90 replies to this topic

[wagtail]

Christratton2007 said:

True. I did intend the implication. That is the picture of her approach to him that emerges from the Starr Report and from Andrew Morton's book, to the best of my recollection, based upon my reading of the contemporary press accounts. I never read any of the Starr Report or of Morton's biography of her, other than what was quoted in the press and discussed with friends who did read parts of it.

The picture that came across was of her aggressively, boldly pursuing him and of him somewhat passively allowing himself to be caught, though he knew better. (It was probably a question, with him, more of self-control and self-destructiveness than of judgment, in the end. He apparently knew better and was remorseful from early on.) A sort of reversal of stereotypical gender roles apparently characterized their affair.

Interestingly, in a recently released, illuminative book called In Search of Bill Clinton, an expert on hypomanic temperament, who explains Pres. Clinton as a textbook case of that temperament, theorizes that, having lost his mother within two years prior to meeting Monica Lewinsky and with that loss weighing heavily on his mind and his heart amidst the intense stress and mostly hostile environment of Washington, Bill went for a gal, in Monica, who reminded him greatly of his mother. Moreover, accepting as true most of the allegations of his various affairs and dalliances, the author, John D. Gartner, suggests that most of his paramours fit a profile in resembling his mother's personality and style, FWIW.

This is from an article describing an interview that Monica Lewinsky did with Barbara Walters.  I do not see any indication that she thought she was behaving in an aggressive way.  People flirt in various ways all the time, saying "I'm interested", is not the same as aggressively and boldly 'offering' yourself sexually.

Quote

Ms. Walters asked about Ms. Lewinsky's gambit in suddenly flashing her thong underwear at the President. ''Where do you get the nerve?'' she asked as Ms. Lewinsky laughed and described it as a ''small, subtle, flirtatious gesture.''
''It's a dance,'' she said. ''I think it was saying, I'm interested, too. I'll play.''

As for the rest of your post, I'm not at all interested in analysing, nor finding justification for Bill Clinton's behaviour, I think he was an excellent President, but a deeply flawed individual.  I think deeply flawed individuals should still treat women with respect, I doubt very much that Bill Clinton did.

But, again it's not why I commented.  Chris, you don't have to justify or explain yourself, nor am I saying you should feel obliged to change, it's a free world. I just wanted to express how I feel when I read the things you say.  For as long as you have participated on this forum, the way you speak to, and about women, makes me very uncomfortable, and no matter how valid your points, no matter how well constructed your sentences, no matter how well considered your argument is, it's unlikely that I will ever particpate in a discussion with you in any genuine way, because of that.

Edited by wagtail, 24 January 2009 - 05:57 PM.

[Driver Eight]

wagtail said:

But, again it's not why I commented.  Chris, you don't have to justify or explain yourself, nor am I saying you should feel obliged to change, it's a free world. I just wanted to express how I feel when I read the things you say.  For as long as you have participated on this forum, the way you speak to, and about women, makes me very uncomfortable, and no matter how valid your points, no matter how well constructed your sentences, no matter how well considered your argument is, it's unlikely that I will ever particpate in a discussion with you in any genuine way, because of that.

You're entitled to feel as you do. I do think, though, Rebekah, that we just participated in an extensive discussion, you and I, in a genuine way, and on what many consider to be a  very contentious issue. There is no need for rancor.

I regret that, in your perception, the "way I speak to, and about women" is discomfiting. Something about me rankles you. I accept that as true, though it is not what I seek with you or with most anyone else. I submit for your consideration that you, with me at least, have a hard time forgiving me for having participated in angry exchanges with you, which of course is understandable. It is very hard to find understanding, respect and compassion for those with whom one has fought - to replace hardened sentiments with kinder ones - one of the hardest things people ever attempt to do, even when they are willing in the attempt.

I have seen, based on your participation in creative threads such as on visual art, that you can be a good, considerate and helpful friend to people and I admire that. I regret that I have made my way onto your wrong side, as it would be far preferable to enjoy your good graces as a friend. I bear you no ill will and am pleased to have had a constructive, illuminative dialogue with you these past couple of days.

Re: Mr. Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky, I had gotten the impression, with some basis, I expect, that Monica was aggressive toward Bill. Query, Rebekah: does someone who sees a thong flash in the West Wing of the White House, of all places, as "a small, subtle flitatious gesture" someone you would call shy, or bold? Aggresive, or passive? And, moreover, does it brand a person as retrograde on gender issues to see her behavior in this instance as bold and aggressive or to assert that Bill Clinton was foolish, as my very powerful country's head of state, with so much riding on his personal deportment, to have dallied with this person?

Personally, I don't think he was wise to have dallied with anyone. But people sometimes have extramarital relations, and not all such people are evil or foul and not all such relationships are even necessarily wrong. I think his engaging in a relationship of this sort, though, with someone whose judgment was so poor as to have flashed him her thong in the West Wing, was highly self-destructive. Do you disagree?

Note that I am not in this dialogue suggesting anything here about your views of gender issues and where you fall on some philosophical, moral or ethical spectrum. I have not said anything about you disserving these issues. I have merely engaged, respectfully, in discourse with you following upon your critiques.

