why the news media’s obsession with sex qua sex is offensive to some, titillating to many and beside the point to almost everybody. Like most feminists, most Americans become concerned about sexual behavior when someone’s will has been violated; that is, when “no” hasn’t been accepted as an answer.The "rule" that applies here is that the Left will make any contortion to defend a Socialist and they will stretch or break any rule to attack an anti-socialist. Herman Cain is definitely in the anti-socialist camp.
Perhaps we have a responsibility to make it O.K. for politicians to tell the truth — providing they are respectful of “no means no; yes means yes” — and still be able to enter high office.
Until then, we will disqualify energy and talent the country needs. - GLORIA STEINEM is a co-founder of the Women’s Media Center.
Something else happened in the years since Bill Clinton described Barrack Hussein Obama to Ted Kennedy as "someone who would be getting us coffee". The Left spent several years calling anybody who does not support a Black politician as a racist. No matter what our objections to Obama's Socialism and radical Marxist roots, every objection was termed as either overt or cloaked racism. Now, a Black Free-Market Conservative has taken up the "call to public service" and his supporters are called racist. Racist?
|Better take a drink!|
Now, let's back up a little. The Progressive Socialists of the past were always racists. Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lyndon Banes Johnson, etc. How is it that since 1968 the Socialists have become the champions of minorities?
They haven't. All they have done is change their marketing strategy. When LBJ noticed that more Blacks (he says "niggers") in Texas vote than Whites:
Johnson, who was Socialist enough to have captured the Khrushchev vote, championed the "Voting Rights Act", which did have some application for guaranteeing the rights of minorities to vote. It also gave the federal government a big giant doorway to drive a socialist agenda right through any business that they liked: The Public Accommodations Clause, which has nothing at all to do with voting.
Suddenly, the American Left, after failing to exterminate Blacks, had the Black vote. Well, not quite. Much of this "victory" was due to misrepresenting the Voting Rights Act, as well as opposition to it, by the media. Everybody did not buy it. Even Janine Garofalo notices many minorities and women who did not drink the Kool-Aid that she and her friends drank oh so many years ago and she is doing her part to shoot anybody who skips a sip. The New York Times will continue to do their part with their edits and corrections to history.