The Wash Rag Issue 6.1 March, 1998 DOLLYGATE, JENNIFERGATE, PAULAGATE, MONICAGATE, KATHYGATE PRESIDENTIAL PROBLEMS WITH WOMEN The news has been full of the President’s problems with women who claim to have had different kinds of relationships with him. Much of the information we now have been presented with has been the result of Paula Jones damage suit against him because of an alleged encounter in a hotel room in Little Rock when Bill Clinton was governor there. First of all, I just want to interject that I have twice been given job interviews in hotel rooms, and both times, I was very skeptical about why the interviews were conducted in hotel rooms. I did not get either job, and I personally concluded that the only way I would have gotten either one would have been to offer sex to the (male) interviewer. Perhaps I am wrong about that, but I feel that for Paula Jones to go into a hotel room on the invitation of a man she knows to be there alone is pretty immature. Neither of the men who interviewed me did any of the things the President is alleged to have done, but I frankly would not have been much shocked if they had. But I agree that if the event happened as she alleges that it did, then there is a reason to look into the President’s actions. I have paid close attention to the various affairs and liaisons that the President is accused of having for the past twenty years or so. Probably the most striking thing about them is that every one of them is different. In one case he admits to a long-standing relationship with Dolly Kyle Browning, and with sex only once with Jennifer Flowers, in another he is accused of sex near the oval office, in another he is accused of exposing himself and soliciting for sex, in another he is said to have kissed on the lips and touched in a familiar manner. In no case is he accused of stalking the victim. Paula Jones claims that she could not get good jobs from the State of Arkansas after the event, but the defence team has produced records that prove that her pay and jobs were actually better than she should have expected with her performance ratings/tests. A real estate agent who was rumored to have had an affair with the President has refused to take part in Paula Jones and Kenneth Starr’s investigations. Monica Lewinski’s participation has been only when forced. That is apparently because the sex was consentual. That does not constitute sexual harassment. If men never made advances towards women then there would probably never be any babies born. Paula Jones own case only took off after an extreme right-wing publication published her account, and the man who made that possible has said that he regrets having published it. Kathleen Willey sent complementary notes to the President after the date of the purported encounter. Since the Congress refused to look at Clarence Thomas indiscretions, which were reported by a number of more mature professional women, while a number of other women testified that they had experienced no such harassment from him; and a Military Jury has just found Gene McKinney innocent of charges that he sexually harassed six women, all who testified to similar treatment by him, mostly because of his stellar military record, I feel that I can look at the President’s record. No President in the history of the United States has appointed more women to positions of real power. Appointments of women like Madeline Albright as Secretary of State, a post that is in the line of succession to the Presidency, Janet Reno as Attorney General, and Donna Shalela as Secretary of Health and Human Services are only in the top echelons. Many, many women have come to positions of importance in government because of the President’s commitment to women’s rights. In addition, he has placed Black men and women and Mexican American men and women into government positions of authority in unprecedented numbers. My own impression is that his commitment to women and minorities has enraged white males accustomed to having all of the political power, and they have left no stone unturned in uncovering any molehill and making it into a mountain. One of the characteristics of a sexual harasser is repetitive behavior much like serial rapists and serial killers. This is simply not present in this case. Each situation is a separate case, and other than the sexual nature of all of these episodes, there aren’t the glaring similarities present in real sexual harassment cases, including the different women who testified against Gene McKinney and those who did or who were ready to and were not permitted to testify against Thomas. I personally cannot condone behavior like that the President is alleged to have committed against any of these women. However, I am aware that behavior like this is not uncommon among men. So the President has a healthy libido. So do a lot of men. He apparently likes women very well. So we should kick him in the teeth for this? Just because a man hits on every woman who crosses his path does not make him into a harasser. He is just an over-zealous contributor to the gene pool. If Paula Jones can prove any of her allegations, or for that matter Kathleen Willey or Monica Lewinski, then I would have to change my opinion, but as of now, their cases seem to be pretty weak. I prefer to believe a President who has given many very capable women a significant opportunity to participate in government at its highest levels to what is a very few young, inexperienced women making unsubstantiated claims of wrong-doing on his part. It appears to me that the main wrong-doing he may have been guilty of is not exchanging favors for sex. I see it as a possibility that some of these women may have expected that, and not having gotten it, began to make complaints. After having written a note to the President telling him to call her anytime after the alleged event, Kathleen Willey starts making complaints including not having gotten any job offers. Those trying to keep women out of positions of power are capable of the most heinous behavior. These mostly young and inexperienced women are, I believe, being used by them. The fact that they are mostly young and all are apparently inexperienced