Gloria Steinem, the feminist icon, died yesterday at 92. She was undeniably an important historical and cultural figure whose impact on American society was significant and predominantly positive. I’ll leave it to others to discuss that.
However, she was also critical to my understanding of how people drift into unethical habits and conduct, as well as my epiphany regarding the rareness of integrity among public figures, activists and celebrities.
Before Bill Clinton was President, Gloria preached the doctrine of inequality of power in the workplace. A woman could not meaningfully consent to social, intimate or sexual relations with a male boss, because he had so much power over her career and welfare. Sexual relations between male superiors and women who report to them was, she said, without exception, illicit, improper, abusive, and constituted sexual misconduct by the man.
Then came Monica. Feminists considered Bill Clinton an ally: I remember the scene in the Oval office where Bill signed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in 1994, handing out pens to jubilant leaders of the feminist movement. When it was beyond denying that Bill had sexually exploited a young female intern; however, Gloria suddenly dreamed up rationalizations to let Clinton, who was and probably still is a serial sexual predator, off the sexual harassment hook.
She did so with gusto, too, in a New York Times op-ed, stunning in its denial of her previous positions. True, she said, there was an apparent imbalance of power between a young White House intern and THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, but “Whatever it was, her relationship with President Clinton has never been called unwelcome, coerced or other than something she sought. The power imbalance between them increased the index of suspicion, but there is no evidence to suggest that Ms. Lewinsky’s will was violated; quite the contrary.”
That was literally the opposite of what she had insisted was the standard before Clinton was useful to her movement. It was also the exact moment that I began thinking about how an objective ethical perspective was missing in our national discourse.
And the last time I cared what Gloria Steinem said or wrote about anything.
Ethics Alarms 
This is another example of the Cognitive Dissonance Scale in action.
-Jut
Bingo.
No change in 30-some years. Haven’t we recently wondered a few times – where is the ‘me too’ movement? This year dems have been flirting with and running misogynist pigs. Where are the feminists and me too’s? Political, activist women run on emotion and hypocritically absolve each other and fellow leftists for sometimes egregious acts. But they are often good at it.
I read a biography of Ms. Steinem. She had serious daddy issues with a schlump of a father, which, as near as I can tell, reduced her to a fairly virulent man hater.
It is amazing how quickly women will throw another woman under the bus regarding their sexual mores or behavior when it’s expedient to do so.
Juxtaposing the two quotes by Gloria Steinem illustrates the problem with how feminism view consent. Both quotes have their problems in my opinion.
Quote 1
A woman could not meaningfully consent to social, intimate or sexual relations with a male boss, because he had so much power over her career and welfare.
Quote 2
Whatever it was, her relationship with President Clinton has never been called unwelcome, coerced or other than something she sought. The power imbalance between them increased the index of suspicion, but there is no evidence to suggest that Ms. Lewinsky’s will was violated; quite the contrary.
My impression is that quote 1 illustrates a denial of human nature (female nature) and lived experience. To start with the lived experience, there are many women who are happily married with a man who was their superior at the time they started a relationship. A secretary falls in love with her boss. A nurse initiates a love relationship with a handsome young surgeon. This is stuff pulp romance novels are made off. Today we call those relations improper, and a reason for job termination. But calling these relationship out for lack of consent is a denial of reality. It is also a denial of human nature, as in the human mating system pair forming is favored, the males still tend to have mildly polygynous nature, the females tend to have a hypergamous nature; they seek the best man they can find to mate with and care for her and her children. So she wants a man who a) has the best genes to pass on b) offers protection and provision for her and her children. So a women favors men who are handsome and sexy (men with alpha qualities), but also men with power and wealth (beta qualities actual or potential).
There are of course the situations where powerful men initiate sexual contact, unwanted by the woman, but she does not resists as she fears adverse consequences of doing so such as loss of a job. In this case we can justly say that there was no consent, and sexual abuse took place.
So quote 1 is feminist dogma, and not a statement I subscribe to.
Quote 2 is more real to human nature and experience than quote 1. Does anybody on EA believe that Monica Lewinsky was an unwilling victim, who did not welcome the sexual attention she got from President Clinton? Well I have some beautiful ocean front property that I want to sell to you, located in the Black Hills of South Dakota.
The problem with quote 2 is that it is an opportunistic reversal by Gloria Steinem’s earlier stated feminist dogma’s such as quote 1, and an illustration of the intellectual bankruptcy of feminism as an ideology. The feminists wanted to give President Clinton a pass, because he favored abortion on demand. If there is anything that is sacred to a feminist it is the sacrament of abortion.
