Shame on The New York Times.
A housekeeper gets pregnant by the famous and powerful man for whom she works. For 10 years, she continues to work in the home and never says a word. After 20 years of service, she retires and buys a house 100 miles away to raise her son.
Now that house is surrounded by reporters.
The New York Times, in a story on Thursday, insisted that its policy was not to name the person in such situations. But that isn't really true; they just don't go first. If somebody else decides to destroy the privacy of a housekeeper — say, a blogger or TMZ — then the Times will publish the name (and even print a picture of her house) as long as they can confirm its accuracy.
Since when does The New York Times base its editorial decisions on what TMZ does?
This is exactly what happened in the William Kennedy Smith case, but it was NBC who did it first, and The New York Times, like any competitive toddler, followed right behind.
Not surprisingly, the woman is being blamed for that, too. After all, why didn't she know enough to take down her MySpace account, which included pictures of her son and her (now being reprinted on various Internet sites)? Now his life will never be the same, either.
Maybe she had never before been the center of a media frenzy.
The maid who was allegedly assaulted and forced to perform oral sex on IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn is not faring much better. While The New York Times has not published her name yet, French media have — and I suppose if I spent five minutes online I could find it. But her life is being destroyed anyway. She can't go home because it is surrounded by reporters. She can't go back to work because the hotel is also swarming with reporters.
She is a 32-year-old widowed immigrant with a 15-year-old daughter she hasn't been able to see in days. She was cleaning hotel rooms. The very notion — now being aggressively pushed by his lawyers — that this was consensual sex almost certainly means there is forensic evidence (such as DNA) establishing the fact of a sexual act.
In that case, the only defense available to Strauss-Kahn is to place the blame on a promiscuous maid who would have sex with a strange old man before cleaning the toilet in the next room. Nuts and sluts. No wonder she is afraid her life will never be the same.
"It is part of a fascination with the man," Suzanne Goldberg, director of the Center for Gender and Sexuality Law at Columbia University, told The New York Times. "What sort of woman could this powerful man have been attracted to?"
I have enormous respect for Goldberg, but in my judgment, this has nothing to do with the sort of woman a powerful man is attracted to. Was the head of the IMF really attracted to the maid cleaning his room? Was Arnold Schwarzenegger really attracted to the housekeeper who cleaned his home? Or did they see these women as powerless and vulnerable, as women who could be used and (at least in the case of Strauss-Kahn) discarded like toilet paper on the way out the door?
Both of these men, need I point out, are married to beautiful, intelligent and accomplished women. They travel in the kind of circles where they meet plenty of beautiful women they could have sex with, without committing a crime or humiliating their family.
Our system of justice presumes innocence not because that is the likely truth, but because it is fair. If the prosecutors of the Manhattan sex crimes unit and the judge who presided at the bail hearing didn't believe the maid's account, Strauss-Kahn wouldn't be at Rikers Island. If what she said is true, it has nothing to do with attraction. Sexual assault is a crime of violence, not sex. It has more to do with vulnerability than good looks.
As for Arnold, he announced Thursday that he is putting all new film projects on hold. But the Hollywood buzz is that he'll be back, that this is unlikely to have any impact on his return to movie star status. Maybe so. But his family, including the housekeeper and her son, almost certainly will pay the price.
To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM
|
 |
Comments
|
13 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
Susan - you are such a strong and courageous woman it hurts me to think about your bad experience with a man. You seem to be doing very well but I know the scars are still there - just push on and know you are loved for who you are.
Jim Kennedy
Comment: #1
Posted by: Jim Kennedy
Fri May 20, 2011 12:15 PM
|
|
|
|
Mr Kennedy says he is hurt by thinking.One can see why.
