Doc. No. 275

MMN Home Page

Our Legal Notices are here

These pages are best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 3.0 and SVGA monitor in 64K color mode or higher.

Other browsers and low resolution VGA should still be readable, however.

Please report any problems to the
Web Manager

Views expressed by individual writers are not necessarily endorsed by The Men's Media Network.

I have believed for some time that Western culture is in a mass state of pathological denial about anything related to sex, family, children and the male/female Great Gender War. But even I am surprised at the determined effort on the part of the media and the general population to not understand what is at the foundation of the current political brouhaha over the actions of the President of the United States.

Clinton is not the first President to have had extra-marital affairs, but he is the first President who has ever had a legal obligation to tell the truth about his affairs. There are a lot of causes at work behind this scandal, but one way to look at it is that the introduction of sexual harassment law into our courts has brought us here. What portion of the public agrees with the President, that it's a private matter and, by implication, not worthy of litigation?

A lot of men believe that sexual harassment claims are largely fabricated he-said/she-said disputes that are used by women to punish employers or otherwise gain leverage or money. Women, on the other hand, believe that harassment claims are serious business that ought to be brought to court. This is why Bill Clinton is on the brink of impeachment. But how did he manage to get himself to this precipice? Why is Clinton accused of perjury, abuse of office and obstruction of justice and why is Starr's report filled with graphic descriptions of sexual encounters? Because Clinton said under oath in a pre-trial deposition that he did not have a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. But why was he asked if he had a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky? Because in a sexual harassment civil suit brought by Paula Jones against Bill Clinton there was an attempt to show that Clinton had a pattern of inappropriate sexual behavior and that his relationship with Monica Lewinsky was part of this pattern.

But what does it mean to sexually harass another person? No one knows the answer to this question. The U.S. Supreme Court has tried but succeeds in only confusing the matter with more jargon. The law is so ambiguous that almost anyone can be found guilty. Well, why has anyone tried to legally define and criminalize human sexual behavior in the workplace? Uh oh, we are now getting into troubled waters. It is because feminists have found it to be a convenient and lucrative way to transfer wealth and power from men to women. And they have found that men can be declared guilty and punished by accusation only. And they found that the persecution and prosecution of men through sexual harassment charges in the work place can be translated into domestic violence charges in the home. Guilt by accusation. Money and power transferred from men to women. Men forced away from their homes and children. Men imprisoned for missing two financially impossible hostage (child support) payments.

It is beyond comprehension how few people see or want to see how the roots of the current political turmoil are sunk into the fertile - for feminists - grounds of the ambiguity of sexual harassment laws. How few people see the irony of Clinton being hoisted by his own petard of supporting and promoting feminist agendas. How few people see the classical demise of a man of profound hubris, destroyed by a deal with the Devil.

After reading the Starr Report I am struck by another classical human experience: the banality of evil. Men and women reading the descriptions of the desperate back office quickies, blowjobs without orgasms, the kissing with open eyes, the jumping at the sound of footsteps, must all have flashback recollections of very similar events that took place sometime in their lives. The leader of the most powerful country on Earth afraid that a gardener will see him through a window in an embrace with a young woman. A Rhodes scholar, a Yale Law School graduate, the President of the United States telling a young woman the most trivial and obvious of lies about the meaning of their relationship, standing back and marveling at the sight of a twentysomething's bare breasts. Who amongst us here...

And it all comes to public light because he fell into the trap of her pleas that he come in her mouth so that SHE would feel satisfied. Semen spilling from her lips onto her dress and into a laboratory. And a twenty dollar Radio Shack tape recorder in a bitter unattractive woman's possession feigning friendship to the insecure young girl seals his fate. What banal events. Men can take satisfaction in all this only because we know for sure what we have been saying for a long, long time: Any Man at any time can be ruined, destroyed by accusation, by the ambiguity of sexual harassment and domestic violence laws. The initial support and ultimate discarding of Clinton by the feminists confirming our observations that they are cynical, hypocritical liars selfishly lusting for power, control and wealth by any means.

I may seem to be in the position of defending Bill Clinton politically. Which I'm not. His policy towards Men has hurt hundreds of thousands of Men. Men who lose their homes and never see their children. But the operative word here is 'policy'. Let's be Clintonesque and get a working definition of the word. A policy is a grouping of laws and orders written with the purpose of implementing a political agenda. If we could impeach Clinton on the grounds of his policies I would certainly support that. But a majority of the voting population seems to agree with most of his policies. Clinton owes me, as a Men's Rights advocate, nothing politically. The moralists may be right about Clinton. He may be an unprincipled cad. A bad husband and a bad Father. I may not want my son to be like him or my daughter to work under him (no pun). But you cannot impeach him for that. He was humiliated after allegedly violating a law all of us here despise (sexual harassment). He perjured himself in an attempt to thwart a judgment against him. Pious, sanctimonious judgements about his sexual behavior should be reserved for priests, rabbis, ayatollahs, etc. The pompous, self-righteous peacocks passing moral judgement on the Clinton tragedy/comedy are puffing and preening their pious colors, but getting your cock sucked in the Oval Office hardly shakes the foundations of Western Morality. Low moral standards? High moral standards? Let the people who make a living off of confusing people about this pontificate on their altars, pulpits and other lofty platforms. I would fear a moral patriot more than a pussy whipped horny liar like Clinton. Moral patriots can justify any human crime. Any schoolboy can tell you that the most heinous acts of mass murder and genocide have been committed ultimately in the name of God, country and/or utopian ideologies. People who publicly proclaim their place on and knowledge of high moral ground are very dangerous people. A lot of them destroy families and hurt children. They're called judges, lawyers, social workers, psychologists, teachers and feminists..

How will the President's perjury affect public confidence in the civil justice system? The fact is that perjury is ubiquitous in civil cases. It is frequently rewarded with favorable results, rarely prosecuted or punished, and only seldom uncovered or proved before the court or jury renders its judgment. I'd like to believe that most witnesses fib, earnestly believing that the truth is what we wish it was. How many more, like the President, know they're lying under oath, but do it anyway? Will Clinton do as much damage to a generation's faith in the courts as Nixon did to my faith in our nation's leaders? This leads to a general inquiry into how good courts and juries are at figuring out the truth, and how effectively and frequently they punish liars? "Not very" and "not at all" are the answer to the questions, in my experience. Yet, Congress and the upper Courts continue to draft laws and render decisions on the assumption that the courts are good at finding out the truth and at applying the law. Who do they think they're kidding when the President, a lawyer himself, perjures himself to gain an advantage in the Jones suit? The public interest would be served by eliminating or reducing the number of issues that come before the courts where the evidence, by its nature, is highly subjective and unverifiable. Yes, this means that sexual harassment and other hard to prove social problems will be left without private legal remedies, but at least the courts could regain an appearance of reliability which they badly need.