[Search for users]
[Overall Top Noters]
[List of all Conferences]
[Download this site]
| Title: | ARCHIVE-- Topics of Interest to Women, Volume 1 --ARCHIVE |
| Notice: | V1 is closed. TURRIS::WOMANNOTES-V5 is open. |
| Moderator: | REGENT::BROOMHEAD |
|
| Created: | Thu Jan 30 1986 |
| Last Modified: | Fri Jun 30 1995 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 873 |
| Total number of notes: | 22329 |
786.0. "Gary Hart" by GNUVAX::TUCKER () Tue Apr 05 1988 13:21
In Spring cleaning this past week-end, I became absorbed in
an article from the May 18, 1987 issue of Newsweek. With its
feminist perspective, the article stood out from everything
else I'd read about Gary Hart.
It was written by Suzannah Lessard, of The New Yorker, who
also wrote an article about Ted Kennedy and womanizing as a
political issue in The Washington Monthly in 1979.
Here it is:
THE ISSUE WAS WOMEN
Philandering, not 'Judgement,' Got Hart in Trouble
The way that the Hart controversy exploded into prominence
and then brought down the Democratic front runner in no time
flat suggests that there have been some extraordinary changes
since Teddy Kennedy's candidacy in 1980 and even since Hart's
candidacy only four years ago. While Hart had a reputation
as a womanizer then, the press respected the age-old
tradition of overlooking behavior in this department. This
tradition arose out of several incompatible attitudes. The
first attitude--the only one that stands up to scrutiny--was
respect for the privacy of candidates. A second was that the
subject was of interest only to tabloid readers; that it was
beneath the dignity of serious people to consider. Another
attitude was a mixture of male solidarity and a commendable
desire to judge not lest ye yourself be judged.
With the Hart episode, all these inhibitions have given way.
That they should do so suggests to me that we are in a
period of transition toward a society in which the full
humanity of women is recognized. Such transitions are never
clear cut. For example, at some point along our path toward
integration, racist remarks in many quarters became
unattractive, then unacceptable and finally were a sign that
the person who made them might have an emotional problem.
The reaction to the Hart incident reveals a transition in its
early stage, where most of us are still confused. But it
seems more or less clear that the question of a presidential
candidate's philandering has a meaning that it didn't have
before. And while the interpretations surely vary, they must
include the growing equality of women. A feminist
sensibility has seeped into the public consciousness
sufficiently to make philandering appear to many at best
unattractive, maybe unacceptable and possibly even alarming
where the candidate's emotions and psychology are concerned.
Viewed from this perspective, the real issue in the Hart
controversy was not Hart's "judgement," as some have argued,
but the question of womanizing. Nor is the cause "moralism"
in the sense of old-fashioned rectitude. Rather it is
awareness of the dignity and equality of women.
As long as women were regarded as less than full-fledged
human beings, a man's behavior toward them was not a good
gauge of his attitude toward human beings. It was not
descriptive of his moral texture, not a sounding of his
emotional depth. As long as women were assumed to be
creatures of a generally lesser caliber than men, it made
little sense to draw conclusions about a man's character from
his relationships with them--any more than you could from his
relationships with his pets. Unless of course, he was doing
something extreme like beating or starving them. A pet was
there to please and fulfill its owner, whose life was viewed
as infinitely more significant. So it was with wives of
politicians. The wives' pain wasn't significant, wasn't even
real. And as for the women a politician dallied with, they
were truly insignificant. What they felt or how they were
affected by these liaisons was of no account. This began to
change in the '70s. Mary Jo Kopechne's death at
Chappaquiddick and Joan Kennedy's devastation made an
impression--though not enough of one to dissolve that magic
protective circle around Kennedy, whose political life
continued.
Worldly wise:
Even then the ground was beginning to shift. During the 1980
campaign, when I did a piece on his womanizing as a political
issue, a number of feminists were concerned about Kennedy's
behavior. It meant to them that Kennedy did not respect
women and would respond to feminist causes only as an
expedient. But they were not willing to be quoted by name
because (and this was a reasonable assumption on their part)
to come out against philandering was likely to jeopardize
their standing as serious, worldly-wise political people.
The same strange shield protected Hart in '84, but sometime
between then and now the shield dissolved without anyone
knowing it. Hart was so sure of its existence that he
actually challenged reporters to follow him around. "I'm
serious," he said. "If anybody wants to put a tail on me, go
ahead. They'd be very bored."
