So, just to be clear, Rebekah, your purpose in coming into this conservation, asserting that I was disserving women's rights and sexual harrassment issues in saying Bill Clinton was unwise to follow up on Monica Lewinsky's provocative gesture in a highly inappropriate setting, your purpose there was to ensure I am not "confused" about your desire not to communicate with me? Was the issue of your and my lines of communication even on the table? You have complained many times for some months now that I have been ungeniune or dishonest, or both, in past communications or fights with you. Are you willing and able to apply the same standard to yourself? Can you genuinely, honestly, say that you entered this thread in order to clarify some confusion?
In answer to the last question, I didn't "enter this thread", I started it to have a discussion about an entirely different issue. Both of us were particpating in this thread, in agreement...I posted a criticism of you, because I disagreed with the way you summarised the situation involving Clinton. Your following comments bothered me a great deal. Okay?
Just want to point out that you are re-hashing past conflict here, because I know if we get into this discussion at some point you are going to plead for people to MOVE ON, right?
Chris, I would have like to have continued the discussion but your language in relation to the incident, in the way you portray Lewinsky, makes me sick. Yes, I am influenced by all of the other times I have read comments from you that are to and about woman. ...but fear not Chris, I am able to separate that stuff from any other things that have annoyed me about you, that have caused conflict between us.
Believe me [though I know you wont] that is the reason I did not want to continue this discussion. I'm not sure you are capable of realising what an obstacle your attitude to women is, so why should I bother? it's not as if any other attempts I've made to resolve conflict with you have succeeded. You are incapable of seeing an honest comment about how your posts make me feel, as anything other than a manifestation of past problems. It seems an easy way of you dismissing the validity of the criticism. Silly, emotional, vindictive woman..is that what you think?
Why was your comment a disservice to the issues of sexual harrassment and womans rights? Describing what happened in such a flippant and crass way, with absolutely no context, ignoring the sexual harrassment case at the heart of the issue, is a disservice. That a man lied in a sexual harrassment case suggests, perhaps, he had something to hide, to infer that Clinton was the 'victim' of partisan politics is one thing, but you also infer he was simply a 'willing victim' of a sexual predator, in "taking up an offer", and that makes me sick. You acknowledged you might have chosen your words better, you acknowledge that you did not actually know the context [on edit] and were relying on other peoples interpretation of events [that in itself is a disservice], and now you want to re-hash it all and portray yourself as the victim of a witchhunt because you think I don't like you? It seems to me that you are going to blame any situation, where people express a problem they have with you, on all past problems they've had with you. Why would I want to conitnue to attempt to communicate with you?
It is a huge disservice to the woman involved to describe the event in the way that you did. Portraying her as an agressive sexual predator, which you acknowledge was your intent. That a woman lifting up her jacket to portray the top of a thong, is an agressively sexual act, an explicit offer....you asked me two or three times whether I agree, I don't, I don't agree AT ALL, yet, you keep reiterating the point, which suggests that you have no interest in the validity of alternative interpretations and will simply go on believing that your perspective is right. Again, why would I want to continue the discussion?
BTW: I went and looked up the records of the incident in the onlline Congressional library, and your interpretation of the events is inaccurate. And your suggestion that Clinton merely accpeted an 'offer' is untrue...in fact it seems he was the one making the offer. I think you simply set a up a false premise, and you will go on defending it rigourously, dissecting the argument ad infinitum, as if it changes anything. You are simply incapable of seeing it as a disservice to the issue, because you so are convinced of your own sense of decency that any other interpretation is wrong. The way we interpret each others behaviour matters in discussions of this kind, don't you think? It's at the core of a lot of matters relating to sexual harrassment and like issues. Please note, I have not told you to change, I've not told you I am right and you are wrong, I have told you how I interpret your attitude, and why I don't like it.
Chris you want me cite examples of what bothers me?
Your inability to hear any criticism from women without implying it's the manifestation of 'issues', or mental instability, or past conflict - that dissmissiveness is a big part of it.
The way you seem to think it's magnanimous to point out that you approve of the way I might interact with others, as if it's an act of grace, as if I should need your approval.
The "that's a lovely name, Rebekah, if you don't mind me saying, before I tell you how naive and stupid and incapable of independant thought you are" attitude you've had towards me, that I also see in your interactions with other women.
The way you generally refer to women, even away from the argumentative threads as if they need, or should value your validation.
The way you speak to the young women on this site.
This from Rebecca's 21st birthday thread gives me the creeps:
So, if you're dressed up extra nice and looking really cute, would that make you "Hot Wings"? Just curious.
Sounds like an awesome birthday, Rebecca. :) It would be cool if, once your ear piercings are healed, you were to post some pix of your newly decorated ears. :)
Edited by wagtail, 25 January 2009 - 09:07 PM.