Sauce for the Goose
March 9th, 2007 by Sonja

As he is wont to do, LightHusband sent me the link to a mildly interesting article from a local website this morning.  I read through it and we commented back and forth.  I noticed tho, that there were some links in the sidebar to other articles.  One looked promising, so I clicked on it … and began reading … and my blood pressure began to skyrocket.

It’s an article in which former Congressman, latterday presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich is being interviewed by that paragon of Christian virtue, James Dobson.  Apparently, Gingrich appeared on Dobson’s radio broadcast for two days.  I tried to find a written transcript of the interviews, but Focus on the Family only makes audio available.  So I was left with the article alone.  I’ve done a search and can’t find anything more on this.

The upshot is that at the very same time that Mr. Gingrich was leading a criminal investigation of Bill Clinton’s extramarital affair in the White House, he was also having an affair.

Here is his attempt to explain that twisted fairytale:

“The president of the United States got in trouble for committing a felony in front of a sitting federal judge,” the former Georgia congressman said of Clinton’s 1998 House impeachment on perjury and obstruction of justice charges. “I drew a line in my mind that said, ‘Even though I run the risk of being deeply embarrassed, and even though at a purely personal level I am not rendering judgment on another human being, as a leader of the government trying to uphold the rule of law, I have no choice except to move forward and say that you cannot accept … perjury in your highest officials.”

Huh?

Now please do not write to me in comments and remind me that the charges that Clinton faced were perjury.  I’m not that thick.  What I am struggling to reconcile in my mind is that in the media (which Mr. Gingrich very clearly used to great advantage and delight) the battle was over moral issues.  Perjury was a sleight of hand to get the whole thing into the court system and thus before Congress for impeachment.

I would really love to read Mr. Dobson’s response to this, but I have neither the time nor the stomach to listen to an hour’s worth of religious treacle to get there.  I remember what his response to Mr. Clinton’s “moral failure” was.  I remember that even when Mr. Clinton finally acknowledged it and discussed it in light of his faith, the howls about moral terpitude and failure from the likes of Dobson and his followers drowned out any possibility that grace or mercy would be extended to him.

I read the article and the cynical me had to wonder.  Rudy Guiliani is making a clean breast of his infidelity.  Now Newt.  It seems to me that they are controlling the conversation and coming clean in such a way as to make sure that the religious right will swallow it.  So that it will be palatable to them.

But there’s a larger picture here.   A picture that is somewhat revolting.  In part of the picture we see people who are willing to tolerate gross hypocrisy and dishonesty in leadership … as long as they display fealty to the proper channels and organizations for it.  In another part of the picture (and this has never been part of the conversation) we see men who use women to further their sense of self worth.

I wonder how the conversation would change if we began to look at these “moral failures” in terms of abuse rather than infidelity.  It may be a gross overstatement, but hang in there with me for a moment if you will please.  In our culture, as in many cultures, we have made women into objects of desire.  In the eyes of many men, they are no longer persons, but things to be used to scratch an itch.  Objects or things may be used and discarded … things such as sewing machines, automobiles, boats, and the like.  You’ll notice my list included large pricey items that people might form a close emotional attachment to, but when it becomes old and no longer useful, they will throw it away and get a newer, more sexy model.  They may feel a twinge of regret, the occasional bite of nostalgia for the old days, but the new car or boat or sewing machine is just sooo cool, the old one can hardly compare and besides, she’s such a bee-yotch.  A nag.  Always needing some repair and more money.  Hmmm … have I slipped a rail?

Women are not things.  They are not objects to be used at one’s will.  Whether that will be for a series of nights, or for a few years.  When men do that they are abusing their fellow created beings.  They are (if you will allow the use of some Scripture here):

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.  Romans 1:24-45

Despite the fact that women are created by God, when men use and abuse them, they have become something else.  Something created by man.  Men have re-created women into their own image, rather than the image of God.  Is it any wonder that they then feel no compunction about using her, abusing her and then throwing her away?

When men such as Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Dobson are able to brush away infidelity that was occurring at the same time as another infidelity that caused a national crisis by splitting hairs, they have “… exchanged the truth of God for a lie, …” and continued the lie that objectifies and abuses women.

Know the Truth and it will set you free.


11 Responses  
  • Mindy writes:
    March 9th, 20079:20 amat

    All I have to say is….

    Who in the world would want to have an affair with Newt Gingrich??