It was almost as if he believed that he was invisible in this
respect, or as if his activity with women existed in a zone
of reality entirely apart from the world of reporters and
campaigns. A friend of Hart's was quoted as saying, "He
never seemed to to understand that it was his behavior that
was the problem," and indeed, that was the impression he
gave. "As I struggle to retain my integrity and my
honor--and believe me I will--I hope you will also struggle
to save our political system from its worst instincts," he
said after the controversy broke. There is in this a
capacity for a kind of extreme denial of reality--as if his
life with women just wasn't real, as if he couldn't believe
anyone else would think it meant anything. One might call
this insane except that this split version of reality is a
common trait in chauvinistic men. Certainly, this split
reality creates an insane reality for women, both those who
are lied to and those who are dallied with, although they
accept it as normal--in fact, the whole society has.
There is an element of risk common to the Chappaquiddick
tragedy and the Hart episode that raises another concern
about this kind of behavior. In Kennedy's case, an actual
death made this danger visible. In Hart's, it was the demise
of his campaign. Neither of these costs could have been
predicted, but neither are they beyond the bounds of what was
imaginable, given the situations. And yet the risks were
taken. There is a specter here of compulsion, self-deception
and a delusory indifference to danger. The behavior
surrounding Chappaquiddick was never resoundingly declared
unacceptable. It could be that the force of the reaction
against Hart drew upon pent-up feelings from the earlier
incident.
When reporters accepted Hart's challenge to follow him we
found out that we had changed. We found out that many
people now believe that if a man abuses his wife by
womanizing there could be something abusive in his nature;
that if a man deceives his wife and lies to the public about
his relationship with other women he may well be generally
untrustworthy. And if he seems to seek out transitory
relationships with women far younger than himself, there may
be an immature, maybe even compulsive side to his nature. We
found out that many of us now believe a man's life with women
does reveal character and that we are not apologetic for
thinking this way anymore.
Lovers and Leaders:
All that being said, we were wrenched from a deeply rooted
tradition in less than a week. Everybody, I think, would
have preferred the process to be more evolutionary. To have
Hart's campaign terminated over the issue seemed
disproportionate. I, for one, agree with those who feel that
a candidate's behavior in this respect is something that one
weighs along with many other factors, that it is significant
but not the kind of issue that by itself ought to decide one
for or against a candidate. But it *is* something to take
into account. It seems to me a blind form of free-thinking
to say that only a fanatical or prejudiced or extremely
religious person would take such a matter into account. I
also share the almost universal recoil from probing into the
private lives of candidates and feel very strongly that the
matter is of significance only where presidential candidates
are concerned--presidential candidates, and the men we
choose as friends, husbands, lovers. It applies to
presidential candidates and intimates, and no one in between.
Perhaps this attitude merely reflects a particular awkward
stage in our transition to a more feminist world. Maybe it
says something about how intimate a figure the president is
for us. He is not a remote, godlike figure but a
brother--and maybe someday a sister--who carries a power of
life and death that no human being is qualified to bear. We
need to be close to him. We need to know him heart and soul.
End
-----------------------------------------------------
The article was accompanied by a large close-up photo of Ted
and Joan Kennedy leaving for Kopechne's funeral in 1969. It
showed Ted in a neck brace and Joan walking along with head
downcast tied up in a simple black scarf.
| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 786.1 | on cleaning... | GNUVAX::QUIRIY | | Tue Apr 05 1988 18:48 | 8 |
| I sometimes become absorbed by old magazine articles whilst doing
my cleaning, no matter _what_ the season... even old junk mail'll
do in the absence of old magazines.
I've extracted the base note and will print it for reading at my
leisure. Thanks for typing it in.
CQ
|
| 786.2 | | CADSYS::SULLIVAN | Karen - 225-4096 | Wed Apr 06 1988 12:49 | 9 |
| RE: .0
It would be nice if Hart's fall from grace had to do with
women being more equal. Somehow I don't think so. I feel
that the "moral majority" is getting a stronger hold on the
press in this country. It would be nice if it were true,
maybe there's some of both at work here.
