Jackson Free Press

I will forevermore be mad at Bill Clinton for opening the door to the extreme wingnuts with his lying, cheating and cover-ups while in the White House. I truly blame in not a small part for the mess we have on our hands now and do not want to see him, or his wife, living in the White House again.

However, I like what he says here, as reported by the Associated Press:

Clinton, whose 2004 memoir "My Life" was a best seller, drew roaring applause during his speech from the several hundred people gathered in the Texas House chamber to kick off the 10th annual Texas Book Festival, an event started by first lady Laura Bush when her husband was governor.

"You can't say, ‘Please don't be mean to me. Please let me win sometimes.' Give me a break here," Clinton said. "If you don't want to fight for the future and you can't figure out how to beat these people then find something else to do."

There should be no slinking about wingnuts, worried that they're going to call you a name for talking back to them. The shame is in not getting idiots to call you names—a variation on Fannie Lou Hamer's saying that if the white supremacists are not calling you a communist, you're not doing your job.

Take back for freedom every chance you get.

Previous Comments

ID

171911

Comment

Well, I can understand the disappointment about Clinton, Donna. I share it, but at the same time I think we sometimes hold unrealistic expectations over elected officials not to have a human failing, a human life, issues, real everyday things like depression (Michael Dukakis), marital problems, etc. I still have to reiterate the phrase from the bumper sticker: "When Clinton lied, nobody died." Clinton's lies, ultimately, fell into a domain that--frankly--were between he and his wife and I still don't understand why the man getting a blowj*b behind closed doors (a Kennedy tradition) is somehow equated on the par with fabricating evidence that lead us into major wars that result in thousands of dead soldiers. This just in about falsified information that amp'd up the charge that led us into the Vietnam War. As far as idiots go, and dealing with them....Well, I kinda like the one I heard last night: "Don't argue with an idiot. If you do, you'll sink to the level of an idiot, and find yourself getting beaten by a wealth of experience."

Author

whateveryouwant

Date

2005-10-31T16:43:14-06:00

ID

171912

Comment

Excuse me? "getting a blowj*b behind closed doors" . First of all he was 54 (?) taking advantage of his powerful position with a young intern. But that's like comparing rope burns to a lynching. Every reporter that interviewed Juanita Broadrick walked away stunned and disgusted with good ole Bill. He raped her. Paula Jones, Kathleen Willy. But you good ole boys actually admire that, I think. I'm sick to death of so-called liberal men, who literally will die for the civil rights of some other men- but as far as a woman's right to be free of sexual violence, or an abusive ex husband- most liberal men could care less. That's Bill Clinton. Civil Rights as long as I get my b.j. Get real. And "When Clinton lied, nobody died". What? What about the civilian apartment houses that our Bill bombed in Bosnia? Those weren't water balloons. What about NAFTA, my friend? How many lost American jobs? How much environmental damage? That's our Bill and Al. Hypocrites. Republican Lite- that's Bill Clinton, and misogynist of the first degree.

Author

Towanda

Date

2005-11-02T08:19:52-06:00

ID

171913

Comment

The reference to "When Clinton lied, nobody died" was to the Lewinsky drama. Clearly Clinton dropped the ball on a number of other points, including letting white-collar criminals out of prison (whose wives had contributed to the Clinton campaign), while skipping over other individuals, such as Leonard Peltier -- the Oglala Lakota-Chippewa indigenous rights activist who has been in prison for 24+ years for a murder he did not commit. I'm not defending Clinton's actions behind closed doors...only suggesting that here we are in 2005, with an administration that is MORE than deserving of a major no-holds barred investigation into its criminal activity (if not traitorous), but hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars (that could have been used for feeding someone, or clothing someone, or doing research on HIV, etc.) was used in an investigation...all to arrive at the determination that Clinton was "waxing his cane" in the Oval Office. However, I don't buy for a skinny minute this "Oh, poor Monica" crap you're throwing out. Unless she's just a complete idiot...and every interview I've seen of her lends credence that she is actually very sophisticated in her "rubbing shoulders with powerful people and manipulating the scene" skills....then I can only see her in the light of the rest of her that and what she's done with it and classify her as a Consenting Adult.