Comment: #2
Posted by: WILLIAM KELLEY
Fri May 20, 2011 7:10 PM
|
|
|
|
Like John Kerry ( of the 3 fake purple hearts) and who constantly reminds us that he served in Viet Nam, Estrich rides the coat tails of a rape (as heinous and inexcusable an offence that it was) in order to conveniently and arbitrarily switch positions on a subject withpout fear of response. In 2003 it was Estrich that was Schwarzeneggar's most vocal defender against sexual harrassment and prior to that she rallied to the defence of serial abuser, sexual assaulter and rapist Bill Clinton. None of the above sentiments were expressed about Schwarzenegger's earlier victims or in relaztion to Paula Jones, Juanita Broderick or Kathleen Willey et al The reason? She was sure Clinton would not have done it. Clinton "was my friend" "He didn't have to". It seems the convenient double standard is alive and well with Susan
Comment: #3
Posted by: joseph wright
Sat May 21, 2011 5:33 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: joseph wright
The vicious and untrue slur of T.Boone Pickens and the Swiftboaters is repeated here by Joseph Wright. What do these men and Joseph Wright have in common? None of them were in Vietnam to witness how Kerry was wounded. To dishonor any veteran and Mr Wright does dishonor EVERY veteran who served by this slur is beyond dispicable. The military has very strong criteria for awarding Purple Hearts. To question one is to question all Purple Heart awards. Don't bother to attempt an apology or to justify repeating this awful slur. The men who served with John Kerry have come forward to support his award and recount his bravery in action. They served as an honor guard to bring him across the bay and into the convention hall prior to his nomination for president. By repeating that lie, Mr. Wright is casting aspersions on those veterans in particular in addition to every other veteran of ANY war who won this award. We should honor all Americans who have shed their blood for this country and not denigrate them just because of their political beliefs. Mr. Wright's smear is politically motivated and not fact based. His comment is shamefully UNAMERICAN.
Comment: #4
Posted by: robert lipka
Sat May 21, 2011 9:24 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: robert lipka
No chance of an apology from me. It is ironic is it not Robert that you have chosen and used a perjorative coined by the Kerry press to wit "Swiftboater" to denigrate those men who served honorably while at the same time endeavoring to uphold service or more accurately to defend Kerry of Winter Soldier infamy. The versions of events told by those sailors (Swiftboaters as you choose to label them) who actually knew Kerry stand remarkably unchallenged by Kerry who has been caught lying about serving in Cambodia and who to this day will not release the medical reports said to support his decorations. I stand by what I said. Further, it was Kerry that dishonored all those earned their purple hearts meritoriously and dishonored all those who refused to seek decoration for minor scrapes needing a band aid or minor self inflicted injury (minowounds from his own grenade thrown unto a fishing boat) and it was Kerry that attempted to de value military honor for premeditiated later political gain . It was Kerry that dishonored himself and all other decorated veterans by throwing another man,s medals away in fake protest. Roberyou know nothing of my service to my country. Do not presume to comment upon that again.
Comment: #5
Posted by: joseph wright
Sat May 21, 2011 5:07 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Joseph Wright
Nice try at twisting what I said to cover for your own vicious attempt to smear John Kerry. The majority of the guys who sponsored the ads that are now referred t commonly as SWIFTBOATER ADS never served a minute in the military. And no I am not interested in your service record. This was about your attempt to cast aspersions on recipients of the Purple Heart. You did that by trying to smear John Kerry in the above post. But your smear actually smears every other recipient of the Purple Heart by implying that the government and the military did not use due diligence in the award of these medals to John Kerry. By saying that you call into question every other serviceman who was the recipient of that medal and any other medal they receive. This is not about John Kerry, this is about how the medals are awarded. You, by your sneering comment, chose to spit on the medals that a deserving soilder received. By doing so, you spit on every other recipient as well. At no point did I make any reference to any service you may or may not have had. I only commented on your smear of this award. Take your comments to the local VFW and see how you make out.
Comment: #6
Posted by: robert lipka
Sat May 21, 2011 7:21 PM
|
|
|
|
By way of explanation to the younger readers of this post and those who forgot what happened with the Swiftboaters, here is a bit of history.
There were many stories circulating as to whether of not George W. Bush had gone AWOL from his military unit during the Vietnam war. He was assigned to a Air National guard unit but few in the unit ever remmber him showing up for duty. In 2000 Bush ran against Al Gore, who had a spotless military record. Gore did not make an issue of the AWOL allegations... In the 2004 election a few Republicans decided that the issue might come up again and to counteract it against Kerry who had been decorated for action in Vietnam, they devised a series of Ads calling Kerry's heroism into question. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT ALL OF THESE ADS WERE LATER DETERMINED TO BE COMPLETE FABRICATIONS AND DISTORTIONS. But many people were duped by them as polls at the time clearly showed. Of the men who sponsored the ads, only one had ever served with Kerry and then only briefly. The man was not part of Kerry's crew during the time of the actions that resulted in him being awarded the Silver Star and for any of the actions that resulted in him being awarded a Purple Heart. As I said, ALL of these ads were later shown to be false. John McCain , in particular, fully denounced these ads. Other honest Republicans also stepped forward to refer to the ads as despicable and dishonest. The group that produced the ads disbanded and never issued an apology for the falsehoods they perpetrated. This episode has resulted in changes in campaign ad laws that now allow stations to refuse to air ads that are proveably false. It is a weak law that needs to be strengthened.
Comment: #7
Posted by: robert lipka
Sun May 22, 2011 4:04 PM
|
|
|
|
Kerry is hard to defend, in fact he is in-defensible. All in all a repulsive man of few in any redeeming characteristics.