You have stated how you feel, as you have every right to do. It is unclear to me, beyond that, what your purpose is here.

Care to clarify? Is it really only about expressing your feelings, your discomfort, distaste, ill feeling toward me? Do you have some other need that is being served here?

Edited by Christratton2007, 24 January 2009 - 08:13 PM.

[wagtail]

Christratton2007 said:

You have stated how you feel, as you have every right to do. It is unclear to me, beyond that, what your purpose is here.

Care to clarify?

No other purpose, Chris.  I just wanted to offer those thoughts, so you would not be left with any confusion that my desire not to communicate with you is based on the way you speak to me, and the way you speak to and about other women, and is definitely not based on my inability to "forgive" our angry exchanges - I'm much better than you seem to think at forgetting past grievances.  I only raised it because if it weren't for that issue, I do think we might have some interesting discussions.

[Driver Eight]

wagtail said:

Chris, you don't have to justify or explain yourself, nor am I saying you should feel obliged to change, it's a free world.

PS: I don't feel a need to justify or explain myself. I do take seriously when someone asserts that I am retrograde as regards women's rights and sexual harrassment issues and am disserving them. It's a helluva note, is it not, to say that about a person, and when they seek to understand what you're saying, to answer your critiques, then to say in turn, "Oh no, you don't need to explain yourself or to change - it's a free world"? It's a catch-22, "heads I win, tails you lose."

wagtail said:

I'm much better than you seem to think at forgetting past grievances.

Could you get where I might see it as I do based on my experiences with you? I see you, Rebekah, as determined to see me and to portray me in as unsympathetic and repugnant a light as possible, to spread ill feeling and bad impressions about me. Why the evident need to paint me as a troglodyte on the Lewinsky-Clinton situation, rather than just accept what I meant - poor judgment, not the person to have an affair with if one must and not the manner to go about it, even accepting for the moment such fundamentally unwise behavior on the part of a president in the modern media age? All of which are reasonable judgments, I think it fair to say, which relate little to the gender of the people involved.

You don't seem to have it in you to cut me much slack, to give me much benefit of the doubt, but appear, instead, bound and determined to paint me as foul. Am I missing something? Is it unreasonable, from my standpoint, to view this as your object? Somehow I think not, but again, my ears are open to your view of things.

Edited by Christratton2007, 25 January 2009 - 09:59 AM.
spelling

[Kelly A]

Christratton2007 said:

I don't feel a need to justify or explain myself.

Well that's good.

[Driver Eight]

Kelly A said:

Well that's good.

If a tree falls in the forest, and you have your ears plugged, do you know if it makes a sound?

[Driver Eight]

wagtail said:

I just wanted to offer those thoughts, so you would not be left with any confusion that my desire not to communicate with you is based on the way you speak to me, and the way you speak to and about other women, and is definitely not based on my inability to "forgive" our angry exchanges ...

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?

And lastly, you have said here, again, that you dislike my way of communicating with you and with other women. I believe I have gotten into fights here at times with you and several other people here, some male, some female. Is your problem that I am sometimes harsh, when angered, at women in much the same way I am with men? Do you believe I should treat women who are attacking me personally differently than I should treat men? Can you see  where someone might take you as simply looking to win a fight with me, or just unwilling to let go of a grudge, rather than upholding some principle of gender relations?

I'm not saying that I should have treated people the way I sometimes have here. You'll note that I have approached you much differently in this thread in the past few days than I have you in the past. I also note that you have refrained here from bald, crude personal attacks towards me. An improvement on both our parts - not something I can say for everyone here.

If you feel that I have treated some women here differently and wrongly here and aren't simply just out to denounce me and paint me simplistically as a villain on a dubious premise, I invite you, again, Rebekah, to cite an example or two. That would be constructive. I believe my problem has been one of being overly defensive and overly reactive with many people here of both genders, but I could easily be missing something - let me know and be specific, if you could please.

It is fitting that we should have this conversation in this thread, as good relations between people, over time, depend on the ability of all parties to forgive and forget.

Edited by Christratton2007, 25 January 2009 - 10:16 AM.
clarification and concision

[Leilani]

Help - I'm drowning in a sea of inane verbosity!

[wagtail]

Christratton2007 said:

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?  

*verbosity alert*

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:

Christratton2007 said:

So, if you're dressed up extra nice and looking really cute, would that make you "Hot Wings"? Just curious.

Christratton2007 said:

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.

[Leilani]

I agree with Rebekah whole heartedly here.  Chris may have thought he'd made a throw-away comment about Ms Lewinsky, but I too thought there was something not quite right about it - it falls in the same catagory as saying women wearing short skirts on a night out are asking for it, if they get sexually assulted.

I was also a bit weirded out by those comments in the Birthday thread - and really is that an ear fetish he has going on there - I mean I expect at least 50% of women have pierced ears - what's the big deal?

I think Chris has had quite limited contact with women in the not-family way, as he really has no idea how to interact with women who can form their own opinions.

Another thread ruined - thanks Chris.

[Mary]

I'm closing this thread because I think it's gone too far off the rails to be salvaged.