Author

whateveryouwant

Date

2005-11-02T09:19:54-06:00

ID

171914

Comment

Of course you won't fault Bill's having sex with an intern. Would it were you, I presume? Power abuse is power abuse. She was very young, and he was the President. And I don't care for your cute little expressions like "waxing his cane." He raped Juanita Broadrick. Is W. a smirking chimp? A corrupt low-life? A member of a vulgar, tacky family? Yes. Vengeful, mean-spirited, whimps - Poppy, Bar. W. Neil, Jeb, Yuk. But Bill was a huge disappointment, and showed himself to be just as tawdry and silly as Scooter Libby's perverted novel. Instead of trying to make lemonade, why don't we focus on the future in the White House - someone who is actually strong, honorable, patriotic, intelligent, and compassionate, and at least discreet. (And don't dare compare someone of JFK's caliber to Bill Clinton . . .)

Author

Towanda

Date

2005-11-02T09:50:00-06:00

ID

171915

Comment

No. You can't presume, and you're also way off the mark with the "good ole boy" comment from before. You might want to do a little more research into JFK as well. Yes. Impeccable statesman, and I believe an impassioned humanitarian at the end of the day. But, like all of them...a shadow side, just as big, just as clandestine, just as impulse driven, and just as tied financially to some shady places and shady dealings. I don't pretend to be a Clinton expert, nor even a fan. This discussion started with a conversation regarding the Lewinsky piece and what I take issue with --in that particular instance-- is that it is only a one-sided issue of blame. That's what I was responding to. With every story, with every account, there is always some truth in it somewhere. I look for that thin line that lies somewhere in the middle because that's where the real story is. This is why I don't have doubt about some of what you're saying regarding Clinton's past. It's why I think that SOMETHING in what you're saying is true. But it's also why I don't doubt some reports that Lewinsky had her own version of "setting her sites" on what she wanted and that she wasn't just an unsuspecting victim, which the other people may have been. My own belief is that it was consensual, that her own hope was that it might lead somewhere (it certainly meant more to her), that in the final analysis she was probably used and tossed aside; in other words, jilted. So, yes, there is an abuse of position on his part, and perhaps a naievete on hers, but much as he knowingly engaged in....call it what you will....SHE ALSO knowingly stepped across the line. She wasn't drugged. She was just as complicit in her knowledge of the implications of what she was doing 1) with a boss 2) with another woman's husband and 3) with the President of the United States. Was he wrong? Yes. Was she wrong? Yes. The latter point is all I am saying that gets glossed over left and right. And, in the end, I don't care about his or her personal life. I care that tax dollars were used to dive into all of that. But, you are right. I agree this is old news. I'm watching Barack Obama.

Author

whateveryouwant

Date

2005-11-02T10:24:46-06:00

ID

171916

Comment

I am watching Barack, but cheering John Edwards. And, a good woman is long overdue, so I'm definitely watching for her, too. Barbara Jordan seemed ideal, and I admire much about Diane Feinstein.

Author

Towanda

Date

2005-11-02T10:38:36-06:00

ID

171917

Comment

P.S. John Kennedy was courageous, patriotic and DISCREET, meaning he had class, and that has no relationship with finances in meaning. Bill is a honky-tonk kinda guy - his past is much glossed over, as was his mom's, professionally and otherwise.

Author

Towanda

Date

2005-11-02T10:44:06-06:00

ID

171918

Comment

I'm hoping with so many Republicans starting to have their eyes opened about how their own party has been hijacked by a bunch of two-bit cowboys...that this will translate into a migration of Southern votes to the Democratic party, and an Obama/Edwards ticket might just pull it off -- African-American vote + Southern White vote. I also think in the case of both of them that what you see IS really what you get.

Author

whateveryouwant

Date

2005-11-02T10:53:48-06:00

ID

171919

Comment

I think John Edwards would make the best President. Obama v.p. maybe. I don't know enough about him. Gotta go out and play now. Enjoyed the conversation.

Author

Towanda

Date

2005-11-02T10:57:37-06:00

ID

171920

Comment

Where are all the men on this issue? Perhaps they're too smart and scared to jump in on this conversation considering the obvious talents of Chronos, Donna and Towanda. Since I'm bold and probably stupid, too (we shall see); let me say I love Clinton despite his failings, and understand how he can have such shortcomings. His great failing was never learning how to avoid or flee from his greatest temptation. Revern Billy Graham claims the key to walking upright is to avoid situations wherein you can fall. Show me a willing man the right woman can't get to, and I'll show you a man who doesn't like women. As far as I'm concerned he was the most intelligent and capable president we ever had. Though I don't condone the Monica incident or the others, since he was married, I do understand the temptation of a male to fall so easily into that situation. Would the Monica or other incidents be alright if he wasn't married? Excepting any forced sex (if there be any), of course. Clinton certainly opened the door, or made it easier, for the extreme wingnuts by his failings and attempted coverup. Clinton is a fighter despite his errors. The Democrats can learn a lot about courage and tenacity from him. Boy wouldn't I love to put a camera on those wingnuts to see what they do behind closed doors, too. I have little doubt they're the same or worse.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2005-11-02T12:31:07-06:00

ID

171921

Comment

Interesting that no man has defended what I said: that liberal men don't care about violence against women or abusive ex-husbands. Yet they volunteer for civil rights efforts for other men. What's wrong with this picture?

Author

Towanda

Date

2005-11-02T12:51:19-06:00

ID

171922

Comment

I'm probably very liberal, and I'm boldly and totally against violence or abuse against any women (or man). I couldn't even watch the movie, The Color Purple, for years because of the abuse of the female characters. I'm even against the willing exploitation of women in videos, strip clubs, prostitution houses, etc. But I happen to know that many don't consider themselves abused. Do you support my writing Hillary a long letter requesting that she leaves Bill immediately? Could you be more specific on what you're talking about with regard to condoning female abuse? I know many men who equate the rights of males and females the same without any male preference at all.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2005-11-02T13:06:16-06:00

ID

171923

Comment

Towanda, I think no man has responded to your statement because it's just plain wrong. Any sweeping judgment like that is wrong. That's like saying "all women want to get married and have kids." Why should anyone get into a discussion with you, when you lump "all men" into a single category? Not worth it. Men care, women care. Some do, some don't. I think it's possible to think that what Clinton did with Lewinsky was less destructive to the country than some other presidential lies, and still think that rape and spousal abuse are wrong. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Author

kate

Date

2005-11-02T13:08:48-06:00

ID

171924

Comment

Towanda, your post marks the first time I can recall hearing the name Juanita Broadrick. I suppose I tuned out most claims regarding Clinton because there were so many of them--witness the accusation that he murdered Vince Foster, for example, for which there was never any real evidence. So you might be asking me: You're doubting the testimony of a woman who accused a man of rape? When that man is Bill Clinton, yes, my initial reaction is skepticism, because he has been accused of EVERYTHING. But that skepticism isn't set in stone. When I Google up her name, I see a whole lot of op-eds and right-wing web sites. Those do me no good. Show me a good article and I'll read it. And your comment to Chronos about what he would do with interns if he were president is, to put it gently, uncharitable. When he uses those ridiculous sexual metaphors, he's talking about Lewinsky, so clicking them together with the Broadrick story is patently unfair. But you know what? I'm not altogether sure that what Clinton did to Lewinsky wasn't a kind of rape, at least in the Dworkinian sense. Look at it this way: You're a 20-year-old woman, working for the most powerful man in the world. He can guarantee you a life beyond your wildest dreams. So thongs, cigars, musky adventures under the Oval Office desk--it all plays into that attempt to appease. If Clinton were the White House janitor, I'm pretty sure none of this would have happened. So yes, when we elect a man as president, we expect him to behave himself and not USE that power as leverage to have sex with female employees. The assumption by many men in the media is that Lewinsky was some jezebel who manipulated Clinton. No. It's not that Lewinsky was jezebel; it's that Clinton was Caligula. And I don't buy into the "he couldn't help it" excuse; OF COURSE he could help it. Yeah, maybe he was a sex addict. But how do you think he got that way? By doing the same schtick as a powerful man, and then governor, in Arkansas. He's a toad, and should be treated as such. And personally, I think he should have been impeached--not for lying about Lewinsky, but for letting Lewinsky under the desk to begin with. He knew better than that. Did Lewinsky? Oh, I'm sure she did. But her position is a lot more forgivable than his, because he was her ticket to a great life, the life she wanted, and she was just his sexual conquest, a whore to be discarded like all the others. Clinton COULD NOT have done what he did with women if he was not a misogynist. So yes, the misogynist label fits. Hillary should have had him neutered after they had Chelsea. And Kennedy doesn't get off the hook, either, as far as I'm concerned. He should have also known better. That said, were they great presidents? I'm not sure what the word "great" should mean, but they got some really good things done. They also capitulated in ways they shouldn't have--Kennedy is responsible for U.S. intervention in Vietnam, which is no small gaffe, and Clinton stood by while thousands were wiped out in the Rwandan genocide. Oh, and Clinton has NO credibility as an anti-war pundit on Iraq. He bombed the place regularly, and enforced sanctions that wiped out a half million children. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that he's directly responsible for more Iraqi deaths than Bush is. It's just that he did it quietly (to us; I'd imagine the bombs were pretty loud to the folks they landed on), without putting our troops in danger. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-11-02T13:12:19-06:00

