Wow... The Slut Shaming On Monica Lewinsky... Is Eye Opening...

[WillyT]

Because... ya know... men just can't.... help themselves...

[villager]

1. You mean by the third way/DLC defenders? Yeah, eye-opening indeed...

Are there, perhaps, two sets of rules at this site?

[TrollBuster9090]

35. As I said below, I'm pretty sure that's the GOP strategy. Democrats currently enjoy favorability

with women. Want to destroy it overnight? Just throw Lawinsky out there, and watch all the Democrats turn into Rush Limbaugh in their defense of Bill, just in time for the mid-terms. Seems to be working pretty well so far.

[distantearlywarning]

2. Nobody has said this yet.

Holding Monica Lewinsky accountable for her own choices does not necessarily equal letting Bill Clinton off the hook. He sucks. She sucks (literally, apparently). They both suck.

Hillary was the true victim here, not that nasty slut in the blue dress.

[mike_c]

4. see #3....

I believe that was your misogynistic little gem that I had the distinct pleasure of voting to hide.

[distantearlywarning]

5. Thanks so much.

Really appreciate that. Glad to know that DU supports adultery.

If I call Bill Clinton a slut, will we then be able to speak the truth about Monica? Because I'd be happy to do that.

[LisaLynne]

8. Not indulging in sexist name-called does not equal support for adultery.

But nice try at a straw man argument!

[mike_c]

9. well, six jurors didn't support bald-faced misogyny....

I don't give a rat's buttocks about "adultery." Consenting adults and all that. No body's business but theirs.

[Maedhros]

34. Oh, you're just TOO precious!

/ignore list.

[Demonaut]

17. omg....................

[pa28]

6. Irony just jumped off the golden gate bridge.

[arcane1]

30. My mom convinced me that the Clintons had an open relationship.

Who am I to judge?

[Agschmid]

40. +1 We will never know, nor should we know what the private aspects of anyone's relationship is.

[LadyHawkAZ]

45. Gee, I just can't imagine why nobody said it?

[liberal N proud]

53. Hillary is the GOP target with the reappearance of Lewinsky

[riqster]

55. Bingo.

[Dorian Gray]

67. Your last line

UGH. UGH!

Yuck.

[NCTraveler]

80. You are a huge part of todays problem when it comes to discourse about these issues.

Please shut your fucking mouth and try listening for a little while. That is how learning happens, and you are in desperate need.

[mike_c]

3. just had the pleasure of voting to hide one of those posts....

I hope it stays dead, i.e. that the other jurors agree.

[hrmjustin]

7. What were people saying?

[Le Taz Hot]

10. When the hell did all the reich-wingers

infiltrate this board?

Last week it was anti-gummit, I'm-gunna-shoot-you-if-you-come-on-my-property bullshit and now slut-shaming.

When the HELL did we turn into Free Republic?

[WillyT]

12. Great Question...

[Squinch]

82. I don't know when it happened, but we sure are in the thick of Freeperland now!

You can't avoid the posts. If you put everyone who spews right wing "this person's moralality offends me" crap on ignore, you'll never see another subthread again.

[madinmaryland]

13. Maybe you should change the television channel you watch off of Fox Noise.

[Squinch]

83. You misunderstand. It's happening right here in our own DU backyard. There are

multiple threads where they are coming out of the woodwork.

[Scootaloo]

14. Did I misssomething?

Is it 1998 again? Ohhhh noooo...

[Agschmid]

41. We are having a 1999 dance party in the Lounge... just FYI.

Everyone is invited!

[Violet_Crumble]

51. It's 1998 again? Awesome! I get to see Pearl Jam live this year!

That Yield tour's going to be amazing! But I'm sad knowing it'll be the last time I see a real mosh pit and from this point on I'll start feeling old

[scarletwoman]

15. Well, apparently Monica couldn't help herself, either.

Not sure what your point is. She was a willing participant, wasn't she? Or are we supposed to think that she had no independent agency?

[Demonaut]

18. Linda Tripp..................this is the asshole in the mix

[snot]

16. I consider myself a staunch feminist,

but not everything boils down to the black and white terms being hurled around here lately.

People are complicated, and we all make mistakes. What's important about the Lewinsky scandal is that it should never have been taken seriously as grounds for impeachment.

[el_bryanto]

47. This is correct.

Sums up what I'm thinking pretty well.

Bryant

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

60. I would add one thing...

That this is clearly just an attempt by certain people to further tarnish Hillary (via Bill).

This is not about feminism -- it's about the 2016 election cycle.

[el_bryanto]

61. There's probably a number of reasons

But that's definitely one of them.

Bryant

[rudolph the red]

19. Didn't he already say that he did it because he could?

Seems like he owned up.

[Lancero]

20. Especially this post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4918340

Which was, by vote of 2-5, left to stand.

I'd love to have a gander at the jurys opinion for this ruling. Hopefully they only voted to keep it due to not knowing the meaning behind the posters choice of words, but given the rampant misogyny in that thread I wouldn't be surprised if the 5 shared similar sexist opinions.

[Squinch]

84. Well, poor Bill. He was helpless, and unable to withstand her wiles.

It HAD to have been ALL her fault.

Or so goes the new DU ethos.

[RainDog]

21. I think I'll have to add "Lewinsky" to my hide words

...and maybe "Clinton" too.

[winter is coming]

42. +1. I think the variations of "pit bull" could use some company. n/t

[TorchTheWitch]

22. the *woman-shaming of Rielle Hunter with John Edwards was way worse

This kind of filth never surprises me on DU. Never surprises me either that most of it comes from other women. Women have always been conditioned to despise and blame "The Other Woman" for centuries. And men who cheat like it that way.

* - I had to edit this post because I really hate the expression "slut-shaming" since it defines a woman as a "slut". and I hate that expression, too. I cringed when I typed it and couldn't stand leaving it like that. I don't want to have this expression I so dislike to become normal for me just because I see it here all the time and by the most staunch of feminists.

[RainDog]

23. I saw it when Snowden's girlfriend

was trashed - by women. It made me sick to see it.

I think the coarse reality is that it's about politics, for the most part, and rarely about a particular person.

iow, there's rarely any real ethical issue - it's just who people can attack.

[TorchTheWitch]

26. the course reality is that women are raised to do this

And to the benefit of the men in their life. It hasn't got squat to do with politics. This is what women are still raised to believe. Woman are much more critical of other women even when it let's the men in their life off the hook. I hear the most harsh criticisms and sexist expressions from women talking about other women. It's one of the reasons I've always felt more comfortable in the company of men. In my experience, men don't talk about women in sexist ways when me or other women are around, but women do.

Women happily criticize other women for the most nitpicky things... their clothes, their body, their hair, their make up or lack thereof, the way they talk, the things they say, the way they move, anything at all about how they look... everything. There are/where a few posters here that used to adore criticizing every single thing that Laura Bush wore (as if something like that even matters) all the damn time here. They're probably still on my ignore list - it drove me batty.

[RainDog]

31. Sadly, I've seen this a lot too

It's what first put me off some, well, mostly someone here at DU who thought she was slut shaming someone but had the wrong person... and saw this repeatedly.

not to get into it in any real way - but that happened to me here when talking about the reason some feminists opposed the MacKinnon/Dworkin attempt to censor via civil rights. Nothing I said had anything to do with me. It was all about the issue of feminism's past history of combatting censorship (for birth control information in the 1800s till the 1900s, for instance), and someone snarked that I only wanted to wear fuck me shoes.

yeah.

That's why I generally avoid certain people/issues - and have put those who did these things back on ignore.

So, yeah, I know this from my experience here. I didn't start it - but I will give it back if they go there.

I also have had quite a few male friends in my life but it's because we're often interested in some of the same things. When I find a female that shares those interests, I'm thrilled.

But, knowing quite a few guy friends - they also gossip. They just don't try to cut down women when they do, around me, because they know I won't put up with it.

I always heard the expression that small minds discuss people. Great minds discuss ideas. So, when I see that sort of thing - I just remember that expression (and, yes, I have hidden posts/ignored people who seemed to only want to discuss people or slogans and not issues.)

If you want to discuss issues, however, you have to be willing to not insult others if you want them to hear you - tho I have insulted others, no doubt- but that's not my sop.

[el_bryanto]

48. Do you have a PhD in Womanology?

Such insight.

"They're all like that."

Bryant

[JI7]

24. Rielle Hunter was a piece of shit, but not because of the affair with edwards

but edwards was a bigger piece of shit

[TorchTheWitch]

27. funny, I never heard a thing about her here other than that affair

or having something to do with that affair, or anything that wasn't the result of woman-shaming her. If not for the affair nobody would have known anything about her or cared. Every single bit of criticism about her stemmed from that affair.

[Bluenorthwest]

71. John Edwards was a lying, hypocritical bag of bigotry. Several people knew this, Hunter and Mrs

Edwards as well as the campaign runners. All of the deserve ultimate scorn as far as I'm concerned starting with John, the primary offender but also including all of them who nodded along and let him abuse and attack good families with his bullshit 'I have Baptist traditional views of marriage, it is a sacrament for one man and one woman' anti gay rhetoric, which he did daily. Liz nodded along live on stage. She knew better, but she wanted that win, so she sold out good people and allowed then to be verbally attacked for her benefit. A terrible thing to do. John is scum and he had both male and female accomplices in his hateful attacks on others.
Had he not been a grandstanding self serving bigot, I'd not have given a flying fuck about where he took a flying fuck. But he stood on stages in MY Party shouting that he was holy and gay people were defective in God's eyes while his 'wife' said amen and his 'fling' stood in the wings. None of these people are worth a plug nickel.

[TorchTheWitch]

75. well, I wasn't talking about John

or concealing the affair. I agree with you about all that, but I was talking about the way Rielle was treated here as "The Other Woman".

[NCTraveler]

81. She put large amounts of information out there about herself.

Her own words. Many of her own words. Before and after the affair.

[Bigmack]

25. OK.. time for me to show off my tinfoil yarmulke...

I have always believed that Monica was a plant.

Bill Clinton was set up with a honey trap, and he fell for it.

I'll bet they trolled (fishing term) every bait they could find past him, until he finally bit.

(Do not try to convince me of anything different....I've been following newspaper blog posts claiming global warming is a hoax all day, so my strong belief is enough facts for me.)

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

62. Not saying that I agree with you...

But I can certainly understand why'd you think that.

She collaborates on a book with Andrew Morton (a writer known for doing hatchet jobs) on the eve of Hillary Clinton's run for the Senate. She then magically re-appears fifteen years later just as she-who-must-not-be-named is planning to run for President. And from what I've read of the article so far, it seems to spend as much time talking about Hillary as it does talking about Bill.

Funny that....

[elleng]

28. Its always that way,

and pisses me off.

IT TAKES TWO!

[intaglio]

37. Who was the person with power in the relationship?

Who was the person, supposedly, responsible enough to hold the nuclear codes but who couldn't keep his dick in his trousers?

It may take 2 to Tango -

[font size="5"]but it only takes one to say "No"[/font]

[elleng]

38. Quite right,

and she's said it was a CONSENSUAL relationship.

[Agschmid]

43. Rethink your post, your sexism is showing.

[LadyHawkAZ]

44. Some just sayin's should not be said

I think everyone would appreciate it if you self delete this.

[TrollBuster9090]

33. Pretty good strategy by the GOP, though. If you want to watch the Democrats destroy their

double digit favorability lead over Republicans, just throw Monica Lewinsky out there, and watch the Democrats all go Rush Limbaugh on her.

[vlakitti]

36. Sexuality and sexual indiscretions are really remote from political issues

or at least should be. Leftists of any degree ought to know better than to get involved in this kind of scurrilous nonsense.

I don't care about the Clinton-Lewinsky hookup (it was 20 years ago, people!) any more than I care about the occasional queries around here about Senator Graham's sexual preferences. In both cases in my opinion it's neurotic prudishness run rampant.

Sexual drives are among the strongest and most basic human drives, and very many times way overstep conforming social norms.
How is anyone hurt by any of this.

Regarding Mr. Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky and Senator Graham: So what?

[RainDog]

39. DU is a trip

There's a guy here calling B. Clinton the "s" word, as well as Monica - so I say... what's that about casting the first stone and note the hypocrisy of focusing on others' behavior - and my post got hidden.

I didn't alert on any of his.

Then some guy said "Cherchez la femme" and I explained what the expression meant - and someone alerted on my post for explaining the phrase. That one didn't get hidden.

Then I repeated something Skinner said in another thread and someone made up all sorts of lies about what I said, even when I noted Skinner said it - and he calls me out as a nut job. (I also didn't alert b/c it would've required too much explanation).

And the only point I had tried to make, throughout all of it, is that it's no one's business and no one should engage in name calling - or, if they do, they could find the tables turned.

So, yeah. At least I wasn't objecting to censorship...

[Waiting For Everyman]

69. Sure is.

I've noticed that low comprehension (for whatever reason) and being easily or frequently offended, go hand-in-hand.

Conversely, those who are almost impossible to offend, are the people of real substance. Those are the ones I want to know (IRL) and it's their views I'm interested in.

Being offended has been so overused, for so long, by so many, that I immediately tune out on all of it now, both here and IRL. I couldn't be less interested in who's offended by what at this point, it all bores me to distraction.

Nitpicking over minutiae, same thing.

Hence, the long silences and absences. Btw, one of those breaks was last month, so I just yesterday, via a link from a link from a current thread, happened to stumble upon the most interesting water fowl thread. Wow. But the reason I brought that up is that my own personal impression is that the point you raise now could be related to that.

[hatrack]

50. Too bad it's not "Irrelevance Shaming", or "Distraction Shaming"

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

58. ^^^THIS^^^

Monica says in her article that it's time to "burn the beret and bury the blue dress" and move on.

Umm....We have.

Until you decided to revisit your fifteen minutes of fame.

[cali]

56. yes.

thank you so much Willy.

[myrna minx]

57. It's surreal to read.

[m-lekktor]

59. Dem politician adoration trumps feminist principles apparently.

I don't get the politician personality cults. I can't think of any group more unworthy of idolization.

[AngryAmish]

63. There is a lot of "Shut yer whore mouth" going on toward Lewinsky

If she wants to speak, let her. It is not your place to tell a woman to be quiet.

[Throd]

70. Not in the DU world of situational ethics.

[arcane1]

64. They are coming out of the woodwork, too

This thread is like a magnet to them

[ancianita]

65. That we echo/react to this PR bullshit amazes me. We should be shutting this all down. NOW.

[Dorian Gray]

66. Yep

It's astounding that this many years later it's even a topic.

I'm really disturbed.

if anybody should be shamed (and I don't think anybody should be), why her? Why not him?

And even more disturbingly, this is going to be used to attack Hillary. Make her seem pathetic. Ugh.

[DirkGently]

68. Grotesque Republican levels of cognitive dissonance.

So ... what kind of person leaps in to call a (then) young intern a filthy slur reserved women who have illicit sex *in order to defend another woman?*

Not progressives. Not Democrats. Not decent people of any kind.

I guess we're lucky she's white, or the guttersnipes would be digging out racial slurs.

Fucking disgusting.

[krawhitham]

72. It's not just the men

[ProfessorGAC]

73. I'd Prefer She Just Be Ignored

She has no achievement or credentials and she's not running for office so why do we care anything about someone who, after all this time, is now just another private citizen?

Seems unproductive and pretty boring to even care about her.
GAC

[Blaukraut]

74. I have no respect for either party in an extramarital affair. They're both pigs nt

[ronnie624]

79. It's none of your business, and therefore not your place to judge.

It's just that simple.

[kelly1mm]

86. When one of the participants is asking for me to trust them with political

office, I believe that my assessment of their moral character/judgement is my business. Just like I would end a friendship with someone who I knew had engaged in an affair while married or with someone they knew was married because I do not condone or respect their actions/judgement, I likewise would probably not be able to vote for a politician who I knew had cheated.

Some disagree and I understand that.

Luckily, I did not have to make a choice to vote for President Clinton as he was term limited out by the time the affair came to light.

[kelly1mm]

85. I agree in general. Anyone who is married and cheats on their spouse does not deserve respect IMO.

I do have an exception for those in spouses in an open relationship. As far as I know that was not the case with President Clinton. I also have no respect for someone who has sexual relations with someone who they know is married to another person, again with the exception of an open relationship situation.

However, this does not change my position about Hillary Clinton.

[LanternWaste]

87. Much as how I feel about people who judge others based solely on the sexual proclivities of others.

"They're both pigs..."


Much as how I feel about people who judge others based solely on the sexual proclivities of others.

[Texasgal]

76. Just another day on DU.

UGH.

[City Lights]

77. It is quite repulsive. nt

[Neoma]

78. Can we not let the person in the most stressful job in the world get off?

And not make it a big deal?

In general, it doesn't matter who helped him with that. To pretend this was the only president who has had affairs just cracks me up.