Comment: #8
Posted by: Paul
Sun May 22, 2011 7:00 PM
|
|
|
|
Susan, I read your May 23 column about Tristane Banon, the maid who was sexually attacked by big-wig Dominique Strauss-Kahn in the Salina Journal, Salina, KS. Truely contemptuous behavior by him, and I hope he suffers adequately for what he did. It struck me, however, that your column could be used almost word for word to represent a patient who has suffered from gross negligence medical malpractice. Just substitute the patient for the unfortunate maid, and insert the incompetent physician in place of Strauss-Kahn. Medical malpractice cases are truely misunderstood by politicians and the general public and misrepresented in the media. Harvard studies have shown that many more patients suffer without recompense of any kind than that small percentage that the public perceives to be "frivolous". Many more dollars are spent by patients to fix physical problems caused by erring doctors than are ever spent on malpractice cases that are settled or actually go to court.
Number one, prosecuting attorneys would not take cases they deem to be frivolous because there is no money in it for them.
Number two, cases that may seem "frivolous" may have been filed to gain access to medical information but were then dropped because there was not enough evidence to support a lawsuit. That does not mean that person did not suffer very real physical damage.
Number three, pursuing a medical malpractice case is a grueling, lengthy (several years) process.
Number four, the medical profession, namely physicians, are the most highly protected profession in the USA.
Number five, why is the cost of malpractice suits always blamed on the persons who suffered the injuries? Much of the cost of malpractice is incurred by insurance companies and their attorneys who are defending physicians for incompetence and unconscionable acts of patient abuse.
Number six, those "huge" amounts of malpractice awards you read about in the newspaper.....most of that money gets paid from one insurance company to another, from the malpractice insurance company to the health insurance company to reimburse them for amounts of money they paid for care of the wronged patient. Yet, that same health insurance company was not there in the boxing ring fighting for money to pay for medical expenses incurred through the negligent malpractice act. It's just WRONG, and there is an erroneous message in the public that shames the patient who suffered, and grants a martyr hero status to the incompetent physician. The real feeling that a wronged patient feels is, "Shut up or Die!"
Comment: #9
Posted by: Susan Too
Mon May 23, 2011 8:10 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: robert lipka Oh simple dupe Robert. I consciously waited so that you would reveal yourself. Now the facts. In 2004 some 200 swiftboat veterans led by Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann wrote an open letter to Kerry revealing that Kerry had misrepresented his service in Viet Nam. The letter was signed by some 200 veterans along with Hoffmann and fifteen other commisioned officers that served with Kerry at An Thoi. That letter referring to Viet Nam reads in part " We believe you have withheld and or distorted material facts as to your own conduct in this war. We believe you continue this conduct today albeit by changing from anti war to a war "hero" status. You now seek to cloak yourself in the very medals that you disrespectfully threw away in the early years of your political career. In the process we believe you continue a distortion as to your own conduct through such tactics as the disclosure of only carefully screened portions of your military records. Both then and now we have concluded that you have deceived the public and in the process have betrayed honorable men to fulfill your political goals".
Further the N Vietnamese displayed a photo of the 1993 meeting of Kerry and Vietnamese leaders to" honor" John Kerry's contributions to the N Vietnamese 'victory".
I repeat, it was Kerry not I that disrespected the valor of the American soldier, sailor and airman and it was Kerry, not I, that by his conduct de valued their meritoriously earned decorations. Robert by defending Kerry and his conduct and his deception it is you not me that devalues military decoration.
Comment: #10
Posted by: joseph wright
Mon May 23, 2011 3:51 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: joseph wright
Right on. Kerry is a snake in Senators clothing. What's wrong with the people in Mass?
Comment: #11
Posted by: Early
Tue May 24, 2011 6:56 AM
|
|
|
|
arnold Schwartenegger is a monster and a pathetic moron but that maid who worked for the family is every bit a moron and a miserable human being as Arnold. What kind of a woman would do what she did, ie sleep with the husband of a good employer who treated her more than well. This went on for how long? This woman is a real "female dog in heat" and is a classless human being. She and Arnold both need to go back to where they came from, out of thsi country. From don't believe every woman is a victim
Comment: #12
Posted by: E. Miller
Tue May 24, 2011 9:39 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Paul
Paul wrote : "Kerry is hard to defend, in fact he is in-defensible. All in all a repulsive man of few in any redeeming characteristics."
Stated differently, John Kerry is a typical Liberal.
Comment: #13
Posted by: SusansMirror
Wed May 25, 2011 7:08 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
