home what'snew resources ask amy news activism antiviolence events marketplace aboutus
Ask a Question!
Meet Amy!
Amy's Resource Guide
Ask Amy Main
TOPICS
Feminism
Girls/Children
Health
International
Media
Miscellaneous
Most Asked Questions
Politics
Reproductive Rights
Sexual Harassment
Violence Against Women
Women's History
Work/Career
   
 


 
Miscellaneous

I sincerely hope you plan to put some energy into this Paula Jones thing. The fact that you (as a group) have ignored this issue thus far might lead a thinking individual to think that your goal is not the equal treatment of all people but merely to promote a kind of politic which you feel the need to mask in feminism. I hope you haven't ignored this issue because Clinton votes the way you like him to. This would mean that your entire position is emotionally based and intellectually bankrupt.

Thank 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 advancements--verbal, physical ... 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.


Amy

home | what's new | resources | ask amy | news | activism | anti-violence
events | marketplace | about us | e-mail us | join our mailing list

©1995-2002 Feminist.com All rights reserved.