you for your note to FEMINIST.COM.
I just wanted to point out that
"we" have not "ignored" this
issue. We--as a website--are
motivated by what our vistors
want....thus far you are the
first person to even mention
the "Paula Jones thing."
My own thoughts on the case
are that we should hear her
and him out and then make a
decision. From what I have heard
thus far I think that it is
important that we more clearly
define sexual harassment. As
I understand it, it pertains
to when your job is in jeapordy
if you don't respond to sexual
... I didn't know that her job
was in jeapordy nor does it
sound like she has done anything
"against her will." She knowingly
went into a hotel room with
nothing at stake and after Clinton
said, according to her, "I wouldn't
want you to do anything that
you would regret," she left.
I may not have my facts right,
therefore, I personally am going
to wait until I hear them all
before I make a decision.
On another note, I find it interesting
that Paula Jones has consistently
avoided and missed appointments
with feminist leaders on this
issue and has instead sought
the support of "right wingers"
who have consistently fought
against sexual harassement laws.
Contrary to what you think,
that we have "ignored this issue
because Clinton votes the way
you like him to," Clinton doesn't
always "vote the way I would
want him to". If that were true,
he would have supported gay
marriage and gays in the military.
He would have opposed the welfare
bill and would have decreased
military spending. What Clinton
does support is laws penalizing
those who are quilty of sexual
harassment. Thus far, Clinton
maintains that position, so
in this case he is "voting"
the way that I want him to."
Thanks for sharing your opinion
and I guess we'll have to wait
and see what happens.