Why does Bill Clinton not get held accountable by feminists? I have never understood this.

Why does Bill Clinton not get held accountable by feminists? I have never understood this. — fishfry

What makes you think that Slick Willey gets a pass for what he did in the Oval Office?
Or are you saying that Bills' interaction with Monica Lewinsky made her a #MeToo ?
Both are relevant and what Bill did to Monica is a perfect example of a person of power using that for/or against a woman he has a sexual interest in. Thankfully, it was not rape but it was sexual harassment and/ or abuse in the work place, which Monica should not have to have endured. I wonder what would have happened if she would have filed a complaint of sexual harassment and/ or abuse by a sitting President.

Both are relevant and what Bill did to Monica is a perfect example of a person of power using that for/or against a woman he has a sexual interest in. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Both are relevant and what did Monica to Bill is a perfect example of a person of power using that for/or against a man she has a sexual interest in.

They were both to blame. Buttheads

All workers can expect to be harassed on the job, sooner or later, whatever form the harassment takes. The reason for this is that most jobs are exploitation to start with. Sexual harassment is but a specialty.

I'm not making light of sexual harassment. Nobody should be pressured to fuck the boss or supervisor or co-worker--except where the rewards are going to be very attractive. On the other hand, pursuing relationships on the job seems like a normal activity to me -- and just as raping one's date is a bad way to start a great relationship, mauling one's co-workers isn't an auspicious beginning either.

I suspect that Monica Lewinsky thought the rewards were going to be pretty attractive. I don't know what Bill got out of it -- blow job? Hand job?

But back to my first point -- workers get jerked around on the job rather often. Sure, there are some jobs, some work sites, where there is more bullying, or less arbitrary and capricious docking of wages, and there are even a few places that workers land in that are quite pleasant, at least for a while. But workers are at the mercy of their employers (thanks to corporate interests killing off unions). Workers have no job security (employment at will means you can be fired for any reason), no freedom of speech while on the job, and no real protection from unreasonable demands -- of any kind.

Harvey Weinstein may be a creep, but Hollywood has been run by energetic, creative, ingenious egotistical, manipulative, jerks since the place started making movies. Why are we so surprised when one of these guys is called out for being a jerk??

Both are relevant and what did Monica to Bill is a perfect example of a person of power using that for/or against a man she has a sexual interest in. — Sir2u

So what you are saying is that Monica (22yrs old) and Slick Willey (49yrs old) were both of adult consensual age and both were of equal power between one another, using each persons political power to their own advantage? Monica's to advance her career and Willey to continue on his pattern of taking advantage of women who fall at his feet, without getting caught?

Thankfully, it was not rape but it was sexual harassment and/ or abuse in the work place, which Monica should not have to have endured. I wonder what would have happened if she would have filed a complaint of sexual harassment and/ or abuse by a sitting President. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Monica Lewinsky Writes About Her Affair With President Clinton:

Maintaining that her affair with Clinton was one between two consenting adults, Lewinsky writes that it was the public humiliation she suffered in the wake of the scandal that permanently altered the direction of her life: “Sure, my boss took advantage of me, but I will always remain firm on this point: it was a consensual relationship. Any ‘abuse’ came in the aftermath, when I was made a scapegoat in order to protect his powerful position. . . . The Clinton administration, the special prosecutor’s minions, the political operatives on both sides of the aisle, and the media were able to brand me. And that brand stuck, in part because it was imbued with power.”

It's presumptuous to assume that a relationship is abusive or harassment just because one person has more power than another.

I'm not making light of sexual harassment. Nobody should be pressured to fuck the boss or supervisor or co-worker--except where the rewards are going to be very attractive. — Bitter Crank

I am glad you are not making light of sexual harassment as it is not a light topic but one that is being brought out into the light of day.
Correct me if I am wrong but what I am reading is that you might believe that if the rewards are good enough, a boss or supervisor should be able to come onto an employee?

. But workers are at the mercy of their employers (thanks to corporate interests killing off unions). Workers have no job security (employment at will means you can be fired for any reason), no freedom of speech while on the job, and no real protection from unreasonable demands -- of any kind. — Bitter Crank

To start with I should let you know that AZ is a right to work state which also means the right to fire without reason given state. I believe Unions represent 4% of workers in AZ which seems very low in comparison to say, Minnesota or Illinois.