Feminism is man hatred. Feminism is baby hatred. Feminism does not affirm human nature, and is at odds with human live.
Well, when State Troopers went to Paula Jones’ house and ‘escorted’ her to a hotel room where Bill Clinton was (with no pants on), I don’t think it was consensual. The court found that as well. That makes the Lewinsky one really suspect as well. Remember, Paula Jones was a state employee and Bill Clinton was the governor.
Great post, but I disagree. Steinem’s first position was correct, especially in the Monica situation. How does a humble, not-too-bright intern break up with the President of the United States? If he demands a “Lewinsky” under his desk, you don’t think there’s a serious imbalance of power there? Moreover, that affair ruined her life
Steinem’s first position was correct, especially in the Monica situation.
A former coworker of mine married the manager who hired her, and has children with him. They are still married, and have children. It had employment consequences for her husband, as you cannot be the manager of your own spouse. In that conflict she took the side of her spouse. Examples like these make me question Gloria Steinem’s statement about consent, as consent goes to the state of mind and state of will of the women in question. That does not mean that a company should not have a policy against sexual relationships between managers and employees regardless of consent, as there are many other considerations such as favoritism and fallout of breakups.
Moreover, that affair ruined her life.
The affair only ruined Monica’s life because the affair became public in such a big way, and she became the center of a scandal. Bill Clinton may be a hound, but do we have to assume that all the women (besides Hillary) he had affairs with while in office were basically raped?
Here is another problem with consent. Women can change their mind about consent after the fact, for opportune reasons. Gloria Steinem did, as illustrated by your post. How many women enthusiastically consent to sex, even initiated sex, and half a year later makes a claim that the sex was non-consensual? That happens when a relationship goes sour, or the sex was a one-night-stand or hookup she later regretted and does not want to take responsibility for; in those cases the consensual sex gets reclassified as rape. Many young men were forced out of college because of situations like this.
This means that if a women claims years after the fact that the sex she had with a man was not consensual (and was actually rape) you have to approach her statements with due (legal) skepticism. This is especially true in high profile cases like Bill Clinton’s bimbo eruptions, where in the midst of scandal the repercussions of admitting consent by the women may have adverse consequences for the reputation and social status of the women in question. Being a victim, with no moral agency provides a safe shelter in a scandal. Despite the protestations of #metoo and #believeallwomen (another feminist dogma), there is almost always doubt in these situations (her word vs his word). Even Bill Clinton (the devil incarnate for many EA contributors) deserves the benefit of doubt.
“A former coworker of mine married the manager who hired her, and has children with him. They are still married, and have children. It had employment consequences for her husband, as you cannot be the manager of your own spouse. In that conflict she took the side of her spouse. Examples like these make me question Gloria Steinem’s statement about consent, as consent goes to the state of mind and state of will of the women in question.”
It works, sometimes. That’s not a justification for not declaring it improper and unethical. (Mary Kay Letourneau married the student she groomed and had kids with him.) Moreover, you are neglecting third-party harassment. The situation where a manager is dating a subordinate automatically creates a hostile work environment. Favoritis. Bias. Sleep with the boss, and get a raise.
The theory is that boss having sex with a staffer is like an adult having sex with a 15 year old who is madly in love with him. I think that’s correct, but there is no statutory rape law for adult subordinates. Their consent to the sex isn’t cancelled to the extent that it is treated as rape.
“The affair only ruined Monica’s life because the affair became public in such a big way, and she became the center of a scandal.”
And Clinton had to know that any affair of that kind risked becoming a public scandal.He had several before. She was used, and naive…20s. Intern. She did not know what she was consenting to. That means the consent was know “informed consent.” She really thought she and Bill would end up together. Did Bill sit down with her and say, “Monica, before you take this step, let me explain some things. 1) I’m your boss. You will not get any benefits or advantages by having a relationship with me. 2) This is inappropriate for a man in my position. It the story gets out, it will be bad for me but catastrophic for you, and I won’t be able to protect you. 3) Hillary may have you killed…” And so on. No? Then Monica’s consent was not informed.
“How many women enthusiastically consent to sex, even initiated sex, and half a year later makes a claim that the sex was non-consensual?”
Sexual harassment law makes no sense, and I have written lots of posts about that. Late hit claims of sexual abuse are also inherently unfair and untrustworthy. I got kicked off NPR as their ethics expert for saying almost exactly what you wrote (look it up).
OK I have a bit difficulty following your reply, and I suspect that WordPress is playing a game with the editing. My entire comment is included in your reply, and your response is not clearly identifiable.
