In the past week, feminist writers
have looked back on Monica’s treatment by many feminists and liberal
intellectuals at the time and declared that everyone could have done better. But
are we doing better now? The feminism we see now has grown more diverse and
more inclusive, with Twitter campaigns challenging white feminists and the
ability of a single video bashing Robin Thicke to go viral and create notoriety
that will help build a feminist activist’s channel. A blog hits the right nerve
at the right time and is reposted on the right website and suddenly we’re
talking about transgender women and feminism. But more often than not,
feminists with real clout are part of a mostly white, straight, Ivy
League-educated group from middle class backgrounds, and that can affect what
feminists focus on. Oddly enough, in feminism, you still have to be the right
kind of woman to merit said support. We’ve seen this recently, in the case of
Lis Smith.
In her interview with Vanity Fair last
week, Monica Lewinsky said that feminists had failed her. I agree, to the
extent that many mainstream feminists did not acknowledge Bill Clinton’s part
in the affair, placing blame and ridicule squarely on Monica’s shoulders. She
was either a dimwitted bimbo looking for cheap thrills or a calculating asexual
young woman, looking to influence one of the most powerful men in the world.
Now, she has been portrayed (at the time) of being a naïve young girl who was
taken advantage of – by Congressman Rand Paul.
It is unlikely that any of these
caricatures capture the truth of what actually happened, and who Lewinsky was
at the time. She was 23, and old enough to know better, but the president was
the president, married and in his 50s. The reduction of this young woman to a
handful of gendered stereotypes was reason enough to defend her. Feminists need
not have called her a helpless victim in order to defend her. A one-sided
attack, in which a woman is depicted as someone who failed in her role as a
sexual gatekeeper, and a man is depicted as a helpless oaf, should always be
countered by feminists – not supported by them. But not all feminists railed
against Lewinsky. Many simply stayed mum.
After all, one of the first things
that Clinton did in his presidency was sign a series of executive orders that
undid the Reagan-Bush era policies that restricted family planning and abortion
and he vetoed a partial birth abortion ban – not an easy stance to take at the
time. Betty Friedan called Lewinsky a “little twerp” and Katie Roiphe admitted
that she hadn’t seen mainstream feminists support Lewinsky in the New York
Observer article “New York Supergals Love That Naughty Prez.” Although Roiphe
is not by any means a model feminist or necessarily a feminist at all (she has
been largely criticized by feminists) she was aware of the dialogue on Lewinsky
the time. Maureen Dowd, author of the book “Are Men Necessary?” which examined
the benefits and drawbacks of being in a relationship with a man as well as
balancing career and domestic duties, is the same woman who won a Pulitzer
Prize for portraying her as a crazy, promiscuous and vapid.
Most recently, we have a case that
is very different from Monica’s – in which the woman in question – Lis Smith –
did not actually do anything wrong. Lis Smith, who ran Bill de Blasio’s communications
efforts, committed the crime of dating Elliot Spitzer. Spitzer and his wife,
Silda Wall Spitzer, filed divorce papers in mid-January, which does not come as
any surprise to watchers of New York politics. Andrea Peyser tore apart Smith’s
character as if it were 1998, or earlier, using odd old-timey language to
decimate her character, such as “youngish cookie,” “hot and fit political
insider,” and predictably, “bimbo,” adding that she does “presumably not charge
Eliot for service rendered.”
With the exception of Jen Chung at
The Gothamist, Ginia Bellafante at The New York Times and Lindy West at
Jezebel, not many feminist writers or reporters jumped on the story, or rushed
to defend Smith in the midst of Peyser’s attacks. There were a few tweets
calling Peyser sexually repressed from male journalists, but not many insights
from the feminist peanut gallery. It’s not hard to see why from a purely
superficial reading of the situation and the people involved.
In the eyes of many feminists or
liberal opinion writers in general, you have an unsympathetic man (Eliot
Spitzer), a woman who isn’t famous and largely keeps to herself and a
sympathetic man (Bill de Blasio). Is it worth challenging de Blasio, the newest
liberal darling for hopeful progressives, a man whose life story couldn’t be
more picturesque and supportive of liberal ideals, and who may run for
president someday? No. Not when it’s your man. And in this respect, it isn’t
very different from Clinton, despite Smith’s personal life being completely
immaterial to the workings of de Blasio’s administration.
If anything, this case is much more
deserving of outrage. You have a evidence of the new, progressive America in de
Blasio, rejecting the commercial interests of Michael Bloomberg, who is
supportive of the middle class, people of color, LGBTQ rights and women’s
rights. Or at least that is the narrative. If the mayor had consensual sex with
an intern it would be more moral and feminist than tossing out an employee
because of whom she sees outside of work. Instead of standing up to and
questioning the outrage over Smith’s dating life, and using it as a teachable
moment to discuss gender and politics, de Blasio simply gave up. If prolific
and well-respected feminists – a group mostly based in New York – have any
credibility, they will raise the issue if he ever becomes a contender for
president or vice president. If they don’t, Republicans surely will, the way
Rand Paul did by raising the ghost of the blue dress. Only this time, it may be
effective, because Democrats won’t be able to defend it.
No comments:
Post a Comment