X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 10 Jan 1993 13:31:13 CST
From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject: Re: Bob Packwood - A Bad Boy?
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

> > >> Additionally it seems to me that what Packwood has done is very bad but
> > >> could
> > >> be worse.   Before some of you jump on me let me say that for example he
> > >> did not use his office and power to coerce women.

> > >That's not true.  He did not explicitly use the power of his office to coer
> > >women, but it was definitely implicit.  He was/is the boss.  He is a
> > >powerful congressperson.  What does it mean to say 'no' to him?

> > I don't recall any woman claiming that she was reprimanded
> > or fired after they rejected his advances.

> My point was that these women didn't know that when he was groping them.
> Even if he had told them at that point (which I doubt he did), would you
> have believed him?  He's the boss, a powerful Senator.

I have to agree here. The power of hiring and firing can be very
powerful at this level. The hand that fondles the breast is also
the hand that writes the reference when on the next job-search.
In this case, I say there was implied power.

> > >I don't agree.  I think that he has shown that he is a poor representative.
> > >As proof of that, I would point to the people of Oregon who re-elected him
> > >by a slim majority.  If this had come out, he would have lost, perhaps
> > >decisively.  He is holding an office that he does not deserve to hold.

> > He got more vote (percentage-wise) than Clinton did (I am
> > assuming here :-), so THAT by itself does not mean anything.
> > But I did agree that he would have lost had he been forthcoming
> > a bit sooner.

> That's not a fair comparision and you know it.  Clinton ran against
> 2 others.  Packwood was running against 1 other.

Still, this was released before the election. People knew about it
before they voted. The Clinton comparison is not fair, but the idea
he was trying to put across - Packwood is a sexist but they voted for
him anyway - is not diminished by that comparison.

> > Does his past record on women's issue count for anything?  Is
> > THAT any indication of what kind of representative he has been?

> Certainly, he has proved to be receptive to "women's issues".  But should
> that allow a "sexual harrasser" stay in power?  I don't think so.  It's
> not like, in this day and age, that politicians who are "receptive to
> women's issues" are hard (oops) to find.

Well, 'sexual harrassment' (whatever pronunciation or definition)
used to be SOP. Now it is not, or at least it is considered 'BAD'.
This harrassment happened earlier in his career (If I remember the
story correctly) and after almost getting nailed for it (someone
brought up charges and lost), he has seen the light and repented his
his evil, sinning, sexual harrassing ways. LORD- HALLALUYAH!  B)

So, do we hang this man or do we let him stay "SAVED"?

I say we let him stay saved.

> > >> Ironically, *I* think it would serve the "women's movement" better if
> > >> he is forgiven and allowed to finish his term and let the people of
> > >> Oregon decide if he should be reappointed.  Letting him stay would
> > >> affirm that women are not for revenge but for equality and respect.

> > >No.  I don't agree. He sexually harrased at least 15 women.  He deserves
> > >to be in prison.

> > In prison?!  Don't you think that is kind of harsh?  I have
> > no problem with people losing their jobs if they misuse
> > their power, but prison?, for making advances??

> No, I don't think that it's too harsh.  I think that this type of attitude
> is too pervasive in our society.  That is, it's not such a bad thing to
> grope women.  Let him off.  It's no big deal.  This attitude is a big
> problem in congress.  And just think of the ramifications in our society
> if a Senator gets kicked out of the Senate, gets prosecuted for harrassment,
> and gets time in jail. Don't you think that the next boss who thought about
> groping an employee would think twice?   Or how about the father that
> makes degrading comments to women in front of his 10 year-old son who
> thinks that this is OK and does the same thing in school?

First off, I think you are trying to institute ThoughtCrime (tm) here.
I think the line between normal appreciation of the opposite sex and
sexual harrassment is being blurred here. While I admit the actions
made by Packwood, Inouye and Clarence Thomas were wrong, I don't think
I'm doing a bad thing when I look at women I know and consider their
beauty. If I sat at a construction site and screamed "Hey baby, suck
me dry" from a the third story, I'd be sexually harrassing someone,
but the end to all of this seems to be 'it is wrong to think about
sex,' and I have problems with that.

By the way, what kind of pick-up line is "Who put pubic hair on my
Coke?" Would that work for ANYONE?

> > Remember that
> > there is no charge of undue effect on hiring/firing/promotion of
> > these women -- at least none that I remember.

> I find this to be totally irrelevant.

Right. The threat is there, even if the Senator would not use it.

> > >> There is however one little problem here.  Packwood played loose with
> > >> facts so that he could get reelected.  That is a sin alright, but it
> > >> is not against women per se, bust against all voters.  The punishment
> > >> for THAT sin, I don't know.

> > >He shouldn't have been seated.  He should be recalled. That is the penalty.

> > I am sure you mean recall as in vote to recall not as an action
> > by a court, right?  If yes, then I have no problem with that.
> > But my point is that THAT sin was against all voters not just
> > women.

> Yes, a recall as in a vote to recall.  I don't think waiting 6 years to
> kick him out is a good idea.

I don't know that Oregon has recall. I know Minnesota doesn't. I know
South Dakota does  B).

If the voters feel screwed, then they should recall Packwood. Of
course, the guy who went against him in the last election might have
been a bigger prick than Packwood (I don't recall) but they made the
choice, and as long as their state says they can recall, they can
recall. Of course, as bad as 'sexual harrassment' is, there are worse
crimes going on in Washington.

> I agree that his lying about his harrassments until after the election,
> shows his attitude toward the voters.  And that is a 'sin' against all
> voters.  But you know what KAT? I think that his harrassment of women is
> a 'sin' against all voters.  Who does he think he is?

A senator with a great record on woman's rights votes. Even though
he is a pig (or was, depending on what you believe) he still is a
friend to women with his votes.

> > >Jonathan
> > --KAT
> Jonathan

Another male discussing this "women's issue"
Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.sdstate.edu
Anyone can become ANGRY. That is easy. But to be angry with the
right person, to the right degree, at the right time, foir the right
purpose and in the right way - that is not easy.
              --Aristotle

Disclaimer:  The opinions contained in this post are not the
opinions of the Administration, Faculty or Student Body of
South Dakota State University.  Hell, they might not even
be mine.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU