Fair Game

So, three days before a major election, an anonymous person comes forward with an embarassing story about a publicly moralizing political figure that puts that person in a less than flattering light. The story gets run in an online gossip journal, complete with pretty damning (and confirming) pictures. The most embarassing parts of the story revolve around the politician's genitalia. Is it out of bounds?

Does it matter if it's a man or a woman?

Does it matter if it's Christine O'Donnell? Jezebel says so. So does Foster Kramer at The Voice. To be honest...I'm not so sure. Or rather, I'm not sure where this story flips into misogyny.

Hear me out. In the past couple of weeks, we've been treated to the sexual peccadilloes of Brett Favre (complete with talk of his genitalia) and Charlie Sheen. Charlie Melancon's latest ad in his race against David Vitter is about Vitter's past with prostitutes. Not to mention our own former governor, John Edwards and a whole host of other guys whose often consenual (and sometimes not so much) sexual activity were brought to bear in their political lives.

Does the mere act of saying "I hooked up  with Christine O'Donnell" make it misogyny? Is it an unfair attack? Jezebel goes to town saying:

Nevertheless, the point and problem is this: If the politician in question were a man, this wouldn't be a story — an anonymous woman probably wouldn't even think to contact a gossip site with her story about how she once played spin-the-bottle with Mr. Candidate. Because who hasn't made out with someone? (With apologies to you, over there, looking sheepish in the corner.) Anyhow, big whoop.

Wait — let me revise that a bit: perhaps a lady from Mr. Candidate's innocent past would step forward with such a small faux-scandalous tale, and we'd briefly pay attention to it — but only if Mr. Candidate were viewed as patently ridiculous as is O'Donnell. Really, the dude has got to be captivatingly idiotic in order for this kind of story to be of even the most remote interest. And that brings us back to the Would Never Happen column, because even the most absurd male candidates aren't considered half as loony as their female equivalents are. We might poke some fun at silly Mr. Candidate, maybe there'd be a snicker-inducing viral video — but our attention will wander elsewhere in short order. The man's an idiot; move along, folks, nothing to see here.

But a woman? Well, that's different. First of all, she's a Crazy Bitch, and nothing holds our attention more than a hilariously Crazy Bitch. Oh, she's not, like, a bitch bitch — more like we've transformed her into our silly bitch, our punchline bitch (and no, Jezebel is not innocent here). Crazy Bitch isn't necessarily crazy because she's a woman, mind you — but the fact that she's a woman does make her craziness seem a lot more funny, doesn't it? I mean, women in Congress are a minority, and this Crazy Bitch got a nomination! Crazy Bitch made it this far! Even when she's saying crazy things!

Oh, and it helps that she's pretty, exudes a certain youthfulness, and has a history of saying things about sex. And when a woman says something silly and misinformed about SEX, it's even more interesting, isn't it? Crazy Bitch thinks she can tell us how to handle p-in-the-v! Crazy Bitch doesn't even double-click her mouse! Ha, she so crazy. Let's all shake our heads and smile.

I find this all pretty unpersuasive, in terms of the kid's story. Towards the end of the story, she comes off as a bit clingy and maybe a bit boy-crazy. She just barely comes off as hypocritical, since she doesn't sleep with the kid...or his roommate. It's an odd, and, honestly, oddly human little story about an awkward, drunken hook-up.

The reactions, though, come across as a lot more misogynistic and sexist, since they're mainly focused on, well, her pubes. That seems to be the most important part of this story for everyone. Which is lame. But...is talking about women in politics and sex totally out of bounds? What does that say? If a man lives the life of a libertine, he's gotta expect that to come up if he wants to run for office. Shouldn't a woman expect the same thing? Or is this just advanced slut-shaming? I'm really not sure.

Let me say this: I don't think anyone's consensual sexual practices should disqualify them for any office in the land. I don't think it should matter in any meaningful way. Sleep with men, sleep with women, sleep with lots and lots of either or both, pay for it, have kids outside your marriage, wear a diaper, go for it. Just make sure that everyone else can do the same and we're cool, you and me. Where I draw the line is at "do as I say, not as I do." If anything, this falls into that camp. Christine O'Donnell seems to like semi-random, drunken fooling around. I'd rather she didn't moralize at me about sex.