           
  • LightMom writes:
    March 9th, 20079:54 amat

    Re Newt: Ken Squire, owner of Vermont’s (and perhaps the nation’s) most independent radio station – WDEV, suggested yesterday that if Scooter Libby is ‘entitled’ to be pardoned (for lying under oath) why not Bill Clinton? Squire is usually on the phone or in the studio around 12:15 and 5:15 everyday – talking with his news guys – usually about sports – but he does not hesitate to let his bias show in politics from time to time! He is most interested in NASCAR and owns half of Thunder Road. WDEV, because of Ken Squire, not VT Public Radio airs Amy Goodman’s ‘Democracy Now’ show daily. He also pretty much subsidizes, I think, a very very right wing hour long talk show daily – which we listen to for laughs! He also has on a more community/state talk show for 2 hours and then at 1:00 PM has a local progressive on or the Thom Hartman show especially on Friday’s when Hartman has ‘Brunch with Bernie’ (Sanders) on! So, you see it is a good mix and really what a local radio station should do – I only wish he owned WCAX-TV, known by most of us as WGOP-TV!

           
  • aBhantiarna Solas writes:
    March 9th, 200710:07 amat

    Mindy … or Bill Clinton for that matter? Both of them. Eww. 😉

           
  • aBhantiarna Solas writes:
    March 9th, 200710:09 amat

    LightMom … touche … I guess if we’re going to be in the business of pardoning liars, then there are a bunch of folks who will be able to queue up, from both sides of the aisle. Sauce for the goose …

           
  • kate writes:
    March 9th, 200712:33 pmat

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Sorry. Too busy laughing over the Newt and Bill commentary. I would weigh in further on that, but that would probably dilute the excellent point that you’re making. Thanks for flipping the perspective. I like where you’re coming from.

           
  • Liz writes:
    March 9th, 20071:04 pmat

    I take serious exception with calling all affairs abuse. If a woman is of legal age, sound mind, and on equal footing with the man then there is no way it can be called abuse. Trying to do so is degrading and insulting to the people who have actually been abused.

    Having said that, I would argue that Bill Clinton’s involvement with Monica could be seen as abuse because he was clearly in a powerful position – not just because he was the president – but because she was an intern and he was the guy in charge. What if there was an intern at AT&T or Ford who was approached by someone in a C-level position. There would definitely be an imbalance of power. I could easily believe the intern would feel like s/he couldn’t say no. At the very least there could be the perception that there is more at stake than a romp in the hay.

    If we put aside the fact that she was an intern and we take the abuse discussion off the table, I think the moral issues in the Clinton case are larger than whether or not he had an affair. Isn’t lying a moral issue – whether or not you’re under oath? What about all the time and tax-payer money that was wasted because Clinton didn’t have the balls to stand up and say, “Yeah, I did it and I was wrong.” I think it’s outrageous and disgusting that so much time and money and energy was wasted on covering up his indiscretions that could have been used to help the poor, fix Medicare, improve the environment – anything else! How can you defend that?

    My level of disappointed and upset towards all the other folks now coming forward with affairs is about the same as I would have experienced if Clinton had just come clean. It’s wrong no matter who you are. But at least these guys are being men about it. And let me ask this… when did two wrongs start to make a right. Do I really hear a justification of Clinton’s behavior? That’s what I’m taking away from this… Although I have always loved Giuliani (long before 9/11 he got rid of the squeegee guys) but I’ve never been a fan of Gingrich – so it’s not like I have a lot of skin in the game. Heck, Giuliani’s materital issues were never really a secert, so what. I don’t feel like I need to defend or justify either man’s actions. And it turns my stomach to hear anyone try to defend Clinton. He makes my skin crawl.

           
  • aBhantiarna Solas writes:
    March 9th, 20076:23 pmat

    Liz … nice points … but. I’m not trying to defend Clinton. I am trying to point out the gross hypocrisy of taking a man to court for his infidelity while having an affair of your own that you then hide for 10 years. And only bring out in public because you have some political desires of your own. LightMom made the point that if we’re going to pardon liars (Scooter Libby), then perhaps we could extend it to Clinton as well. I mean … if lying is now pardonable we really should extend it to everyone.

    In any case, I may post more on the idea of infidelity verging on abuse. I think that it (as you said) it depends on the balance of power in the relationship. The balance between a sitting President and an intern … hmmmm … between two otherwise consenting adults, well …. then it all depends on more finely nuanced definitions.

