![]() | |||
![]()
| ![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
|||
![]() "Investigating the president" front page NOW says it won't support Jones appeal E-mail Jay Severin Send a letter to the Opinions Editor |
|||
|
Shunning Paula Jones always has been easy for feminists. But abandoning her case is something else again.
|
NOW HAS OFFICIALLY decided to walk away, for a second and final time, from the Paula Jones case. Shunning Jones is, and always has been, easy for feminists; but abandoning her case is something else again. To best illustrate NOWs problem, lets examine the situations of two working women, Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Jones: Mrs. Smith awakened apprehensive and fearful today about going to work, because her boss has Playboy photographs hanging on the office wall. This makes Mrs. Smith uncomfortable. She believes it creates a hostile workplace. Its an outrage! Dont worry Mrs. Smith feminists in general and NOW in particular will help you. Theyll use the legal system to tear down those objectionable pictures, and sue the stuffing out of your boss and his company. Thus does NOW once again come to the rescue of American women. Now consider Mrs. Jones. She, too, awakened apprehensive and fearful of going to work today, because her boss allegedly brought her into a room, exposed himself and asked for oral sex. Mrs. Jones complained, whereupon the boss, his lawyers and his public relations people called Mrs. Jones a slut and a liar. Its an outrage! But guess what? Sorry Mrs. Jones: to feminists in general and NOW in particular you deserve no protection, no defense. How can that be? Because, as many of us have known for some time, NOW does not exist to defend women; it exists to defend liberal women. NOW is not, nor has it ever been, a gender organization; it is a political organization. The actual abuse of which you are the victim isnt the real issue. The real issue for NOW is who abused you, and who you are. I am personally opposed to all sexual harassment laws. If a man wishes to propose to a woman he finds attractive an act of sexual congress, that proffer is, it seems to me, protected by the first amendment, biology, history, common law, and common sense. I know many would disagree. NOW would certainly disagree or would they? NOWs decision today to take a pass on the Jones case essentially adopting the position that an employers indecent exposure and request for oral sex is no big deal will strike many (I daresay most) American women as very odd, especially for a National Organization for Women. NOW President Patricia Ireland says her group cannot support this case because the plaintiff is supported by feminists political opponents. Oh. So let me get this straight: a woman is victimized, her case may affect millions of women, but whether we care depends on who her friends are? The good news is that NOWs hypocrisy, cowardice and transparent political partisanship will actually help women and all Americans, really by further marginalizing the insignificant, radical group of malcontents this cabal has become. Stay tuned. Jay Severin is an MSNBC political analyst. | |||
![]() Time line: A day-by-day chronicle of the crisis Kenneth Starr's web of investigations Politics Bulletin Board Join the MSNBC NewsChat |
|||