Consider, if you will, the following two scenarios dealing with today's hot topic of sexual harassment: (1) A lone woman comes out of the woodwork to accuse her former boss (Man A) of telling a few perverted jokes to her 10 years ago. (2) Multiple women arise to tell of a prominent man (Man B) making physical contact with them in an intimate way even though they did not want such advances.
Of these two cases, which would you deem more necessary to investigate, and in which case would you expect the victim(s) to receive greater support?
Seriously, which is worse in the realm of sexual harassment — unwanted sexual jokes or unwanted physical contact? I would imagine that the intelligent reader would demand greater support for those victims of unwanted physical contact. It just makes sense. Although these scenarios are limited in their portrayal of events, it is quite obvious to even the most cautious reader that the second scenario is the worse of the two situations.
As you may have figured out by now, the above cases are real. The first case you may recognize as being the case of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his run-in with Anita Hill. The second case is the case of President Bill Clinton.
It has already been agreed that the second scenario was the more heinous of the two, so all that's left to discover is what happened to the support groups that back victims of sexual harassment as described above.
We all know that the National Organization for Women prides itself on being the champion for women's rights and the protector of women's virtues. It is also widely known that NOW vehemently supported Anita Hill's highly questionable and unverifiable claims of sexual harassment by Thomas.
In fact, as I remember it, NOW jumped all over poor Clarence like a pack of voracious dogs on a three-legged cat. Of course, I was only a mere high schooler at the time, so what do I know? Having said all this, there is one blatantly important question that is begging to be asked: Why is NOW not supporting the victims of Clinton's alleged sexual harassment?
I dare say that the accusations against Clinton are at very least as reliable as Hill's claims. For crying out loud, Hill changed her story so many times she could've completed a book of fictional short stories. The women accusing Clinton of sexual harassment have stuck to their stories, which greatly multiplies the reliability of them. Come on NOW, I want to see some major support for these women against Clinton. Get off your rear ends, and support them in the same manner that you supported Hill.
Clinton already has admitted to having sex with Gennifer Flowers. If he did it with one of his accusers, then there's a good chance he did it with his other accusers. Where's the support for these alleged victims, NOW?
Friends, the only noteworthy reason NOW is so conspicuously silent concerning these allegations against Clinton is that it has set up a major double standard.
The unspoken standard boils down to this: Support any woman accusing a Republican — regardless of how ludicrous her story is, but do not support a woman against any Democrat whatsoever. This is because Democrats are our friends and spinelessly do what we tell them to do.
"What?" someone says. "How dare you make such a bold statement against NOW like that."
If you'll just calm down and think like rational human beings, you'll begin to realize that there may be truth to what I have just penned. Stop and think back to the Hill/Thomas incident. Now consider carefully the Clinton dilemma. What I've just claimed now is beginning to make a lot more sense, isn't it?
Despite consideration of all this, some of you may still be finding this pill a bit difficult to swallow. However, I want to take this opportunity to audaciously challenge any NOW member to provide a rock-solid explanation as to why Clinton's accusers are not receiving any support from them.
Don't give me some flimsy excuse like, "This is a vast, right-wing conspiracy," or some gibberish like that. Excuses like that just won't cut it with the American public. Don't expect any intelligent person to believe NOW would ascribe truth to the questionable testimony of a lone woman, but write off the testimonies of multiple women as lies. That would be absolutely foolish.
Having said all this, I want to see NOW providing a safe haven for the likes of Monica Lewinsky, Katherine Willey and the rest of the women bringing accusations against Slick Willy just like it supported Hill. Otherwise, they're just embracing an embarrassing double-standard of which no decent person would want to be a part.