Having said that the idea that "workers are at the mercy of their employers" is true to a degree and that is what is shifting. Being groped by the manager on the job, as a matter of your shift interaction, is now something that can be confronted and that is what really needs to happen, on the spot confrontation.
Women and men who thought they had to 'put up' with this kind of lewd behavior because no one would believe them, are now understanding that there are many more in the shadows, that have tolerated such behavior in silence then they ever knew.

It is much more difficult to prove in a "he said, she said" report of harassment/and or molestation than it is to call the bastard/bitch out RIGHT when it happens. So maybe this movement will empower those being harassed/and or molested to call the aggressor out and not wait for someone in HR to make that decision for them. That is a possibility. Another possibility is for society to update their attitude that the days of the'good ole boys club' has come to an end. The days of offering up the justification that in submitting to the bosses advances will get you ahead in your workplace is no longer available. Men who believe that they can wield their power of making you a star employee from the end of their penis should understand that "unreasonable demands -- of any kind" are no longer acceptable but what is acceptable is them being called out for it.

Harvey Weinstein may be a creep, but Hollywood has been run by energetic, creative, ingenious egotistical, manipulative, jerks since the place started making movies. Why are we so surprised when one of these guys is called out for being a jerk?? — Bitter Crank

With all the allegations against Harvey, undercover FBI recordings, his wife leaving him and his expulsion from the only professional community he has ever known, I feel safe in saying that Harvey was more than a "jerk" but he is a sexual predator. He used his power and status to advance his own sexual demands, in a behavior pattern that lasted decades. What is surprising even to Harvey is that people are speaking up about him like never before. Even he is stunned and is saying "People make mistakes" and "deserve a second chance" well my friend, not one of these reports sound like a "mistake" but rather massive manipulation. And as far as deserving a "second chance"? A chance to do what and to whom?

It's presumptuous to assume that a relationship is abusing or harassment just because one person has more power than another. — Michael

Any ‘abuse’ came in the aftermath, when I was made a scapegoat in order to protect his powerful position. — Monica

But the aftermath is part of the relationship, so in this case it is not presumptuous. But one ought to be presumptuous in any case. One ought to presume that power imbalances will lead to manufactured consent, as is the case in prostitution. That is why many professional bodies prohibit such relationships absolutely, such as doctors with patients, teachers with children. which is to say that if Monica and Bill want to have a consensual sexual relationship, they can do so in my book as soon as they are no longer in a professional power relationship. It is a matter of protecting the vulnerable in general from exploitation and abuse, even if some of them quite like being abused in particular situations.

We might even find it plausible that Harvey Weinstein's 'weakness' was on occasion exploited by ambitious women, or that Monica herself exploited Bill's inability to pass up a chance to play the lover-boy to further her career; one never knows. But however it works, and whoever is being exploited, there are other parties to consider: the PAs or actresses who do not compromise their virtue, and the audiences and electors who are potentially deprived of the best person to be doing the job.

That there was abuse because of the relationship is not that the relationship was abusive.

A bad divorce wouldn’t mean a bad marriage.

A bad divorce wouldn’t mean a bad marriage. — Michael

Yes it would.

Strange thing, nobody - absolutely nobody - voted in this poll. I guess TPF members aren't very open with regards to this sort of thing.

But the aftermath is part of the relationship, so in this case it is not presumptuous. But one ought to be presumptuous in any case. One ought to presume that power imbalances will lead to manufactured consent, as is the case in prostitution. That is why many professional bodies prohibit such relationships absolutely, such as doctors with patients, teachers with children. which is to say that if Monica and Bill want to have a consensual sexual relationship, they can do so in my book as soon as they are no longer in a professional power relationship. It is a matter of protecting the vulnerable in general from exploitation and abuse, even if some of them quite like being abused in particular situations.

We might even find it plausible that Harvey Weinstein's 'weakness' was on occasion exploited by ambitious women, or that Monica herself exploited Bill's inability to pass up a chance to play the lover-boy to further her career; one never knows. But however it works, and whoever is being exploited, there are other parties to consider: the PAs or actresses who do not compromise their virtue, and the audiences and electors who are potentially deprived of the best person to be doing the job. — unenlightened

I agree with you. I find Mitch's comment degrading:

It's presumptuous to assume that a relationship is abusive or harassment just because one person has more power than another. — Michael

The further issue is that there is no way to really avoid such situations in the end, except to say that if you really want to avoid such situations, don't accept such jobs, which put you in contact with people who are significantly more powerful than you are. That's why for example I've avoided working in larger multinational corporations where the bosses snort cocaine and make you do stupid stuff for fun (although I know people who have accepted such). So it's quite simple in a way - there's sacrifices you have to make if you don't want to be in such an environment. The environment cannot really be reformed. Either you grow powerful by yourself, so that you can create the environment and then enforce your own rules, or you avoid environments that force you to interact with those more powerful than you. Then you don't need to compromise.

And obviously I'm a man, I think it's much worse if you're a woman in such an environment. But again, the strategy recommended would be the same. You cannot have one foot in hell and another in heaven - you have to make a choice. Some women (and men) exploit those environments very well by humiliating themselves before they can rise to the top and ultimately grow bigger than those whom they humiliated themselves before in the first place. The Chinese military proverb says that even the great general Han Xin crawled between the legs of a bunch of hooligans.

I said there's no way to avoid such situations, because power ultimately dictates the terms, whether you like it or not. You cannot stand up to power except if you yourself are powerful. Bureaucracies, division of powers - this is all ultimately nonsense. Whoever holds power, and knows how to use it, can abuse, if that's what they decide to do.

I agree with you. I find Mitch's comment degrading — Agustino

My name isn't Mitch. And how is my comment degrading? The subsequent paragraphs don't seem to explain it.

Thankfully, it was not rape — ArguingWAristotleTiff

You never heard of any other credible rape allegations against Bill Clinton? They've got their own Wiki page. Before one of the 2016 presidential debates, Trump brought a group of Bubba's accusers to a press conference. You don't remember that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations

Monica's to advance her career and Willey to continue on his pattern of taking advantage of women who fall at his feet, without getting caught? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Personally I think it was probably her idea that they got caught so that she could become famous. But I, like everyone else in the public don't and probably will never know the whole story.

I really don't like the idea of anyone with authority using it like that, as a man it is not the correct way to behave no matter what position you hold. But shit happens.

They were consenting adults and she could have walked away. If she was as good a worker to have a position that put next to a president she could have found work anywhere. But she wanted and accepted the deal that was offered so that makes her just as responsible as the idiot with his fly open.

How would the people have seen things if Hilary had been the president and she was caught getting some nooky? Would the people have cried fowl as well?

The nitty gritty of individual incidents is not so important in my view as the general discourse that surrounds these incidents. That's where the issue is for me, the discourse seems to get skewed in direct proportion to the degree of power and wealth of the abusers and the power disparity between them and the abused. There's talk of dinosaurs, rehab and second chances, the focus being more on the abusers' psychological and behavioural failings rather than the individual crimes and victims. Whereas for the not-so-privileged that conversation becomes less and less relevant and the focus tends to be more clearly on punishment. It seems then that Weinstein and his ilk are in a way insulated by the level of scandal that surrounds them and the debates it generates and that the fact that the scandal is an outpouring of what we already suspect makes it more of a catharsis than a serious disruption in terms of the social fabric. Here we are confirming our suspicions again and so our outrage becomes dissipated and defocused. So, let's not distract ourselves from the fact that Weinstein has all but admitted the abuse excepting the rapes and the likelihood he committed those increases with every new report. The focus then should first be on justice for the particular women who were abused and the talk in the media should be of courts, prison sentences etc (in so far as those measures are possible given statutes of limitations and so on). After that's out of the way, let's focus more about general prevention and awareness. But there has to be justice.

(I agree about Clinton incidentally and the same thing applies. It's quite possible he's a rapist but people just shrug as if that's what the rich and powerful do and now we've got it out in the open everything's OK as if he's been punished enough. No, these people need to be behind bars not podiums.)

Getting fired because someone lied about you, or because somebody just didn't like you and had made trouble for you, or because the boss just didn't like your long hair, or short hair, or whatever hair -- all sorts of reasons -- can be devastating. One suddenly finds one's self without an income, insurance, cut off from the social circle of work, etc. Also very common is injury on the job or sickness because of the job because it was cheaper to have an unsafe, unhealthy workplace. This is considered normal by many people who howl about sexual harassment.