I don't want Christine O'Donnell to win her race. Absolutely not. I think she'd be a frightful, terrible  Senator from any state in the union. I disagree with her on just about everything in the world. But...honestly? I kind of feel for her. She took a lot of flack both for her witch comment and for the "I'm you" video. The thing is, after that,  I totally understood who she was. I know women just like her, women I went to high school and college with. Women who went through phases and trends and tried things out and came out the other side pretty conservative. They're not bad people. I just don't want them making laws. Can we separate the two?

Comments

[Josh]

I love Jezebel, but they are dead wrong on this one.

Christine O' Donnell has spent an entire career demonizing gay people, trying to chip away at the separation of church and state, and advocating for Abstinence: Extreme Edition. No blow is too low for this witch.

And, also, if Christine were a man this would absolutely be a story... if she were a man that pretended to be "pure." It's not a story because O' Donnell is a woman, it's a story because she's a liar and a hypocrite.

[Josh]

Also, GOD! Sometimes liberals are so annoying.

[Wade]

I think the Gawker story is pretty hideous. It's an inconsequential account of harmless human frailty--to which I imagine even O'Donnell would not describe herself as being immune--that has no inherent interest apart from providing an opportunity for a politician's opponents to present her in an unattractive light. Her behavior in the anecdote is not in conflict with her policy positions, so there's no hypocrisy on display. And it is frankly hard to imagine the media devoting any resources whatsoever to a story about the time some years ago when an umarried male politician spent an evening not having sex with a woman.

There are dozens of reasons not to vote for O'Donnell, but none of them are even hinted at in the self-aggrandizing reminiscences of a misogynist douchebag.

[isaac]

I agree with Josh. That being said, Gawker did themselves few favors by not editing this piece a bit closer, taking out some of the douchier Penthouse Forum parts, particularly about her pubic hair. I understand where the counter reaction is coming from. This piece is written in a way that is, frankly... creepy and gross (and very male). That doesn't make the publishing of it sexist.

That being said, I bet this will get a lot more play in the media than the David Vitter scandal ever got. But I don't' know if that's sexist. The Elliott Spitzer scandal ALSO got a lot more play than the David Vitter scandal, for example, and they're basically the same thing (actually, I'm pretty sure the Vitter scandal is worse).

[SashaNaomi]

I used to work with Foster. (By the way, it's Kamer, not Kramer.) I thought he wasn't part of the masogynist Boy's Club of Paradigm back in the day, but I guess I was wrong. His updated story isn't as bad, but I still can't get over the caption on the other one. I guess this is what happens when college dropouts make it into the media. (Sorry, that was a low blow, but I couldn't resist going there.) I'm not surprised by any of this crap. I used to hear it all of the time at work. When the agents were away, all of the male assistants would gather in the conference room and talk about who they were screwing. And when they noticed that I noticed, they'd shut the door, and later make up some story about me to tell the agents, in an effort to cover their asses.
Of course, they use words like poontang. Typical sexist nonsense. The really annoying thing is that this is never the way male politicians are treated when their affairs (by the way, is O'Donnell married?), are made public. They aren't degraded for being sexual beings. Their genitalia isn't made out to be some gross little toy. They are attacked for their dishonesty. So, let's attack O'Donnell's dishonesty, not her vagina. Then again, although she preaches the teaching of abstinenece for teenagers, I don't remember her saying she didn't like sex. I think that politically, she's a disaster. That's enough. I don't need to talk trash about her body too. This is what always happens to women in politics regardless of whether they're idiots or not. It's wasn't enough for people to be against Hillary Clinton because she voted for the war in Iraq--no, they had to thow in some comments about her thick legs (which, by the way, are actually normal-sized).
Oh, and notice how no one is trashing the men involved. Whenever a sex scandal involves a male politician, the media always jumps on the female accuser. She is made out to be trashy, unreliable. With the exception of Jezebel, no one is questioning the validity of this guy's story or saying that his wording of the story is masogynistic.

[SashaNaomi]

I take it back Foster. It was a parody! Damn me!
But still, damn Gawker.

[mens health]

I just don’t see how the right solution can be so tightly disciplined to a dollar figure. By all means, recognize that a problem has a cost attached to it, and therefore the solution must be limited by that financial context.