seems to make that at least a possibility. Why does nobody ask Albright, Reno or Shalela if they offered Clinton sex for their jobs? They let Thomas bring in a string of women who testified for him. I am concerned that the complaints of older, experienced women who did not exchange sex for favors had less credibility than those of younger women, some of whom apparently did. That seems to reward those who gave in. I’ll give the President credit for one thing in this whole sordid affair. It certainly has killed all of those nasty rumors that were circulating a few years ago about him being a homosexual. The bottom line is this: we women owe the President our loyalty as long as any doubt exists. GENE McKINNEY: OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE FOR SURE! The amazing verdict of the jury in the Court Martial of former Sergeant of the Army Gene McKinney leaves one almost speechless, but not quite. That he could have obstructed justice in the investigation of something that never occurred is such a bizarre miscarriage of justice as to be a perversion. And the amazing decision that in order for six women who never met each other to have reported similar incidents with him, they would have to have been coached, has got to be challenged, because most of the sexual harassment convictions have been in class actions suits or in cases where many woman reported similar experiences. If those prosecuting sexual harassment cases or bringing legal action against sexual harassers lose this kind of an argument, then most of the cases brought to this time would have been lost. I am very interested that the jury consisted of two male Army officers and two enlisted men. And I would like to guess that most if not all of the men on it have been guilty of the same kind of behavior as McKinney was accused of. They each saw themselves sitting in his chair, and the quality of mercy was not strained, but fell directly from them to him. The pity is that because he has been acquitted of the charges in a Court Martial, Double Jeopardy probably makes it impossible for the women to sue him in civilian court, but he is going to sue his main accuser, the only one he can sue because she is the only one not in the Military and not protected by Military Law from making accusations against another member of the Military. In the end, obstruction of justice may have been the most honest verdict for McKinney. INTRODUCTION CONTINUED SILENCE OF THE LAMBS I was very pleased to read in the most recent issue of the AAUW publication OUTLOOK that they are undertaking a program to fight the code of silence regarding various women's issues, including sexual harassment. Because I had written a segment for the introduction on that subject, I include that here: A few years ago, Jodi Foster starred in a film by the name, Silence of the Lambs. In it, she played a writer interviewing a serial killer. I find it fascinating that the woman who had been stalked by the man who murdered John Lennon to get her attention played that role, and the title refers to her fear of a dream in which lambs are being slaughtered and they are all silent. Whether the metaphor was intended or not, women who are sexually harassed are more often than not silent about it. That is something that has to be changed if stalking is to be brought under control. The truth is, virtually every woman who is harassed will at first be silent about it. I did it, Anita Hill did it, we all do it because we are so ashamed of having attracted such offensive behavior from the men we come into contact with. The fact that women are almost always treated like Anita Hill (and I) were if we talk about the harassment gives women a good reason to be silent about the harassment. But our silence only encourages harassers to go on and harass others knowing that they, also, will be silent. The only women who seem to do well with complaints are those with connections, or those who are able to connect with other women with substantiating complaints. In Anita Hill’s case, there were other women, but the connection came too late to effect the Senate’s hearings on Clarence Hill’s appointment to the Supreme Court. I recently was talking to an executive for a large corporation about something unrelated, and when he found out that I was involved in sexual harassment issues, he began to tell me about one of their executives who had been accused of sexual harassment by one of his subordinates. “Did he do it?” I asked. “Of course he did,” was his contemptuous response, and he went on to detail that the executive had forced the woman to have sex with him to get favors, and when her husband found out HE forced her to file a complaint. He went on at some length at how infuriated he was at the amount of time he had wasted holding seminars around the country at branch offices to inform supervisors and employees alike about the company’s guidelines on sexual harassment which were quite stiff, and how an executive, one who had probably been involved in drawing up the guidelines, was caught violating them. I don’t think he could have imagined how much satisfaction his comments gave me. Now he “got it,” that sexual harassment was not in the best interests of the company and they intended to punish anyone violating their guidelines. Another way of approaching the problems is one I used without having any idea I was doing it, and I think it just might work as well for others as it did for me. When I was 18, I went into the Navy. I loved the Navy. I loved the uniform. I loved the inspections. I even loved beans for breakfast. I was treated fairly until my last weeks in service. When I was going through AT-A School and AN-P School, I heard a lot of pretty rough language (Swearing like a sailor is a pretty accurate portrayal of a person who uses foul language). Though I had been brought up in a conservative household, I liked everything about what I was doing and picked up some pretty foul language and a couple of very racy jokes on the way. I found that when a supervisor or co-worker used foul language to me and I used it back, it shocked them and they would ultimately begin to frown on foul language in the workplace. If I