Molly Ivins February 5

WASHINGTON — OK, the feminist thing. Into which I did not want to get, mostly because the discussion so far is just a silly sideshow.

What we have here, in large part, is a stupid game of "Gotcha." Assorted right-wingers point out that feminists are not saying about Monica Lewinksky what they said about Anita Hill, and they gleefully crow, "Gotcha!"

So what are we supposed to do? Point out that right-wingers are not saying about Lewinsky what they said about Hill and in turn claim, "Got you!" How enlightening.

There is a further accusation that feminists are putting up with the trashing of Lewinsky's reputation. (The latest Time magazine — holy hairballs!) Let me suggest that the media stop trying to pin that on the White House — for which there is no evidence and also a very obvious reason for the Clinton camp not to pull that old trick — and look in the mirror instead.

As I pointed out at the time (and I am a feminist), all the major TV networks immediately used an interview with a male college classmate of Lewinsky's whose claim to fame was that he had lunch with her three years ago. Based on this startling degree of expertise, the young man concluded that she was a chronic fantasizer who had probably made up the whole story. The media have no one to blame for using such sources but themselves.

Further roiling these already murky waters, a confusing column by Maureen Dowd of The New York Times, also focusing on the feminist failure to defend Lewinsky, attributed the problem to class bias, as in NOCD — "Not our class, darling."

Hello? I don't know about Dowd's class, but Lewinsky's sure out of mine. Her daddy's a rich doctor who lives in Beverly Hills, her mother lives on Fifth Avenue in New York City, she went to a fancy prep school and a private college and got her job at the White House through family connections. If anything, her class category would seem to be California princess.

Now, this is supposed to be compared to Anita Hill, who came from, you may recall, Do-squat, Okla., where her daddy was a poor rural black preacher with a mess of kids who all went to bad public schools and then worked their way through college. Have I missed something here?

I am perfectly prepared to believe there are poor little rich girls in this world (and Lewinsky may be one) whose upbringing is not nearly as "rich" as Hill's wonderful and closely knit family. But let's can the class bias stuff. The thing about being liberal is that our hearts will bleed for anyone — and if mine can bleed for Karla Faye Tucker, it can sure bleed for Lewinsky.

A more useful essay came from the invaluable Barbara Ehrenreich, who was also critical of feminists for not grasping the nettle.

It is one thing to take the position, as I do, that the president's sex life is none of our business; it's another thing to face the problem once, for whatever reason, it's being shoved in our faces all day every day.

Not wanting to join the infamous "rush to judgment," I waited an entire week before suggesting that the president should resign. And I am a feminist. Sorry if that wasn't fast enough for some of you.

It seems to me that the vox pop is making more useful distinctions than either feminists or their critics. There is a difference between sexual harassment and consensual sex between adults. On the other hand, consensual sex between adults, which is technically what we have in these allegations, is not all that consensual when it's between a 21-year-old woman and a powerful middle-aged man.

And on still another hand, we all know there are power groupies around politics — women who brag about how many powerful men they've slept with. And there is sexual conduct that is merely disagreeable to some and traumatic to others — what one woman with some experience and street smarts can handle with "Oh, shut up and behave yourself" can be genuinely distressing and permanently scarring to a younger, less sophisticated woman. People are capable of making these distinctions, but none of us has enough information at this point to be sure what we're dealing with.

It seems to me there's an additional problem with the press having corrupted an important word, "character," by using it as a synonym for sexual conduct ever since the Gary Hart episode in 1987. "We have finally learned that character does count," harrumphed columnist George Will. I think that character is too important a concept to be reduced to sexual conduct. Without naming names, it is noticeable that we are hip-deep in hypocrisy already on this issue, and it's getting worse. Hypocrisy may not be the most serious sin, but it is certainly one of the least attractive.

In Washington, the "they-sayers" are saying that President Clinton walks on this one. Case unprovable. Independent counsel Kenneth Starr stays after him like Inspector Javert (or Clouseau, as you prefer) but can't nail him.

I think these are pretty much the same people who figured Clinton was doomed last week. The question is: Do we really want to impeach a president because he — if he — had an affair with a young woman? Is that a high crime under the Constitution?

I don't think it is, but I do think that when the facts are established (I have a hard time remembering what's established and what's alleged concerning four women at this point), if there is a pattern of misconduct by the president, then feminists should kick his rear end from pillar to post.

Two points made by talking friends: 1) Sy Hersh, author of the recent and highly unflattering biography of JFK, has inadvertently helped Clinton by reminding people that Kennedy's appetite for women was apparently close to pathological. 2) If the public liked Hillary Rodham Clinton better, she would now be seen as the wronged wife, and her husband's popularity would plummet accordingly. Lucky for them, no one feels sorry for her.

My favorite Capitol moment during a short trip: The Republicans explain that this allegation against the president is the ultimate accusation, the one that will Bring Him Down, and all those other accusations — Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, all that other stuff they once swore to us were impeachable offenses — are just little pin-pricks. Thanks, guys.

***

Molly Ivins is a columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

COPYRIGHT 1998 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.