Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
RPZip
Feb 6, 2009

WORDS IN THE HEART
CANNOT BE TAKEN
I remember this coming up at the time, and I contemplated posting it again in the latter part of the General Election thread but held off. This thread seems a more appropriate venue:

I Believe Tara Reade. I’m Voting for Joe Biden Anyway.

The author makes some interesting points about the hypocrisy inherent to the moment, as well as abandoning it when it threatens someone on 'your team', although I think some of them are unintentional.

quote:

In 1998, I was one of a few establishment feminists to argue on behalf of Monica Lewinsky, when the unofficial representative of the movement, Gloria Steinem, threw her under the bus in the pages of The New York Times to protect Bill Clinton. I maintained my position until, two decades and a #MeToo movement later, Ms. Steinem issued a non-apology for the essay.

...

So what is the greatest good or the greatest harm? Mr. Biden, and the Democrats he may carry with him into government, are likely to do more good for women and the nation than his competition, the worst president in the history of the Republic. Compared with the good Mr. Biden can do, the cost of dismissing Tara Reade — and, worse, weakening the voices of future survivors — is worth it.

...

Contemplating the act makes me feel a little like Gloria Steinem, circa 1998. I was so sure I’d never do what she did, and I still think saving Mr. Clinton for two years at the cost to Ms. Lewinsky was a terrible move. Denigrating Ms. Lewinsky denied all women’s vulnerability to powerful men, and replacing Mr. Clinton with another Democratic centrist, Al Gore, would have been a perfectly acceptable outcome. But it also makes me remember why Ms. Steinem did it.

The other side at the time, embodied by the special counsel Kenneth Starr, was so awful. Mr. Starr’s censorious Republican Party seemed to pose much more of a threat to women’s interests than Mr. Clinton’s libertinism did.

The crux of the argument is that, while it's certainly bad to damage not only this one specific survivor but also the entire #metoo movement, it's fine to do so if you think the potential gains are high enough. The issue isn't that Gloria Steinem did something abhorrent or monstrous, but that what she got for it wasn't good enough; that it would have been fine for thirty pieces of silver, but the twenty she received was insufficient. This was also, rather notably, Harvey Weinstein's argument as well. We're all lucky that his support of 'progressive causes' and being a big-time money man for the Clintons and the DNC wasn't judged to be sufficient grounds to get him off the hook for that, too. Think of how much worse it might have been if he hadn't been organizing fundraisers to get Democrats elected. Do you want Team Red to win?

It, genuinely, makes me sick to the stomach to contemplate and I'm someone who caved and voted for Biden.

I'll also admit that this is also a very US-centric read, as well as being a very politics-focused one, but it seems like that's where most of the high-profile cases I've seen have been aimed. If that's not true in other countries then I'd be interested to hear more about it.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply