IT LOOKS like the National Organization for Women (NOW) has let their whole staff out on summer vacation. That, or they're hypocrites. Those are the only two possible explanations for their deafening silence in the case of Rep. Gary Condit (D-CA).
Condit, a married congressman, slept with a young intern and misled police after she disappeared without a trace. You'd expect the feminist groups to be the first to take up arms. But then you'd be overlooking the fact that Condit is a Democratic congressman.
A search for "Condit" on the NOW web site (www.now.org) came up with nothing about the missing intern. Looking for Chandra Levy in Ms. Magazine? Don't hold your breath; there hasn't been one article about the incident. Searching "recent news" on feminist.com gives no matches on the Condit affair, although more than half of the articles explicitly criticize President Bush.
Gloria Jacobs, the editor of Ms. Magazine, compares this to a matter of choice. On The O'Reilly Factor, a political talk show, she says, "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." And what is her main defense of Condit? "Everybody makes their own choices."
Gary Condit's actions are the same as those of a boss who engages in sex with an employee. Reasonable people can disagree on the moral standards we have in the workplace, especially in such a public office as Congress. But there is something to be said for consistency in ethical charges against political figures.
The morality of Mr. Condit's actions aside, the double standard of feminists has been painfully evident in recent scandals. Not surprisingly, Republicans have been demonized, while the Democrats are spared the wrath of the feminists.
Take the Anita Hill situation in 1991. Feminists were quick to use her allegations as fodder to oppose the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. And, of course, the fact that Thomas was a staunch opponent of abortion didn't impede the feminists.
Similarly, when Packwood was accused of sexual harassment and the Senate Ethics Committee refused to make their hearings public, NOW President Patricia Ireland charged, "Republicans are in a conspiracy with Packwood to shift the blame for his unethical, immoral actions to the women."
When James Carville, an advisor to then-President Clinton, branded Paula Jones as "trailer park trash," the feminists didn't see fit to use the same tone. "In this case, the sexual past of both parties ought to be irrelevant unless directly related to Ms. Jones' allegations," said Ireland in a NOW press release.
That wasn't all. Ireland added, "We invite President Clinton, Ms. Jones and their supporters to help us change public policy so that no woman ... ever has to face the kind of ruthless attacks we have seen used against Anita Hill and countless other women seeking justice."
When confronted with a Democrat guilty of sexual misbehavior, feminists seem to need to bring up an example where a Republican has done the same thing. This is another distressing example of feminist politics coming before principles.
Now that the Condit affair has made news, feminists are treating it like the plague. And those who do speak out in defense of Condit are quick to scatter the blame across the aisle. Eleanor Clift, on The Edge with Paula Zahn, said "Congressman Condit, so far, is guilty of having extramarital affairs, and that is something that a number of congressmen are probably familiar with." This echoes many feminists, who assert that behavior like this is permissible because everyone in Congress is doing it.
If the feminists believe that Condit's actions are wrong, then they have a responsibility of principle to speak out.
If they believe that this behavior is acceptable, then they have the responsibility to be consistent in the application of their morals. If Condit were a Republican, you can be sure that Patricia Ireland would be clamoring for the nearest camera.
Feminists certainly are not the type to reserve their comments about Republican philanderers and chauvinists. Their silence in regards to the Condit scandal all too clearly shows the ideals of feminism have become expendable when outweighed by political gain.
As a Democrat, it's disappointing to see a congressman from my party embroiled in such a scandal and crippled politically. But it's even more disappointing to see the ideals of such a noble philosophy as feminism compromised to serve a political purpose.
(Brian Cook is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at bcook@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 19 hours agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | YesterdayAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | 6 days agoEvery student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