ID

171925

Comment

Kate, I'm ignoring the accusations in Towanda's post and focusing on her more specific points because I learned, a long time ago, that you can't argue with hate. I confront it when it's directed at underprivileged groups, but when it's directed at privileged groups like men, whites, or heterosexuals, I just grin and bear it. It all comes down to choosing my battles, and that's not the hill I want to die on. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-11-02T13:27:29-06:00

ID

171926

Comment

(Thanks for backing me up, though... I do appreciate it. Didn't mean that as a snub of your argument; it means a lot more for women to back men up than it does for men to back men up.)

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-11-02T13:28:59-06:00

ID

171927

Comment

(More to the point, thanks for backing RAY up, since my ADD was in full tilt and I completely missed their last exchange. Oy, gevalt. Towanda, that WAS nasty. Do you LIKE Republican administrations? Because if this is how folks on the left treat each other, we'd better get used to them. Right-wing Republicans, stretching out as far as the eye can see.)

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-11-02T13:32:49-06:00

ID

171928

Comment

Just for the record, the "ridiculous sexual metaphors" I posted were simply re-statements of things that were said by various colorful figures during the Starr investigations. I can't remember if it was a Jay Leno, a Bill Maher, an O'Reilly, or just bar-talk of people who were up in arms about the whole thing. But, clearly, I'm also not a Puritan. I personally didn't respond to Towanda's comments about liberal men because it was nothing but a big piece of bait with a rusty hook behind it....I was born on a Thursday...not last Thursday. As always, I agree with points from TH, and disagree with others. In some ways, we have Clinton actions and inactions to thank for 9/11, as much as idiot Bush's disregard for Richard Clarke's thorough and nearly prophetic report on the matter. The threat of al Qaeda solidified during the Clinton years precisely because of things he did as Commander-in-Chief...., but on that level I don't see it as a Republican or Democrat issue. It's an American policy issue, which is at times understated and at other times heavily pronounced in its Zionist orientations. We reap what we sow; always have, always will. Personal dimensions aside, I don't think anyone can argue that Clinton was the best President we've ever had economically, creating an economic surplus, funding social services. Bush, resoundingly, has been the worst...including slashing Veteran's benefits, Medicaid, food stamps. And while Clinton certainly didn't win any points with Mama Gaia on his environmental record, I highly doubt his policies were as divisive and destructive as the current regime... So, great...none of them are spotless. Some are letches, some operate shadow prisons where prisoners of war ("enemy combatants") are tortured off record and even murdered...it still dumps us all in the same place. Sometimes I find my mind floating back to the likes of Ross Perot and wondering what shape the country would be in economically if he had gotten a hold of the reins. At other times I wonder what state our foreign policy would be in if Dennis Kucinich were given a chance. And, sometimes I just weep for Carter.

Author

whateveryouwant

Date

2005-11-02T13:43:23-06:00

ID

171929

Comment

The White House Janitor comment is funny and sad. Janitors need love too. Clinton didn't make or manufacture himself. He can't totally help it that he loves women. He can, however, control himself if he truly wants to. He can also get counseling if he needs it. Clinton was wrong for having a relationship with Monica. No doubt he abused the position. One of the things about my past I'm most proud of is that I never dated students when I was a college teacher for a couple of years despite all the propositions and others doing so.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2005-11-02T13:48:45-06:00

ID

171930

Comment

Towanda- I didn't say anything because I "know" Chronos...and he's practically a woman. I mean, in his support of women's rights and abuse towards women. So, I think its a wrong call in that case. As per liberal men not caring about violence towards women? I think there are a few that "get it". I think there are more who will never "get it". By "get it", I mean being a woman and the socialization and power struggles that come with it. In fact, I think some of us are so used to fighting for every little bit of success that we have, we forget how to relate without bashing heads. Then, someone calls us a "bitch". Then someone dies. ;) Its neverending, is it?