...Karen
|
| 786.3 | Herstory texts must not cloud this with "morality" | SCOMAN::FOSTER | | Wed Apr 06 1988 13:33 | 49 |
| > When reporters accepted Hart's challenge to follow him we
> found out that we had changed. We found out that many
> people now believe that if a man abuses his wife by
> womanizing there could be something abusive in his nature;
> that if a man deceives his wife and lies to the public about
> his relationship with other women he may well be generally
> untrustworthy. And if he seems to seek out transitory
> relationships with women far younger than himself, there may
> be an immature, maybe even compulsive side to his nature. We
> found out that many of us now believe a man's life with women
> does reveal character and that we are not apologetic for
> thinking this way anymore.
I *AM* one of the people who believes this with great conviction.
And I have, in fact, been able to actually convince others to consider
this viewpoint. And I am by no means aligned with the Moral Majority.
Any woman who believes that a man who acts in the manner stated
above has a strong internal respect for women to the point where
he will strive to protect our civil rights as Americans and recognize
the need for us to hold places of power in the government which
he is entrusted to appoint, well frankly lady, you are kidding
yourself. In fact, you're giving in to the women vs. 'my women'
theory. And if the theory holds, then you're putting one heck of
a schizophrenic into the oval office.
Perhaps it seems strange to simply reiterate the original note,
but too many non-Moral Majority people are being suckered into letting
this be a moral issue. And they DISMISS it as such. Please do not
fall into this trap. Every woman should ask herself why she should
trust a man to take presidential vows when he makes such a mockery
of his marriage vows. An oath is an oath. Why does one's wife deserve
less trust and respect than the rest of the country. Why does the
country deserve less honesty on this issue than any other concerning
our national representative.
If Hart was into "swapping" (with Lee's consent), dressing in
women's clothing or even a "watcher", I wouldn't CARE. If he were
caught at it, I would just be amused. A little variety never hurts
as long as it doesn't demean or degrade 54% of our nation's populace,
or represent an attitude which permits the degredation of such.
Respect is independent of morality.
Bottom line: we cannot ALLOW history to consider Hart's fall as
simply a moral issue reflecting a conservative era. If we permit
this, we are allowing his blatant disrespect of women as human beings
and of a binding contract to become a NON-issue. I hope we won't
permit this to happen.
LKF
|
| 786.4 | I'm not sure... | APEHUB::STHILAIRE | 1 step up & 2 steps back | Wed Apr 06 1988 15:10 | 11 |
| Re all the previous, I'm not convinced that if a man cheats on
his wife it means he has no respect for all women as people. It
might mean he just had a strong desire to have sex with a certain
woman other than his wife. I'm not convinced that a person's sex
life has anything to do with how well he does his job, or makes
other types of decisions.
There can be many reasons for breaking a so called marriage vow.
Lorna
|
| 786.5 | I disagree | HARRY::HIGGINS | Citizen of Atlantis | Wed Apr 06 1988 16:52 | 40 |
|
> Perhaps it seems strange to simply reiterate the original note,
> but too many non-Moral Majority people are being suckered into letting
> this be a moral issue. And they DISMISS it as such. Please do not
> fall into this trap.
Hart's infidelity was a moral issue. It is not a trap. Your actions
dictate the content of your moral code. Hart's code was corrupt.
> Respect is independent of morality.
I disagree. Respect for oneself and for others is the result of
a moral code, not divorced from that code. Hart showed no respect
for his partner(s) by his action. If I were to state that either
of those women were a commodity for Hart to do with as he wished,
the lynching mob would be forming immediately. But to deny that
his actions crossed the boundries of a rational moral code is to
subscribe to that very notion.
> Bottom line: we cannot ALLOW history to consider Hart's fall as
> simply a moral issue reflecting a conservative era. If we permit
> this, we are allowing his blatant disrespect of women as human beings
> and of a binding contract to become a NON-issue. I hope we won't
> permit this to happen.
I don't understand why you try to assure that history not reflect
that it was a moral issue. The disregard and disrespect of women
that Hart allowed is obviously part of his moral code. It was Hart
that denied the reality of his actions by claiming the press (who
he had challenged to follow him) had somehow subverted the political
process.
I think by trying to put morality into some sort of vacuum, by
labelling it as old fashioned, conservative, out of date, apart
from the so-called real issues, you are missing the point of why
America said that Gary Hart is unacceptable as President of the
United States.
|
| 786.6 | Flailing to a definition | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Wed Apr 06 1988 17:33 | 10 |
| Umm, I think that LKF used "morality" to mean "sexual morality"
in the sense of meaning "something which isn't really a code
of ethics because it only deals with sexual things, and sexual
things have no pertinence to REAL life".
