New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Lewinsky

Arkady said:
For partisan political reasons,conservatives here like to pretend that Bill Clinton took advantage of Monica Lewinsky. Lewinsky never saw it that way. If you'd like to understand her view about who actually took advantage of her, you can read her own words.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/...nsky-roger-ailess-dream-was-my-nightmare.html
Click to expand...
Ark, dissolving the ancient liberal myths of sexual harassment in the workplace and the power structure that implicitly puts demands on the less powerful.
Anything for a Clinton I guess.

File under "oh yeah, that's different!"

http://www.nationalforum.com/Electr...sment-An Abuse of Power IJMBA V13 N1 2010.pdf

You can understand how sexual harassment surfaces in organizations if you analyze it in terms of power (Guerrero, 2011; Landy, 2010). This appears to be true whether the harassment comes from a supervisor, a coworker, or an employee (Robbins & Judge, 2011). Furthermore, sexual harassment is more likely to occur when there are large power differences. The supervisor-employee dyad best characterizes an unequal distribution of power. Legitimate power gives the supervisor the capacity to reward and coerce a lower-ranking employee. That is, supervisors control resources that most employees want, such as favorable performance evaluations, salary increases, promotions, and the like. Consequently, the less powerful individual is put in a difficult situation.
 
Dino said:
Ark, dissolving the ancient liberal myths of sexual harassment in the workplace and the power structure that implicitly puts demands on the less powerful.
Anything for a Clinton I guess.

File under "oh yeah, that's different!"

http://www.nationalforum.com/Electronic Journal Volumes/Lunenburg, Fred C. Sexual Harassment-An Abuse of Power IJMBA V13 N1 2010.pdf

You can understand how sexual harassment surfaces in organizations if you analyze it in terms of power (Guerrero, 2011; Landy, 2010). This appears to be true whether the harassment comes from a supervisor, a coworker, or an employee (Robbins & Judge, 2011). Furthermore, sexual harassment is more likely to occur when there are large power differences. The supervisor-employee dyad best characterizes an unequal distribution of power. Legitimate power gives the supervisor the capacity to reward and coerce a lower-ranking employee. That is, supervisors control resources that most employees want, such as favorable performance evaluations, salary increases, promotions, and the like. Consequently, the less powerful individual is put in a difficult situation.
Click to expand...
Yes, the failure of right wingers to understand the very simple concept of consent is a well-known issue. A Democrat has a consensual affair with someone at work, where she's the self-described aggressor in the relationship -- that's damnable harassment by him. But a Republican politician can't resist kissing and grabbing the pussies of his coworkers -- that's just boys being boys.

But my point here wasn't to dig up the right-wing inability to comprehend the idea of consent yet again. It was to call attention to Lewinsky's own thoughts on the ordeal she went through. You'd think that after all these years of pretending they gave a shit about her, when that gave them an angle for a cynical attack on a political enemy, right-wingers would at least be willing to continue the pretense long enough to read what she has to say about what she went through back then. But they aren't even committed enough to keep up the pretense that long. Her feelings don't matter to them even a little. She's just a prop on which to drape their rhetoric.
 
Arkady said:
For partisan political reasons,conservatives here like to pretend that Bill Clinton took advantage of Monica Lewinsky. Lewinsky never saw it that way. If you'd like to understand her view about who actually took advantage of her, you can read her own words.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/...nsky-roger-ailess-dream-was-my-nightmare.html
Click to expand...
It wasn't about Clinton or Lewinsky. It was about his position of power. Because of that, yes. Clinton did take advantage of Lewinsky. Doesn't matter how she saw it. It is what it is.
 
Arkady said:
Yes, the failure of right wingers to understand the very simple concept of consent is a well-known issue. A Democrat has a consensual affair with someone at work, where she's the self-described aggressor in the relationship -- that's damnable harassment by him. But a Republican politician can't resist kissing and grabbing the pussies of his coworkers -- that's just boys being boys.