Author

Lori G

Date

2005-11-02T13:50:31-06:00

ID

171931

Comment

OH Tom and Kater, really. Let's see . . .how many MEN work to end domestic violence ? how many MEN work to end sexual violence against women . . . ? You can pretend that everything is fine in the neighborhood . . . la di da. Of course I made a sweeping statement, because after years of observation, I have concluded that until MEN give a damn about the objectification and brutalization of women, it won't change. And because I expect more from someone who calls themself "progressive" or "liberal" or "Democrat" or "civil rights advocate"- but objectifies women just like Bill or Larry Flynt- it disgusts me and makes me angry. Men tend to identify with the wrong person. And women, who suck up to their oppressors, do the same. Many men get involved in ending the suffering of other MEN. But again, show me the men who are involved in stopping violence against women. And, I contend that Bill was not great, we've just become accustomed to being grateful for crumbs from the table. Surely you don't think Bill Clinton is the equal of John Kennedy? Too much. Ever since Reagan was elected this country has taken a nosedive into the toilet.

Author

Towanda

Date

2005-11-02T13:53:13-06:00

ID

171932

Comment

Interesting that no man has defended what I said: that liberal men don't care about violence against women or abusive ex-husbands. Yet they volunteer for civil rights efforts for other men. What's wrong with this picture? What's wrong with this particular picture is that your statement is an offensive stereotype that has no place in an intelligent discussion. I know plenty of liberal men who care about violence against women -- so that shoots down your argument right there. Truly, Towanda, do not make such sweeping statements on this site. It has no more a place here than "all blacks are lazy" or "all liberals are communists." And it makes you sound less intelligent than you are. However, if you want to discuss why you do not believe that *enough* liberal men care about these issues, have at it. That's way different from what you're saying. You're just going to turn off good people with such tactics. I personally believe that not enough liberals would face the seriousness of what Clinton did, for instance. I suspect you agree with that. I don't buy your argument, chronos, that expecting Bill Clinton not to allow a barely legal intern to perform oral sex on him while having a discussion with a congressman (right?) about governmental business with his family in the same building is somehow an "unrealistic expectation." I think it's a damn straight realistic expectation, and I believe that Democrats who are not willing to call him out on such on-the-job irresponsibility (not to mention the subsequent lies and word games to cover his a$$) have hurt their party's standing mightily -- and opened the door for these crony-magnums who rode in promising a morality revolution. Does that somehow excuse a damn thing these guys have done? Hell, no. I'm perfectly capable of holding both Clinton and Bush responsible for their idiocies without justifying Clinton's actions because Bush's are worse. Bush's actions are worse, and yes many people have died as a result who would still be with us. But smart Americans are perfectly capable of holding them both responsible for their actions, and must, in my view. I would never vote for Bill Clinton for anything again. It's kind of like being cheated on ó I don't trust him now and believe he has little integrity. That does not somehow magically mean that I believe that Bush's actions can't be worse. I'm simply not that shallow of a thinker to believe you must support anyone because of their party. The bottom line truth is: I would have wanted a Republican who did exactly what Clinton did hung out to dry, and I'm not going to be a hypocrite about it. The same logic should apply to Republicans now ó what would you have thought had a Democratic administration outed a CIA agent to cover up lies that led to a war? You should think hard about it.

Author

ladd

Date

2005-11-02T13:54:03-06:00

ID

171933

Comment

No one's pretending anything, Towanda. Cut it out if you want to keep posting here.

Author

ladd

Date

2005-11-02T13:55:24-06:00

ID

171934

Comment

And for the record, I don't like Kennedys, either. Talk about men with no respect for women.

Author

ladd

Date

2005-11-02T13:56:13-06:00

ID

171935

Comment

I am unrependant. I asked a fair question. Show me the men who work to end violence against women. It shouldn't take long.

Author

Towanda

Date

2005-11-02T13:59:23-06:00

ID

171936

Comment

err, repentant.

Author

Towanda

Date

2005-11-02T14:00:13-06:00

ID

171937

Comment

I don't care whether you're repentant or not. By its very definition, a generalization about "all" of anyone is not a "fair" statement. And it shuts down discussion. You're trolling. Last call.

Author

ladd

Date

2005-11-02T14:00:57-06:00

ID

171938

Comment

And I should add that there may be some Kennedys who respect women -- however, the track record of the ones in power have not impressed me, starting with JFP and his poppa.

Author

ladd

Date

2005-11-02T14:02:05-06:00

ID

171939

Comment

I mean JFK. ;-)

Author

ladd

Date

2005-11-02T14:02:23-06:00

ID

171940

Comment

WEll, if we're talking about Presidents, I guess it's hard to find one who respected women particularly. Maybe Jimmeh. Comparing JFK to Bill, as a President, I take JFK. The more I read about him, and the older I get, the more impressed with JFK I become.

Author

Towanda

Date

2005-11-02T14:07:11-06:00

ID

171941

Comment

I promise, Towanda, there are many men who support women right's wholeheartedly. I'm sorry that experience or reality has somehow escaped your world. Perhaps you should look beyond your present enviroment. Good luck.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2005-11-02T14:10:18-06:00

ID

171942

Comment

Did Lewinsky? Oh, I'm sure she did. But her position is a lot more forgivable than his, because he was her ticket to a great life, the life she wanted, and she was just his sexual conquest, a w**** to be discarded like all the others. Clinton COULD NOT have done what he did with women if he was not a misogynist. So yes, the misogynist label fits. Forgivable on what basis? Morally? Intellectually? With all due respect, the idea that Clinton was Lewinsky's "ticket to a great life" is pure fantasy (if even that) on Lewinsky's part and an outright falsity on Clinton's part. Are you assuming that Clinton made some promises to Lewinsky to that effect ("great life" etc.)? In the absence of some explicit agreement or arrangement between them outlining what their relationship was or would be, I'm afraid the default answer is the "whore to be discarded" situation rather than the "ticket to a great life" one. Any woman who becomes involved with a married man is charged with that knowledge, whether the guy is a President or a bum (or, as here, both).

Author

allred

Date

2005-11-02T14:10:54-06:00

ID

171943

Comment

Towanda...your statement was: liberal men don't care about violence against women In addition to stopping two rapes in-progress and almost-in-progress on the streets of Washington D.C., I also had a year during a number of years in Colorado as a counselor where a vast majority of my clients that year were women survivors of abuse of one kind or another. As a trained counselor I got to know SEVERAL male counselors who are impassioned about ending violence against PEOPLE...be that women, indigenous people, or children. I think I understand your point, but when you state it so across-the-board you make it sound like you don't know that many people or are unaware of whole communities and organizations of people that include many men working for the alleviation and prevention of suffering to women. Bottom line re: Clinton...my only point is that if we look through the lens of compassion which requires that we take into account the larger history of a person, Clinton's actions, whether driven by addiction, unprocessed energy from his own sexual abuse (my theory), or whatever, can't be equated on the same level as this administration's intentional misleading of the country, 2,014 dead U.S. soldiers, etc. Yes. I'm all for holding leaders accountable...do we need to be reminded that Clinton WAS impeached? That he did appear on television and confessed...What else is required of him? Kennedy...had some good points, did some good things, but--still I say--there is still yet-to-be-revealed information about the shadowy background of his life in office, and on that level I do equate Kennedy and Clinton.

Author

whateveryouwant

Date

2005-11-02T14:18:03-06:00

ID

171944

Comment

Ray, I'm sure you are a great person. I'm not talking about "supporting women's rights." I'm talking about working to end violence against women (and girls). Do you realize how COMMON rape is, and incest is probably the most common rape of women and children. I'll bet that a woman or girl is raped every minute in the good ole USA. And I'll guess that a woman is beaten every minute. How about "domestic violence"? We're talking broken bones, bloody scenes with lots of crying and begging to stop, and yes, rape and sodomy. And it's not a one-time event. Hubby or boyfriend likes to do it repeatedly. But somehow it's MOSTLY (I guess 95% and that's generous) women who work to end this madness. It is a very sad state of affairs- in the real world, Ray.

Author

Towanda

Date

2005-11-02T14:19:41-06:00

ID

171945

Comment

Rock on, chronos! and Allred! Gotta run.

