On October 16, 1998 Linda Marshall wrote a guest column for the Denton Record-Chronicle, which was titled, “Conservatives, Stop All Pretending.” Her plain purpose is to defend feminists who have continued to support Bill Clinton despite the evidence that has surfaced regarding his personal treatment of women.
First of all she seeks to redefine the term feminist to include “women, men, old, young, Democrat, Republican, you name it” (10A). [Who is the one pretending?] She knows that most people do not share her broad concept of the term; most Americans think of Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, and various others prominent in the media. Iffeminism is limited to the removal of “restrictions that discriminate against women,” it would exclude hardly anyone in society and therefore be a meaningless term.
She is responding to a newspaper editorial that accused feminist leaders (what definition shall we use for this phrase, one wonders) of “approving sexual exploitation to get what they want” (10A). This statement is correct, and Marshall does not deny it. She defends “feminist leaders” by saying (in essence), “That’s politics.” But that is not enough. Following the lead of the president and his “friends” (James Carville, e.g.), she next seeks to demonize Republicans (presumably some of those same ones that she included in her definition of feminists above). Linda Marshall writes:
The alternative to Clinton is a Republican party hostile to expanding opportunities for women and minorities and committed to a status quo that keeps rich, white men in power. Child care, health care, parental leave, violence against women–to these issues and more, Clinton has brought an informed, energetic, and innovative approach (10A).
One thing never found lacking in feminists, such as Linda Marshall, is arrogance. This last paragraph is little more than an oft-repeated cliche, which dissolves upon even a little consideration of the charges she has brought forth. If the Republican party is so anti-women, why do women vote for them? Don’t Republican men have wives, mothers, and sisters? And why are there female Republicans who hold office? Can Ms. Marshall tell us who appointed the first woman to the Supreme Court? And speaking of Republicans only wanting rich, white guys in power, perhaps Ms. Marshall can recall for us who stood at the forefront opposing non-white Clarence Thomas’ appointment to the Supreme Court? The answer is FEMINISTS. And why was he opposed? Was there any evidence offered to corroborate Anita Hill’s testimony? There was none. The feminists were opposed to Thomas’ conservative ideology.
This article does not seek to defend Republicans (both parties do good things for the country and make errors in judgment), but it does seek to show the disingenuousness of feminists. What people have concluded, and rightly so, is that it is hypocritical to oppose one man on alleged “sexual harassment” charges in the absence of any substantial evidence while supporting and defending another man (the president) who has a history of being a womanizer. Were the feminists interested in the sexual harassment charges brought against the president by Paula Jones? No, there was no outrage; they were more than willing to sacrifice her.
Bill Bennett, former Drug Czar and successful editor of The Book of Virtues, has written a new book, entitled The Death of Outrage. He quotes feminist Susan Estrich as saying: “You believe in principle. I believe in politics” (54). Well, isn’t that what Marshall said, too? Never mind what is right or wrong. Never mind about justice. The only criterion for the feminist is, “Does it help politically?” That admission means that they did not care one iota about Anita Hill and whether or not she was sexually harassed. It was for them nothing more than a political maneuver to oppose Clarence Thomas, a man whose ideology (especially concerning abortion) they despise. No wonder Rush Limbaugh calls them “feminazis”! The end justifies the means, so far as they are concerned. Never mind if a candidate for the Supreme Court is a decent man or a black man (minority). Feminists will destroy anyone who does not THINK the same way they do. Such truly is the Nazi mentality. They will also justify anyone who THINKS the way they do, no matter what crimes he may be guilty of. For reasons such as these feminists are properly regarded as fanatics and radicals by most Americans.
Bennett also quotes Eleanor Smeal: “We’re trying to think of the bigger picture, think about what’s best for women” (54). In other words, one woman (Paula Jones) can be ignored because Clinton publicly upholds the feminist agenda. The following quotation is also from Bennett’s book:
To author Susan Faludi, the women who have accused the president of inappropriate sexual conduct “are not considering the advancement of their sex” and are violating a “defining trait of feminism: sisterhood” (54).
So a man may personally harass, seduce, and otherwise coerce women into sexual compliance so long as he publicly supports the feminist agenda. Is this an unfair assertion? Are feminists really so radical that they can overlook just about anything for the “cause”– for “sisterhood”? Nina Burleigh, who covered the White House forTime magazine, demonstrated her fanaticism this way: “I’d be happy to give him [oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal” (64-65).
To what extent will feminists go to achieve their cause? Betty Friedan’s response to presidential wrongdoing was: “I simply don’t care” (65). What if it were discovered that the president had raped a woman? Would feminists not care about that, either? Their view has been clearly substantiated: They are only interested in sexual misconduct if it is someone who is pro-life or who opposes some of their radical agenda. All the rhetoric about women being abused and harassed is simply that–rhetoric. They care nothing about the individual–only politics (Pr. 17:15).
Marshall fails to see her own hypocrisy as she imagines that the whole furor surrounding the president is nothing more than a political dispute being led by “Clinton’s right-wing opposition.” Any one with any sense would know that this has not been a matter of partisan politics. The impeachment vote was not accomplished by a few radical Republicans. An overwhelming majority of Republicans and five Democrats voted for impeachment. If even one Republican voted for impeachment because the president is a member of the other party, he should be ashamed.
The impeachment vote was not about politics. The only reason that Marshall thinks all these things are of partisan origin is that she knows that is precisely what her fellow feminists would do. They have already demonstrated that they do not care about right or wrong–only whether or not someone THINKS the way they do. Hopefully, Democrats and Republicans will not adopt such a dangerous outlook. They should review the evidence in the senate and vote guilty or innocent on the basis of the facts–not party or ideology.
Marshall issues the following wisdom to conservatives (isn’t it touching how much she cares about a right-wing group committed to keeping “rich, white men in power”?):
Stop pretending to champion women’s rights as a cover for your attempted ouster of a duly-elected president whose policies you oppose and whose popularity you cannot understand (10A).
In the first place, the case of the president is not about championing women’s rights; it’s about violating the law, committing perjury, and obstructing justice. Marshall has fallen victim to her own assumptions and presuppositions. Second, what has amazed the public is the fact that feminists, instead of coming to the aid of Paula Jones and the other women preyed upon by the president, have been so apathetic. It is their hypocrisy that has come to light. Third, she has also assumed that, because feminists would either oppose or advocate impeachment for someone on a purely ideological basis, conservatives would do the same thing!
For this reason we have sought to disassociate this matter from politics. Do many people oppose Clinton’s ideology? Absolutely. We oppose, for example, his endorsement of partial birth abortion. Even most of those in favor of abortion oppose partial birth abortion–except feminists. The majority of Democrats and Republicans oppose this heinous, barbaric practice. But that is not what this issue is about. Nor is it about economic policy or taxes. The thought of removing someone from office on the basis of political philosophy is repugnant. Elections are for the purpose of resolving political differences. But if feminists would act in such a way as to prevent Thomas from being on the Supreme Court, they would impeach for the same reason. It is not conservatives that have a problem here; the problem lies with radical, partisan feminists.