Hypocrisy, n. The practice of professing beliefs or virtures that one does not possess.

[madbaker]

A few days ago, Arnold Schwarzenegger dodged allegations of sexual harassment and abuse of power in the cases (star to extra). To my mind, they were reasonably substantiated and established a disturbing pattern of behavior.

Womens' groups and general leftist groups attacked; Gray Davis suggested legal action might be appropriate. The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, with its generally conservative outlook, downplayed the allegations and put an emphasis on Schwarzenegger's apology.

A few years ago, Bill Clinton dodged allegations of sexual harassment and abuse of power in the cases. To my mind, they were reasonably substantiated and established a disturbing pattern of behavior.

Womens' groups downplayed the accusations (I remember NOW, oddly enough, actually attacked his female accusers). The Wall Street Journal's editorial page frothed at the mouth about harassment and went into lurid detail.

As I see it, both sides reacted strictly according to ideology in each case. The underlying allegations didn't seem to matter. By the way, I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican.

Sigh. I'd be happy to debate responses as to why the cases are different. If you're just going to attack it from a political standpoint ("Schwarzenegger is a Republican and everyone knows they are hostile to women!" / "Bill Clinton is a Democrat and everyone knows they have no morals!") I won't dignify the comments with a response.

Comments

You asked for it in my lj...here's my take on it...

[scendan.livejournal.com]

"Schwarzenegger is a Republican and everyone knows they are hostile to women."

Just kidding. ;)

Anyway, this is my reaction to the matter:

1. Clinton can't keep his dick in his pants. There. That was easy. He cheated bigtime on his wife. He did a sleazy thing (actually, several sleazy things), especially for someone in a position of vast responsibility. I think he's rather a schmuck for it. However, he apparently couldn't keep his dick in his pants with people who, on the whole, were not saying "No no no no" while he did it anyway. He cheated on his wife with mistresses. That's immoral, yes. Depressingly common, yes. It also happens not to be illegal, as it was between consenting adults. So, was it a basis for impeaching him? Err...no. It tempts me to give him a good whack upside the head but that, alas, is illegal. It's known as battery.

2. Schwarzenegger, according to reports, has been fondling women *against their will* off and on for decades. That is unwanted sexual contact with an unwilling partner. That's a form of sexual assault and is, in fact, illegal. The woman does not have to haul off and kick him in the nuts to show that she objects. Expressing objection, saying no, or indicating that she wants the behavior to stop constitutes objection. Many of them did. He continued anyway. He thought it was fun. Personally, had I heard he'd just done this stuff in the late 70's/early 80's, I'd probably have shrugged and figured "Well, maybe he's developed a bit of maturity since then." And, frankly, the law may have been different at that time - I'd have to research that. But some of the incidents were in the last few years, when what he engaged in was definitely sexual assault.

So...how are the cases similar? Both men behaved like total pigs. I lost tons of respect for both of them. Both men need some remedial education in decent behavior.

How are the cases different? Clinton was a pig, but he was not, legally speaking, behaving as a serial sexual predator. Schwarzenegger was. One was legal, the other is illegal. I was against Clinton's impeachment for a lot of reasons, but a large part of it was that he had not committed a crime. He'd just let his wee-wee do the thinking for him. Stupid. Gross. Totally disenchanting. But not a crime. Schwarzenegger, on the other hand, has been groping and fondling women against their will, while in a position of power and esteem that makes it extremely hard for a woman to want to report against him. That's illegal. It's a crime:

Civil Code 1708.5 (a) A person who commits a sexual battery who does any of the following: (1) Acts with the intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact with an intimate part of another, and a sexually offensive contact with that person directly or indirectly results.

(lots of other definitions follow this in the code, some of which his behavior also falls under...)

(b) A person who commits a sexual battery upon another is liable to that person for damages, including, but not limited to, general damages, special damages, and punitive damages.

(d) For the purposes of this section "intimate part" means the sexual organ, anus, groin, or buttocks of any person, or the breast of a female.

(f) For purposes of this section "offensive contact" means contact that offends a reasonable sense of dignity.

Sounds like Arnold was a bad bad boy.

Re: here's my take on it...

[madbaker.livejournal.com]

Not bringing up the politics of Clinton impeachment, just contrasting the (to my mind) hypocritical responses or lack of same to accusations of sexual harassment.

If you believe Clinton's accusers, he used Arkansas troopers to lure a woman to an empty hotel room, so he could drop his pants. (Jones)
He called a supporter into the office to "kiss her, fondle her breast, and put her hand on his genitals". (Willey)

That would make Jones' accusation a lesser charge - flashing - and Willey's does seem to fit the definition of sexual battery. Am I reading that correctly?

Thanks for your comments.

(sigh) did some research

[madbaker.livejournal.com]

I mis-remembered the Willey charges, since after 5 years I had thankfully forgotten the sordid details. She claimed that he propositioned her, dropped his pants, then physically prevented her from leaving the hotel room. She also alleged that he later retaliated by spiking her career. I would think that this meets the sexual battery definition.

My point was that both men abused their positions for sexual harassment purposes. I think that is wrong. (Duh.) However, I found that people's (and organizations') reactions differed in the two cases. Generally corresponding to political ideology, and I think that is hypocritical.

Re: (sigh) did some research

[scendan.livejournal.com]

I do agree that there seems to have been a degree of hypocrisy going around, probably on both sides. And I think that's unfortunate. I don't like the idea that Republicans might overlook Arnold's transgressions because they desperately wanted a Republican in office. I don't like the idea that a Democrat might whitewash Clinton's behavior either.

My memory of the impeachment deal was that there were not criminal sorts of charges applicable to Clinton. However, as you mentioned yourself, with five years that have gone by, my memory could easily be flawed. Frankly, I can barely remember what I had for breakfast, so I don't place great stock in my ability to recall.

If what you are citing is true, then it does seem as if there was some sort of behavior from Clinton that could be cited as illegal. I certainly never thought he was a saint, although I voted for him twice. My memory, possibly flawed, was that the main issue was that he earned the name "Slick Willie" rather than the issue being one of outright criminal behavior - just scummy.

So...I dunno. I don't make claim to having all the information on either issue. My summation will just be "I think both behaved like pigs."

But I do believe there should be a difference drawn between pig-behavior and criminal behavior, as defined by the law, and shown through the legal process. Do both Arnold and Bill fall into the criminal behavior category? That, I'm not sure about.

Still, I agree that a lot of sentiment seems to split along party lines, regardless of evidence, and that's a shame to lay at the feet of members of both parties.