Correct me if I am wrong but what I am reading is that you might believe that if the rewards are good enough, a boss or supervisor should be able to come onto an employee? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I wasn't clear. I meant to apply the rewards to the employee who accepts sexual exploitation as a way of getting ahead. In other words, an employee might find it advantageous to tolerate being exploited. It does happen that people screw their way upwards in an organization. The exploiter has generally already obtained a superior position.

Monica Lewinsky probably calculated greater advantage from sex with Bill than calling a press conference announcing that Bill had come on to her (literally).

Sexual exploitation is a specialty within the general practice of exploiting employees (aka, workers). "All workers can expect to be harassed on the job, sooner or later, whatever form the harassment takes. The reason for this is that most jobs are exploitation to start with. Sexual harassment is but a specialty."

If we are going to be against harassment and exploitation, then we should be against harassment and exploitation across the board.

To start with I should let you know that AZ is a right to work state which also means the right to fire without reason given state. I believe Unions represent 4% of workers in AZ which seems very low in comparison to say, Minnesota or Illinois. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Minnesota has about 15% of its employees represented, Arizona has about 5%.

"Right to work" are rules disadvantageous to workers who seek protection from unionization. "Employment at will" (meaning one can be fired any time for any reason) is separate from "right to work", and operates where no contract (union or professional) is in force.

Strange thing, nobody - absolutely nobody - voted in this poll. I guess TPF members aren't very open with regards to this sort of thing. — Agustino

Probably because

A. most of the participants are male
B. probably haven't been sexually exploited on the job
C. probably haven't even been offered sexual exploitation
C. are philosophers who would disarm their exploiters with incisive invective.

I just voted. I haven't been exploited nor have I exploited others. I have had a few female friends who disclosed to me they have been sexually harassed, threatened and/or hit. It's shockingly pervasive even in a relatively progressive society as the Netherlands. 45% of women in the Netherlands have been sexually assaulted, compared to 33% average in Europe. That difference is explained by a high participation of Dutch women in labour (more risk at work) and Dutch women being more vocal about it.

The good development I see is that women reporting this seem to be taken seriously more often than not as opposed to being suspected of having ulterior motives or having asked for it. Other than that it's often embarrassing to be associated with men.

Won't let me vote without voting for all sections, even though the middle section isn't relevant to me. You should really add an N/A option.

I recall being assaulted at a nightclub once. Some girl walked past me, grabbed me by the balls, and then walked away.

I just thought it a really weird thing to do.

I agree about Clinton incidentally and the same thing applies. It's quite possible he's a rapist but people just shrug as if that's what the rich and powerful do and now we've got it out in the open everything's OK as if he's been punished enough. No, these people need to be behind bars not podiums. — Baden

Are you referring to Lewinsky or some other allegation(s)?

Others. Inconvenient to search for refs right now, but those are easily found online.

I meant to apply the rewards to the employee who accepts sexual exploitation as a way of getting ahead. In other words, an employee might find it advantageous to tolerate being exploited. It does happen that people screw their way upwards in an organization. The exploiter has generally already obtained a superior position.

Monica Lewinsky probably calculated greater advantage from sex with Bill than calling a press conference announcing that Bill had come on to her (literally). — Bitter Crank

Maybe she was just attracted to him and it had nothing to do with "exploiting" him to get ahead. Seems to be what she's saying here:

So I think was the eye contact. And the way he looks at women he’s attracted to. He undresses you with his eyes. And it is slow, from the bottom of your toes to the top of your head back down to your toes again. And it’s an intense look. He loses his smile. His sexual energy kind of comes over his eyes, and it’s very animalistic. And if you’re someone who is comfortable with your sensuality, you’re in touch with that, you’re receptive to it if you find that person attractive.

It's presumptuous to assume that a relationship is abusive or harassment just because one person has more power than another. — Michael

Just to be clear, I am not talking about people who are involved in a romantic relationship.
What I am suggesting is that the 'playing field' is not equal when one person holds professional power over another. The superior should be expected to rise to a stricter set of rules when interacting with those he manages.

What I am suggesting is that the 'playing field' is not equal when one person holds professional power over another. The superior should be expected to rise to a stricter set of rules when interacting with those he manages. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Perhaps, but that's not the same as abuse or harassment.