You (I take it) mean "morality" as "a complete code of ethics",
and you are correct. LKF's objections are correct if the linkage
in the above paragraph is what was meant.
Ann B.
|
| 786.7 | | HANDY::MALLETT | Situation hopeless but not serious | Wed Apr 06 1988 18:31 | 54 |
| re: .5
"Hart's infidelity was a moral issue. It is not a trap. Your actions
dictate the content of your moral code. Hart's code was corrupt."
True, but only if one feels that fidelity is a moral issue ("good"
vs. "evil"). For some it's a legal issue. For others, there is
no issue. I'd suggest that one's actions define the ability to
adhere to one's moral code. When people's actions almost never
coincide with their stated morals, they are simply hypocritical.
BTW, the issues for me are that 1) he took a dumb chance: right
or wrong, good or bad, he was certainly aware that he would be
*perceived* as "wrong/bad" if caught, the odds for which were
high and 2) he tried to deny it. The President will, from
time to time, have to take some chances; I'd prefer a person who
has a better (i.e. more-like-mine) sense of when and what to risk.
Denying theft when one's hand has been caught in the cookie jar
makes one *look* foolish (even if one was *not* stealing); I'd
prefer a candidate who has a more accurate sense of how the country
would, in general, react to such appearances.
> Respect is independent of morality.
"I disagree. Respect for oneself and for others is the result of
a moral code. . ."
I think that respect may be independent of morality. I have no
way of knowing what his code of good and bad is, but I have great
respect for Hulk Hogan's ability to crush my face in about a
New York second.
re: his/her/whoever'story etc.
I don't understand how we can allow or not allow history to see
us other than how it sees us. We can declare that we, in this time
don't think a lot of Gary's actions, but the history of history
is that historians tend to rewrite it from time to time. A current
example is the attempt by some Japanese historians to present the
invasion of China as something other than out-and-out aggression.
Or, taken another way, though he wasn't considered so at the time,
it's hard to see how we (history) could remember George Washington
as other than "great", despite what they thought back then. The
historian's ace in the hole is that we (of the current) are too
close to the events of the day to understand how they'll play out
over the ensuing years.
JOPO,
Steve
|
| 786.8 | Warning: Longwinded and a tad defensive... | STRATA::FOSTER | | Thu Apr 07 1988 00:05 | 42 |
| My statements in .5 have a lot to do with the point in .4 about the
Moral Majority. I tend to think of this group, in a fairly biased
fashion, as having defined the only acceptable moral position as that
ascribed by the Bible... and them. So when I spoke of morals, I meant
the fundamentalist Christian morals espoused by the MM, which can be
awfully prudish about sexuality. And to go further, the folks who
don't ascribe to this moral code are immoral. By this definition,
I'm immoral and so are a good portion of the noters here. And frankly,
I could care less.
On the other hand, I wish to separate would I will call secular
ethics and Christian morals. The dictionary will NOT correlate with
these definitions, they're mine alone. Ethics are important for
a president. They give meaning to his presidential oath and the
trust we place in him. Christian morals, in my book, are not important
as long as ethics are in place. Respect, to me, should be present
no matter what moral code is followed. It is an axiom to the theory
of citizens' rights. So I lump it under an ethical requirement instead
of a moral one. That's where the statement {paraphrased} "Respect
is independent of morals" comes from. By dictionary definition,
I know this is incorrect - by independence, I mean that showing
respect for the dignity and rights of human beings does not mean
that you follow the Christian moral code.
I hope this is a bit clearer.
Also, I have some personal experience with some reasons for breaking
marriage vows. They aren't worth relating here, but I recognize that
sometimes a marriage contract can neither be outright broken nor
perfectly adhered to. Fine, just don't lie about it. Its my personal
opinion that one should work out a new contract or cancel the current
one. To hold up that contract as a 'model of morality' when in fact it is
not adhered to at all is an ultimate hypocrisy. In other words, if
you're married and the contract holds, great. If you and your spouse
have renegotiated the contract and it holds, great. If you and/or your
spouse can't adhere to the contract and you end it, great. If you
ignore the tenets of the contract and then expect people (including
spouse) to believe that you're upholding it, then I question your
ethics. Not your Christian morals.
This too, I hope is clearer.
|