But my point here wasn't to dig up the right-wing inability to comprehend the idea of consent yet again. It was to call attention to Lewinsky's own thoughts on the ordeal she went through. You'd think that after all these years of pretending they gave a shit about her, when that gave them an angle for a cynical attack on a political enemy, right-wingers would at least be willing to continue the pretense long enough to read what she has to say about what she went through back then. But they aren't even committed enough to keep up the pretense that long. Her feelings don't matter to them even a little. She's just a prop on which to drape their rhetoric.
Click to expand...
Suuure ,I should care about an opportunist's ex post facto defense of a known womanizer's advances, while she trashes the legacy of a deceased conservative man yet to be laid in the ground.
That sounds like an adequate use of my time!

Sometimes all good sense is removed before posting, ain't it?
 
Arkady said:
Didn't bother to read what she wrote, did you?
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter what she wrote. Her opinion is irrelevant. When a person (male or female) in a powerful position has some sort of illicit relationship with someone beneath them, they are taking advantage of that person.
Thomas Jefferson's relationship with a slave woman - taking advantage.
Teacher with student - taking advantage.
President with intern - taking advantage.

It is what it is regardless of anyone's opinion otherwise.
 
Colorforms said:
It was never about the sex. It was about the lie.
Click to expand...
That was always a silly distinction. Any man who decides to have an affair has decided to lie about it. So that's a distinction without a difference. And of all the lies a politician could tell is, lying about where he consensually puts his pecker in his free time is up there with lying about his golf handicap, in terms of how consequential it is for the American people.

It was NEVER about the lie. Republicans and conservatives cheerily embraced Donald Trump, the most shameless liar in American political history. Lies don't trouble them in the least. It was about a bunch of fake puritans working themselves into a lather about the president having some action on the side, because they couldn't find anything better to complain about.
 
Jen said:
Doesn't matter what she wrote. Her opinion is irrelevant. When a person (male or female) in a powerful position has some sort of illicit relationship with someone beneath them, they are taking advantage of that person.
Thomas Jefferson's relationship with a slave woman - taking advantage.
Teacher with student - taking advantage.
President with intern - taking advantage.

It is what it is regardless of anyone's opinion otherwise.
Click to expand...
Have you ever wonder why the media is taking this story up and bring an ancient topic back to life?
 
Jen said:
It wasn't about Clinton or Lewinsky. It was about his position of power. Because of that, yes. Clinton did take advantage of Lewinsky. Doesn't matter how she saw it. It is what it is.
Click to expand...
Since I'm a decent person, I believe it does matter how she saw it. If you want to deny women agency in their own sex lives, I just can't get on board with something that disgusting.
 
Arkady said:
That was always a silly distinction. Any man who decides to have an affair has decided to lie about it. So that's a distinction without a difference. And of all the lies a politician could tell is, lying about where he consensually puts his pecker in his free time is up there with lying about his golf handicap, in terms of how consequential it is for the American people.

It was NEVER about the lie. Republicans and conservatives cheerily embraced Donald Trump, the most shameless liar in American political history. Lies don't trouble them in the least. It was about a bunch of fake puritans working themselves into a lather about the president having some action on the side, because they couldn't find anything better to complain about.
Click to expand...


Lying before a grand jury under oath is still an impeachable offence, whether you don't see a difference between sex and lying to a grand jury about having sex or you do.
 
Jen said:
Doesn't matter what she wrote. Her opinion is irrelevant. When a person (male or female) in a powerful position has some sort of illicit relationship with someone beneath them, they are taking advantage of that person.
Thomas Jefferson's relationship with a slave woman - taking advantage.
Teacher with student - taking advantage.
President with intern - taking advantage.

It is what it is regardless of anyone's opinion otherwise.
Click to expand...
Her opinion is highly relevant. Only she knows if she entered that relationship freely or feeling some sort of pressure based on the power dynamic.

If she was saying what you --as a hate-addled right-winger-- wanted to believe, you would of course think what she said was relevant. You'd be trumpeting her words from the rooftops. What she wrote would then be the very centerpiece of your whole Clinton-as-predator propaganda package. And if I then said what she thought was irrelevant, you'd see me as being every bit as vile, for holding that opinion, as I see you for holding yours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top