You never heard of any other credible rape allegations against Bill Clinton? They've got their own Wiki page. Before one of the 2016 presidential debates, Trump brought a group of Bubba's accusers to a press conference. You don't remember that? — fishfry

I do remember the rape allegations against Bill Clinton and I also know what his wife Hillary said about those rape allegations, discounting each and every accuser until proven otherwise. What is your point? That sexual predators have people around them that know what the predator is doing and either looks the other way or enables the behavior to continue?

Personally I think it was probably her idea that they got caught so that she could become famous. But I, like everyone else in the public don't and probably will never know the whole story. — Sir2u

You are right that we will never know the whole story but Monica had enough "proof" to show that he cheated on his wife and that is about it. I never heard her cry fowl about being forced to do something against her will. Bill got in trouble for lying not for getting a bj though many thought it was lacking all class to treat the Oval office that way.

I really don't like the idea of anyone with authority using it like that, as a man it is not the correct way to behave no matter what position you hold. But shit happens. — Sir2u

I agree that no one of authority should use it that way, either gender. But shit happens

We were doing so well until that last part about shit happens. Shit never 'just happens'. It is always a conscious decision to sexually dominate someone when in a position of power.

They were consenting adults and she could have walked away. If she was as good a worker to have a position that put next to a president she could have found work anywhere. But she wanted and accepted the deal that was offered so that makes her just as responsible as the idiot with his fly open. — Sir2u

Yes they were both adults and consenting but I doubt if he was a news paper salesman she would have pursued him for any reason. It was because of his position of power that she fell for him which is why she never called rape or sexual molestation.

How would the people have seen things if Hilary had been the president and she was caught getting some nooky? Would the people have cried fowl as well? — Sir2u

Assuming that it was consensual sex, like Bill and Monica, we would probably shame her for infidelity like we did Bill.

Yes they were both adults and consenting but I doubt if he was a news paper salesman she would have pursued him for any reason. It was because of his position of power that she fell for him which is why she never called rape or sexual molestation. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I've never understood this. What's the difference between being attracted to someone because of their power and being attracted to someone because of their looks, talent, or sense of humour?

Obviously there's a difference if there isn't actually any attraction and the interest is just in exploiting the power the other person has, but that doesn't seem to be what happened in this case (unless she's lying).

Getting fired because someone lied about you, or because somebody just didn't like you and had made trouble for you, or because the boss just didn't like your long hair, or short hair, or whatever hair -- all sorts of reasons -- can be devastating. One suddenly finds one's self without an income, insurance, cut off from the social circle of work, etc. — Bitter Crank

This I understand but what you have explained can happen to anyone. I fail to see how it is specific to sexual harassment/and or abuse by people in the position of power.

Also very common is injury on the job or sickness because of the job because it was cheaper to have an unsafe, unhealthy workplace. — Bitter Crank

Again, I don't understand the relevance. Am I missing something? Can you correlate the two for me so I can see what you see?

This is considered normal by many people who howl about sexual harassment. — Bitter Crank

Grrrr....why does it feel like you're using the words "howl about sexual harassment" in an effort to convey a less than supportive attitude towards those that confront their abuser.

I wasn't clear. I meant to apply the rewards to the employee who accepts sexual exploitation as a way of getting ahead. In other words, an employee might find it advantageous to tolerate being exploited. It does happen that people screw their way upwards in an organization. The exploiter has generally already obtained a superior position. — Bitter Crank

Thank you for taking the time to clarify your thoughts to me. I do agree with you that there are people, men and women, who find screwing their way up in an organization is the way to go and tolerating exploitation is part of the deal. And you are right in that the exploiter usually has obtained a superior position.

Sexual exploitation is a specialty within the general practice of exploiting employees (aka, workers). "All workers can expect to be harassed on the job, sooner or later, whatever form the harassment takes. The reason for this is that most jobs are exploitation to start with. Sexual harassment is but a specialty." — Bitter Crank

No. All workers should not "expect" to be harassed on the job. It is not acceptable and it is okay to speak up about it and take your stand even if that means leaving your job.

If we are going to be against harassment and exploitation, then we should be against harassment and exploitation across the board. — Bitter Crank

I agree. This thread is about non consensual sexual harassment/ and or abuse by those in the position of power.

I recall being assaulted at a nightclub once. Some girl walked past me, grabbed me by the balls, and then walked away.

I just thought it a really weird thing to do. — Michael

I think it is a really weird thing to do as well. Were you working for the nightclub? Was she a customer or a fellow employee?