Universities of Michigan and Chicago law professor Catharine A. MacKinnon, 1998, on Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky:
On no account so far was Ms. Lewinsky sexually harassed. Both she and Paula Jones were women subordinate to the same man at work; sex may or may not have been initiated. But no one so far has claimed that Ms. Lewinsky had "unwelcome" sex, which is essential to bringing a lawsuit for sexual harassment at work. As the judge in Paula Jones's case correctly found, Ms. Lewinsky's testimony was potentially relevant but determined nothing.
[. . .]
The allegation that Monica Lewinsky had a sexual relationship with President Clinton struck a nerve because of the inequality between them. Being an unpaid intern at the White House was more like being at school than being at work. People faced the fact that a comparatively young person in a vulnerable position can be sexually exploited, even if she wanted a sexual relationship, whether or not she had a legal claim for sexual harassment.
Catharine A. MacKinnon, 2011, on Herman Cain:
HARD as it has been to watch, harder still to live through, the spectacle of Herman Cain's dodging sexual harassment allegations is a real step up for the status of women. Their sexual treatment is now part of the open political process, rather than a smarmy rumor to be passed among cognoscenti in the dark.
The fact that what several women have said might register in a presidential campaign — as if women's sexual mistreatment at work might really matter — could be a potential game changer, even though the prevailing dynamics of sex, race and power that made sexual harassment so difficult to denounce in the first place are amply on display.
[. . .]
The allegations of sexual harassment go to the core of Mr. Cain's qualifications to lead. Even lacking certainty about facts, what emerges as the Cain story unfolds is a picture of a man with significant deficits in terms of temperament, judgment and, potentially, veracity.
Double standard, anyone? The brazen dishonesty and moral obtuseness of all those alleged feminists in making excuses for Bill Clinton while professing shock and outrage over Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain make it even more difficult to take sexual harassment charges as a serious issue rather than a political ploy. The unfortunate result is that some legitimate claims might not be taken as seriously as they should be. Yes, yes, I know, there is hypocrisy everywhere, even (gasp!) sometimes in the posts of this otherwise noble commentator. There are plenty of people making excuses for Cain who were in the crowd who wanted Clinton's head. But that's the way hypocrisy works -- we each point out the other side's and tend to miss or ignore our own side's. This particular instance irks me because of the similarity to the Thomas case, in which my originalist hero was almost done in by some of the most vicious character assassination in modern politics.
I happen to agree with Ms.MacKinnon that Herman Cain might lack the qualifications to lead, though I think my objection is based on more than political opportunism. Let's not get distracted from the important fact that it has become clear Mr. Cain doesn't know enough about and hasn't thought enough about the kinds of things that are a president's concern:
You won't believe me until you click play but this is much worse than Perry's brain lock at the debate last week. Perry lost his train of thought; Cain doesn't have a train at all here, to the point where he needs confirmation from the interviewer of what Obama's position on Libya actually was.
[. . .]
His candidacy's now basically an experiment to see if there's anything he could say about policy that grassroots conservatives wouldn't ignore/forgive in the name of nominating a candidate who's “authentic” instead of some slick RINO Beltway insider phony (many of whom at least oppose collective bargaining for PEUs). Is there anything? Or can any screw-up be dismissed so long as it's “clarified” a few hours later, knowing full well that undecideds won't be as forgiving if he pulls something like this in a debate against Obama? How steep is the authenticity grading curve here, exactly?
(Clips via Instapundit and Hot Air)