I do agree that a sexual relationship between a manager, and somebody below him in the line of command is undesirable for many reasons such as favoritism, and I also mentioned this in my comment. However the issue was whether in those situations there is never meaningful consent, which in my opinion goes to state of mind and state of will of (mostly) the women in the relationship.
Let’s not focus on minors (who cannot legally consent), and have some other examples than a star struck and not too intelligent intern who got way in over her head.
Example number one is the Coldplay scandal, where a Jumbotron kiss-cam exposed the extramarital affair between Astronomer CEO Andy Byron and the top HR executive Kristin Cabot, both married. Are we going to argue that Kristin Cabot did not give meaningful and informed consent to the affair? She was 53 years old, and the head of HR. Totally beats me. She is definitely not the victim in this case.
Example number two is our former Vice President Kamala Harris. Her political career was launched in the bedroom of then Governor of California Willy Brown. She slept her way to the top. Consent? More than consent it was strategy. Were it not for the events in Butler PA she might be POTUS today. Merit did not bring her that far.
Arrgh. I meant to cut the rest of your comment from my reply, and forgot. It’s fixed. Sorry for the confusion.
“Let’s not focus on minors (who cannot legally consent), and have some other examples than a star struck and not too intelligent intern who got way in over her head.”
But that’s a fair analogy. Individual teens who are 15, 16, 17 may indeed be mature enough to know what they are consenting to,but the law exists to protect those who aren’t. The same here: OK, the Cold Play bimbo may have consented. Then again, maybe she wanted out but her boss would have wrecked her career,and she was afraid to expose him because of its impact on her marriage. It’s just wrong, that’s all, for a superior to allow a vertical relationship. In theater and films, directors and producers use their power to get women routinely.It’s wrong. I don’t care if it sometimes leads to happy families. If the boss is serious, then he can quit.
“OK, the Cold Play bimbo may have consented. Then again, maybe she wanted out but her boss would have wrecked her career,and she was afraid to expose him because of its impact on her marriage. It’s just wrong, that’s all, for a superior to allow a vertical relationship. “
I agree that this relationship was wrong on all levels, company policy, sexual harassment law, basic morality (adultery). Both had to leave the company. My issue is that both parties deployed agency in this relationship. The idea that one party could not consent is based on a fiction generated by feminist philosophy, and is now a legal fiction enshrined in sexual harassment law.
The casting couch in Hollywood, requiring aspiring starlets to have sex with powerful movie executives and directors like Harvey Weinstein and Alfred Hitchcock in order to be able to start a career as an actress. That sounds to me a clear case of abuse where I am willing to give Gloria Steinem some credit. This is an example of quid pro quo sexual harassment, and was already a no no before Bill Clinton put his signature under modern sexual harassment law. (Although ethically the actress while under pressure still had moral agency; nobody forces you to work in the movie industry.)
I know a number of pastors who married a member of the congregation; the young pastor fresh out of seminary of the church I was a member of married the organist. That was in the early nineties. The whole congregation loved it. That was before sexual harassment law were a thing. It was not considered unethical then. People fall in love all the time. Nowadays we would not approve of this, as ethics has evolved as a result of sexual harassment laws. To me this illustrates that ethics is not an absolute thing, but constantly evolving based on changing views in the society; certain things are only wrong because society at large considers it wrong. I am not entirely happy with where things stand today as I see sexual harassment law as one factor in the impoverishment of human relationships, and work relationships at the office.
I like to point out Bill Clinton and the feminist treatment he got when anyone asks “How can America elect a sexual predator like Trump?”
My answer is “The democrats elected a rapist and a sexual predator in 1992. At the time, no republican could make high office with that record. When it was abundantly clear what a slimeball he was, they elected him again in 1996. For twenty four years and 6 presidential elections, the republicans held their standards. Hillary could have denounced Bill and distanced herself. Instead, in 2016, she ran with him by her side. So after all that time, the republicans finally decided to throw out the double standard, and you want to blame only one side who fought it for twenty four years?”
Al Gore would have been elected easily in 2000 if had simply had the guts and integrity to condemn Clinton’s conduct rather than joining the “Move on!” crowd. I have to keep reminding myself of that whenever I’m tempted to feel sorry for Al winning the popular vote but losing in the Electoral College.
Nah. Gore was destined to lose because people saw him for the fraud that he is.
jvb
“Nah. Gore was destined to lose because people saw him for the fraud that he is.”
If you loathe Phat Albert as much as I, you’ll LUV Al Gore: A User’s Manual
The kicker? It’s written by Counterpunch.org Über Lefties Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair
The kicker, 2.0? It was written before all he embraced the commodification of Global Warming.
PWS