was told a joke that was very embarrassing and derogative towards women, I had a really filthy joke about a man with a green mustache which I would respond with. My supervisors and co-workers rarely told any dirty jokes at all after that. It was amazing now that I think about it. I believe that by the time I was 19, I already knew how to respond to sexual harassment, but I did not know how to use it. No, I don’t expect women with responsible positions to use filthy language or tell gross jokes to their co-workers and subordinates although it might work in an emergency. I’m just wondering what an employer or co-worker would do, if, when either of these methods are used, or if anyone tried to get the victims of sexual harassment to have sex with them or fondled them or treated them in an intimate manner, if the victim loudly repeated what had been said or done to them and instead of whispering about it to confidants, if they would tell everyone they came into contact with from the janitor to the president of the company, being very careful to be completely accurate and not exaggerating even slightly. I wonder if the jerk wouldn’t just quit doing it. Well, all I can say is that it worked for me. And the amazing thing is that when I did not try to file a complaint, but just told the dirty joke or used foul language back, I always had jobs and although the promotions and raises were non-existent, I survived. I think when you file a complaint, the abuser’s job is at risk and everyone treats the complaint differently than if a person sat at a table in the lunch room loudly telling of what Joe said to them in his office that morning or how Ralph had grabbed their breast in the supply room or Archie told her she would have to sleep with him to get a promotion, I believe the results might be swift and silent. Then they would have to resort to subterfuge and lies to get rid of their victims, and when people start lying, especially trying to keep several lies going at the same time, there is a chance of catching him. And if all women responded the same way, harassers would have to stop their abhorrent behavior. I think if I ever got in the same position again, I would not be above calling someone’s wife or girlfriend and discussing it with them, asking for their advice as to how to handle it. Indeed harassing behavior may be progressive from filthy language through derogatory jokes to intimate touching and finally to sex or requests for it. By stopping the progression at dirty language and jokes, I may have prevented intimate touching and got only a single overt request for sex, which I refused in a dignified manner. I left the job for a better one and reported the incident at my exit interview. I did not get the raise he offered me if I slept with him. I only regret now that I didn’t go to the office manager who was very sympathetic to me and I believe if I had told him about it in a casual manner, I might have stayed there, gotten the raise, and perhaps with my example would have rewritten history. Darn. With the recent verdict in the McKinney case, this segment, which I wrote six months ago or so, takes on new significance. If the tide is turning in sexual harassment situations, and particularly if the class action suit or defence showing a pattern of similar incidents with different women is going to be challenged, then women will have to develop new methods of dealing with sexual harassment, and for those women who find it impossible to provide sex in exchange for favors, I can only offer this as a suggestion. Being a victim of blacklisting, I know how those without two ethics to rub together manufacture “evidence” to get rid of anyone who disagrees with them. If you find what is happening to the President distasteful, I urge you to take whatever steps you can to support him. Write, call, talk to friends or your Congressional representatives. AROUND THE US POTPOURRI: IN THE MEDIA Astra, a Swedish pharmaceutical company, paid $9.85 million to settle claims that executives pressured 79 women to have sex and that older women were replaced by younger, more attractive women. This is the biggest settlement ever obtained by EEOC. The former president, Lars Bildman, was replaced by Ivan Rowley, who is quoted by the Argus Leader as saying “As a company, we are ashamed of the unacceptable behavior that took place. To each person who has been harmed and who has suffered because of that behavior, I offer our apologies.” The Supreme Court has ruled that sexual harassment laws also protect men from harassment by other men. An oil rig worker who was harassed by fellow oil rig workers who demanded sex and made his life miserable was responsible for this suit. This may be one of the most important decisions that the court has made in the area of sexual harassment, since it is my opinion that men who help women are often harassed by other men. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Merill Lynch has finally abolished arbitration in employee complaints. Other security companies seem to be following suit. This is seen as an improvement in the area, as employees may sue the company for treatment they see as harassing or discriminatory. Until now, they were required to sign a promise to go to company arbitration as a condition of employment. A January 13 Michael Hayes program depicted a drug-using employee in the DA’s office as making offensive approaches to a female employee. She reports the incident to Michael Hayes, the DA. He puts the harasser into treatment for drug addiction, and in an angry scene puts the employee on notice that another sexual harassment incident will cost him his job. Hooray for Michael Hayes. A January 13, 1997 Walker, Texas Ranger depicts a classic case of harassment against a woman threatening to blow the whistle on a construction company using short cuts and shoddy materials. The woman was fired after her work was sabotaged to make it look like she was incompetent, her property was vandalized, her family was threatened and she was unable to find employment. These fictionalized versions of sexual harassment are extremely important. The anger of those who uncover the harassment gives those watching a clear message that it is not acceptable, and it gives women viewing some hope that they might also be able to find someone sympathetic who will help them with their problems. Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman wrote a very important column which appeared in the February 27th Argus Leader. In it, she discusses the kind of harassment which was explored in the Walker, Texas Ranger episode. The woman was a conscientious capable worker, but when she found fault with her employer, she was driven from her job and her life was threatened. Significantly, the man she replaced had also complained and had been murdered. When a female employee refuses to provide sex for her employer, or when she becomes older, these kinds of harassment are used to get rid of her. My own opinion of why employers want to get rid of older female employees is not because they are not so attractive, but because they have developed political skills for avoiding being sexually exploited. They just use appearance as an excuse. I’ve seen older, ugly women kept on merely because they were sort of dumb and let themselves be sexually exploited. In a To the Contrary, part of which my notes seem to be mysteriously missing so I do not know the date, Patricia Schroeder and others discussed the sexual harassment issue. They expressed the fear that sexual harassment charges may prevent men from mentoring women. Schroeder expressed outrage that Monica Lewinski’s mother was asked to testify before the grand jury on what her daughter might have told her. An interesting January 25th To The Contrary discussed animal abuse as a precursor of human abuse. Three of ten abusers of humans abuse animals as well. Jeffrey Daumer cut off the heads of cats and stuck them on posts in front of his house. It is thought that identifying animal abusers may help prevent the abuse of women and children. Some states are changing serious animal abuse into felony offences. The Son of Sam and Charles Manson were also known to abuse animals before they abused humans. A February 6, 1998 Dateline NBC featured an FBI Profiler, John Douglas, who says that a woman’s chances of being stalked are one in ten. He found no difference between the profile of a stalker or an assassin or a murderer. He wrote the book, Obsession, on stalkers. He says that the Love Obsession stalker wants to be like the person they stalk, and these are often celebrities like Madonna or Steven Spielberg. He says that stalkers often come from disfunctional families, most have above average intelligence, and do well in school, but their tendency to stalk gets worse when they get older. At any given time, Douglas says that 200,000 people are being stalked. A simple obsession stalker will stalk anyone, not confined to celebrities. He says that a million women and 300,000 men will be stalked in any given year. Women are obviously three times more likely to be stalked than men. Until recently, stalking was not considered to be a crime. He gave some interesting ways to identify a stalker: He gets very intimate on the first date. He calls you immediately after the first date. He sends flowers. At first, he seems overly nice. One way to identify a potential stalker is to ask him about his mother. If he has a bad opinion of her, there is a good chance that he is a potential stalker. If you have any suspicions, say “no” immediately. If you do so soon enough, he may go away, but after you become intimate, he almost never will. Recommendations: Avoid all contact with the stalker Keep a log of contact Notify others (friends and family) Notify the police Many child abductions start with stalking. Toy stores and video arcades are favored by child stalkers. Douglas says it is better to be paranoid than to make a fatal mistake. The program gave out the number 800-FYI-CALL for the organization “Survivors of Harassment.” Finally, in the Winter 1998 issue of AAUW’s publication Outlook, a number of items featured women who had gotten grants from AAUW to fight Sexual Harassment suits. Mentioned were Kathleen Melez, to help her in her sexual harassment suit against UCLA. Tiffany Wilson in her case against Goddard College, Betty Travis, in her suit against the University of Texas System, San Antonio. The article says that AAUW’s Legal Advocacy Fund granted $120,000 in plaintiff’s awards, having helped 12 plaintiffs seek judicial redress in 1996-1997. A January 2, 1998 20/20 featured a report on an event which happened at Brown University. It was a he said/she said matter, where he said he had no way of knowing that she was drunk. He admits to having sex with her, but says it was consentual. He says that she initiated the sex, afterwards she left her phone number and asked him to call her, then six weeks later she claimed she had been raped. It appears that often such complaints seem to help no one, and in this case, both students left school and seem on dead-end courses. I find it hard to believe that if a man finds a woman sleeping or passed out in the bed of one of his friends, he wouldn’t suspect something was wrong. He apparently just thanked his lucky stars. In this case, I think that they both did something wrong, she in getting so drunk that she didn’t know what she was doing, and he in having sex with a drunk stranger. I notice that the women at the University of South Dakota are making a video warning students of drinking too much, and that would have saved two young lives a lot of suffering in this case. Not that I blame the young woman alone. It always takes two to tango. JESSIE HELMS For crimes against women, the U. S. justice system and humanity in general we unwant him in the U. S. Senate. We beg the women of SC to unelect him to the Senate the next time he runs as a service to humanity and women in particular. The WASH RAG is published by Women Against Sexual Harassment, P. O. Box 164, Canton, South Dakota 57013-0164. ISSN 1068-2449. Subscription price is $10.00 a year. Copyright 1998 Tesseract Publications. (605) 987-5070 *Because of computer problems, I am unable to scan a photograph of Jessie Helms into my computer for this spot, but I ask readers to imagine a photograph of him in this spot on page 4.