Author

Towanda

Date

2005-11-02T14:24:50-06:00

ID

171946

Comment

Towanda writes: But somehow it's MOSTLY (I guess 95% and that's generous) women who work to end this madness. But based on the logic of your earlier post, the world would be a better place if the alleged 5% of anti-domestic violence workers who happen to be men just dropped dead, because they're men, and ergo part of the problem. Towanda, I don't mind if people hate me for who I am. Seriously. Go right ahead if it makes you feel better. But don't try to pretend that what you're saying is rational, because bigotry by definition isn't. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-11-02T14:26:58-06:00

ID

171947

Comment

Actually, the official statistics are every two minutes a woman is sexually assaulted in the U.S. There are, on average, 366, 940 rapes per year (estimate), with only 1/3rd of them being officially reported and treated in the same timeframe as the assault occurs. Most sexual assaults go unreported. Clearly, Towanda, it is an epidemic that is swept under the rug in this country, and in others, such as Britain.

Author

whateveryouwant

Date

2005-11-02T14:29:22-06:00

ID

171948

Comment

Buck, I'm describing Lewinsky's point of view, and not necessarily the reality of the situation. The leader of the free world has immense power; if you're gonna kiss a butt, that's the one to kiss. Clinton knew this and used the fact to exploit Lewinsky--then ditched her when she became politically inconvenient. For him, she was just a collection of disposable orifices. I'm not clear on how Kennedy is supposed to be any better in this department, but whatever. He's dead, and he was young and good looking. I guess that makes it all okay. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-11-02T14:29:35-06:00

ID

171949

Comment

...and I care about it.

Author

whateveryouwant

Date

2005-11-02T14:30:28-06:00

ID

171950

Comment

Alright. Here's where I get in. How many men would it take to change your mind? I work with traumatized children..and I do that work side by side with three men who also contribute to the effort....and one of them is EVEN A REPUBLICAN. (Yeah, we make fun of him very loudly in the office all the time) So, the statement just doesn't hold. Oh yeah...its ever two and a half minutes

Author

Lori G

Date

2005-11-02T14:32:24-06:00

ID

171951

Comment

i was working off old stats, ali. thanks. Okay. Well, that was the least pleasant conversation I've had this week. Now I need a drink.

Author

whateveryouwant

Date

2005-11-02T14:34:38-06:00

ID

171952

Comment

You mean the one we had concerning that RASH you have wasn't as unpleasant?? ;) i was working off old stats, ali. ---I"m a fiend with the google, man. Towanda, My question still stands. How many men would it take for you to be satisfied? Or rather, how many would have to show you actually fight for women's rights for you to understand that your blanket statement isn't true?

Author

Lori G

Date

2005-11-02T14:36:37-06:00

ID

171953

Comment

Yeah, Ali. How's yours clearing up? Is the cream working? ;) hee hee

Author

whateveryouwant

Date

2005-11-02T14:39:01-06:00

ID

171954

Comment

After pondering Towanda comments concerning a number or of the names of men working to end domestic or sexual violence against women, I sadly conclude I don't know any men of any great or national note doing that. I do know there are many prosecutors around this country who are prosecuting sexual predators, rapists, and the likes. I thank God for that. I admit I was bias in favor of Clinton against Monica. Not based on the gender of either but instead based on the fact that he was an unusual southerner with enormous potential. I hated to see him destroy all the possibilities for the future due to his one big problem he never faced or conquered. I'm still not sure I believe Monica was victimized.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2005-11-02T14:47:11-06:00

ID

171955

Comment

Ray, you may be right; I wasn't there. But I still feel like she kind of was. And I know what you mean about Clinton. Greatest Democratic campaigner of our generation, no question. I got goosebumps watching his DNC speech last year. AMAZINGLY talented. But also, I think, an incredibly dishonest misogynist who has sold out more times than $5 Beanie Babies on eBay. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-11-02T14:51:09-06:00

ID

171956

Comment

Just another perspective, but for many male social workers etc., the field of working in/with female victims of domestic violence is pretty much off limits based upon transference/countertransference issues, i.e. associating the male worker with the role of abuser, and the need for a "safe space." This is of course talking about direct service work. Many people go into social work because of a need to pursue social justice issues, and I don't think I hadn't responded earlier to your comment 'cause I didn't see it. For me the sex of a person is immaterial. Violence is Violence. And I would rather have TEN Bill Clinton's getting off in the White House than one George W. Bush not.

Author

MANGUM

Date

2005-11-02T15:49:01-06:00

ID

171957

Comment

and i don't think you would find a single male social worker who doesn't "care about violence against women and abusive ex-husbands" to finish my thought.

Author

MANGUM

Date

2005-11-02T15:54:16-06:00

ID

171958

Comment

Yeah...what he said.

Author

whateveryouwant

Date

2005-11-02T15:56:21-06:00