           
  • aBhantiarna Solas writes:
    March 9th, 200710:53 pmat

    Kate … yeah … that’s pretty funny, huh? 😀

           
  • Liz writes:
    March 10th, 20071:27 amat

    If you really think that letting a sitting president blatantly commit perjury without consequence is splitting hairs – then let’s just shut down the entire justice system and move right into anarchy. It is outrageous to think this is justifiable in any way. So what if Gingrich is a hypocrite? Like I said, when did two wrongs start making one right? I think we need to judge each man on their record… Frankly both Clinton and Gingrich are scum. Did you know that Gingrich’s first wife had breast cancer and while she was in the hospital recovering from her mastectomy Gingrich severed her with divorce papers. That’s pretty cold. But what the heck does any of that have to do with Clinton?

    If the Lightboy beat up the nice little girl down the street and neighborhood bully (the one that beats up anything that moves) came to you and told you that Lightboy gave that nice girl a bloody nose – would you say, “Well, that bully was a hypocrite for telling me about Lightboy so I’m going to give Lightboy a complete and total pass on his atrocious behavior.” Would you even think that for a second? But that’s what you’re suggesting we should think in Clinton’s case. OK, so the people who brought him to task are bastards, too. Sure, let’s go after Gingrich or anyone else whose behavior warrants our disdain. Let’s hold everyone equally accountable. But having an affair is not a crime. Perjury is a crime.

    As to the idea that an affair in any way equates to abuse of woman is so revolting to me on so many levels – I can’t even begin to put into words how offensive I find that idea. First of all, it removes any culpability or accountability from the woman in the affair. It implies that the woman had no choice. She had to have sex with this married man (or have sex outside her own marriage) otherwise she would face significant retribution or harm or she had a reasonable belief that her lack of compliance with the wishes of the man would put her or someone she loved in danger. Do you really want to give any woman who sleeps with a married men or any married woman who has sex outside of her marriage a free pass? In some ways that objectifies and belittles woman even more that any sexualization men could come up with. Implicit in the term abuse is the idea that the victim of abuse had no way out of the situation. Innately in any abusive situation one party is helpless and completely dependant on the abuser for her survival (or at least has a reasonable belief that is true.) So are you saying those women don’t have a choice or that they can not make the choice to enter into an affair? Are you saying that woman can not safely and successfully exist apart from the protection of a man? If you really think an affair is abuse – that’s what you are saying.

    By a flip of a coin, saying that woman who have affairs are abused and they also do have a choice to engage in the relationship seems to imply that the true victims of abuse would also have a choice not to be abused. So, one could come to the logical and yet extremely archaic and hurtful conclusion that all abuse victims want to be abused otherwise they would leave.

    And let me ask you this… if two unmarried adults are dating and they decide to engage in sexual relations, is that abuse of the woman too? Is sex in marriage abuse? It is very hard for me to see how only one of these scenarios can be considered abuse without all sexual relationships between men and woman being abusive. Speaking of which — what about a married bi woman? If a woman is married to a man and has an extramarital affair with a woman – is that abuse? If so, which woman is the abuser and which woman is the victim?

    I agree that many aspects of society still make it difficult for woman to attain complete parody with their male counterparts. But I think many of the roadblocks to parody are dying with our parent’s generation. Even still, I do believe that woman have a long way to go. But equating an adulterous affair with abuse of woman is absurd and hurtful and completely degrading to the women who have truly been abused.

           
  • aBhantiarna Solas writes:
    March 10th, 20074:26 pmat

    Hey Liz … you make some great points. I guess where I come adrift with the perjury charge is that I still firmly believe that those charges were a front to keep the moral issues in front of the media. However … as you say, perjury is perjury and your example from closer to home is (ahem) right on target. I wouldn’t give LightBoy a pass under those circumstances (although I would more closely question all the participants given the nature of my information source).

    I do want to apologize for slinging around the word abuse without thinking about it very carefully at all. That was hurtful and harmful. You make some excellent points about the nature of affairs and infidelity that I want to just let stand and perhaps use at another time. I still think that the objectification of women is a portion of the root problem that is at the heart of unhealthy sexual relationships (whether or not they are harmful). But on balance I think this carries a lot of weight: “… equating an adulterous affair with abuse of woman is absurd and hurtful and completely degrading to the women who have truly been abused.”

           
  • Liz writes:
    March 10th, 20078:44 pmat

    :-)

           


»  Substance:WordPress   »  Style:Ahren Ahimsa