|
 hy
are feminists the principal lobbying group for Congressmen Who Had
Affairs With Missing Interns? In the case of missing intern Chandra
Levy, they're not even covering for a president who will save their
precious Roe v. Wade.
Indeed, Rep.
Gary Condit has been so successfully portrayed as a "CONSERVATIVE
RIGHT-WING Democrat" that it would probably be safe even for
Dan Rather to mention the story on CBS News. Really clearing the
way for Rather, Condit was apparently a member of a congressional
Bible study group. (Can anybody make heads or tails of this commandment?)
The feminist
enthusiasm for Condit goes something like this: Feminists have always
stood for freedom of "choice" (unless it involves something
other than abortion, adultery, or sodomy), and isn't it wonderful
that Chandra Levy was able to choose to have an affair with a married
man? Congratulations, Chandra!
If you think
I'm making this up, here is what Gloria Jacobs, editor of Ms.
magazine said about Chandra on Fox News Channel's The O'Reilly
Factor: "I think the idea is that what feminism always
wanted for women is the right to choose their partners, their own
sexuality, whether they're young women or older women. ... I think
it's really that one would have hoped that as women had more access
to power that this wouldn't be the way they would have to go about
it. But everybody makes their own choices."
Feminists are
actually trying to claim credit for the dumb decision of a girl
who is now missing. Anyone who sees a connection between Chandra's
choice of sexual partners and her disappearance is probably the
sort who thinks promiscuous sexual behavior has some metaphysical
link to venereal disease, abortion, and divorce, too. If rumors
are correct that Chandra was pregnant, a very broad definition of
the "right to choose" could be at work. Another triumph
for feminism!
It wasn't just
the Ms. magazine editor. The airwaves are lousy with liberal
women putting in a kind word for adultery these days.
On Fox News
Channel's The Edge With Paula Zahn, Eleanor Clift said: "Congressman
Condit, so far, is guilty of having extramarital affairs, and that
is something that a number of congressmen are probably familiar
with."
On The O'Reilly
Factor, Geraldine Ferraro said: "If every member of Congress
or every public official in Washington were to resign because they've
been having an affair, dear God ..."
On CNN Late
Edition, Rep. Chris "Rape Is Not Impeachable" Shays
("R.," Conn.) said: "I mean, if infidelity is a test,
there would be a number of members of Congress that should resign."
I love the
idea that a mass exodus from the U.S. Congress would constitute
some terrible tragedy. How could we ever replace these Titans! But
what's with the neurotic compulsion to assert that half of Washington
is committing adultery? How do these girls know what's going on
in other people's "zones of privacy"?
There has been
only one serious sex survey ever conducted in America, released
in 1994. (Time magazine called it "the first truly scientific
survey of who does what with whom in America.") Using peer-approved
methods, a team of researchers at the University of Chicago surveyed
thousands of respondents over several years. They concluded that
75 percent of married men and 85 percent of married women have never
been unfaithful.
By contrast,
Alfred Kinsey's purported "study" in the '40s concluded
that 50 percent of men cheat. The reason his study is discounted
by scientists — but revered at Playboy magazine — is that
his sample group consisted of prostitutes, prisoners, and inmates
in mental institutions.
I can understand
why I would want to lump members of Congress in with this crowd,
as a measure of my esteem. But why do liberals want to make that
argument? They're the ones who think we should be sending more of
our money to these clowns. What are the feminists up to?
I put the question
to a leading scholar of feminism, the author of the Encyclopaedia
Britannica entry on "feminism." She explained that 30
years ago what bugged feminists was that men had affairs and everyone
thought it was cute, whereas women had affairs and they were sluts.
It wasn't the immorality but the double standard that had them hopping
mad. And there are two ways of eliminating a double standard. Since
feminists figured they couldn't change men, their goal was simply
to even the score.
So in a maniacal
pursuit of equality — we've fully transitioned into my analysis
now — these querulous little feminists stripped women of the sense
that they can rely on the institution of marriage and gave men license
to discard their wives. But at least women can choose to be pigs
now, too! This is what happens when you allow women to think about
public policy. It's also what happens when you start assuming the
whole country has the mores of prostitutes, criminals, mental patients
and, evidently, congressmen.
|
