"SHE SEZ, HE SEZ"

There's plenty of speculation from all kinds of media
on the ramifications of the recent decision handed down
by the Supremes regarding the "President and PCJ"
(that's Paula Corbin Jones in case you've missed it.)
We decided to weigh in on the subject because so many
media sources are speculating on `what will be the
result of a sexual harassment trial on women (the
gendergap)? And, as usual, they assume that we are
mindless creatures that are incapable of considering
all the facts of the case. More importantly, that we
are stupid enough to be led to a decision by a media
which has ceased to report news and now either
makes it, makes it up or does commentaries on it.

"Well," the media-mavins say, "look how women supported
Anita Hill and all that resulted? Sexual harassment
became a household word. This is going to hurt the
President and his Party in the upcoming elections.
Women are not going to stand for it."

There now. We've been defined and boxed into an atti-
tude. We've been told what to think and what to do.
The Jerks! They can't seem to comprehend that gender-
gappers are self-defined women that no longer fit into
the society's pre-defined, cultural mold. They can't
get beyond their own image-making and realize that we
think for ourselves.

Several questions have occurred to us and we pass them
on for your consideration. 1. Can the legal definition
of sexual harassment relate to one encounter? 2. What,
if any, penalty occurred when she allegedly refused
"the indecent request? Did she lose her position?
Take a demotion or salary decrease? 3. Why was there
such a change in Paula's story after the "Pubs" attor-
neys took her under their wing and why did she and her
attorneys refuse to meet with women's groups (such as
NOW) who wanted to help her? 4. She claimed initially
that she was only trying to clear her name and only
made the charge because her name appeared in a national
publication. What appeared was just the name, Paula.
Is she the only Paula in Arkansas? 5. Why didn't
Clinton simply settle months ago and avoid all this?
6. If Clinton "played around" to the extent the media
tells us, when he was Gov of Arkansas, why aren't women
coming out in droves to tell their story, to describe
"those particular genital characteristics" and espe-
cially to pick up the dough that has been offered for
anything detrimental to Clinton. 7. If the Arkansas
State Police acted as pimps as charged, why does all
but one claim this is untrue?

Twanda comments:

1. Trial attorneys who specialize in sexual harassment
suits tell us that the operative word in the statute is
"unwelcome or unwanted". They say this gives, in
effect, one free pass, that is, a person must first
indicate that the sexual attention is "unwanted." It
is the subsequent encounters that qualify as harass-
ment. Paula's affidavit indicates only one encounter
and she states she was not forced, just asked, and that
she refused.

***Today we are told that the charge against Clinton
will not be sexual harassment but another charge will
be substituded involving sexual impropriety.***

3. We refer to what she told friends and family
directly following the alleged encounter. It is mas-
sively different from what is now in her affidavit. It
is also bothersome that she and her attorneys have
attacked women's groups for not giving her support when
it is a matter of record that they tried to but she would
not meet with them.

Clinton claims the event never happened and that he does
not remember ever meeting Paula.

5. Both sides are now saying they would be open to a settlement.
"It's not about money I just want to clear my name," sez Paula,
asking for $800,000.

Bill sez, "It never happened but, OK, I'm willing to settle for
that price as long as the money goes to charity."

And through all this `she sez, he sez', Gendergappers surely
noted the important advances made in Europe and NATO
last week. Find yourselves another sterotype, fellers.