Hillary Clinton, Harvey Weinstein, and the Double Standards of Politics

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)

I have largely steered clear of the Harvey Weinstein debate because most of what I've been thinking has been said (he's a pig, disgusting, and this is all deserved-I hope he never works in Hollywood again),.  But I saw an interview this weekend with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton where she was grilled by the interviewer about her connections to Weinstein, in a way that made me feel like I needed to discuss the ridiculous double standard female politicians, but in particular Hillary Clinton have to face every single day.

Women, in general, are constantly called upon in a way that is not similar to their male counterparts to underline points and make statements.  We have seen that in the wake of the Weinstein scandal all over the internet.  Initially it was women who had worked with Weinstein in the past who were being called out (people like Meryl Streep, Judi Dench, and Kate Winslet), rather than his many, many male actors and directors.  I will say anecdotally that I saw dozens of tweets and comments on news articles about these women before I saw one person point out that, say, Matt Damon or Ben Affleck have been completely silent on this issue.  If we believe, as we should, that sexual harassment is a problem everyone should condemn, why is it that women are called on to address this the loudest?

This was particularly shocking when I saw an interview that Sec. Clinton did about the Weinstein Scandal (and in particular, Weinstein's donations to her campaign) with the BBC's Andrew Marr.  During the interviews, Marr grilled her about her connections with Harvey Weinstein, why she hadn't returned the money yet (she said she planned on doing so, but was working through the logistics), and repeatedly admonished her for not knowing rumors about Weinstein's behavior.

I know everyone wants to always think the worst of Clinton and that we all assume that every scandal is well-known to those in power, but honestly-I kind of wonder if Clinton didn't know about these rumors.  Celebrities live cloistered lives, and someone like Hillary Clinton, whom you could find literally ANYTHING about on the web (literally any theory, story, or tall tale about Clinton could be found on some corner of the internet), might be more suspicious of rumors than your average person. When you regularly read that you're the Antichrist or that you are a serial killer on social media and Reddit, there's probably going to need to be more evidence than just hearsay for you to truly believe the worst in someone else.  Clinton's reaction, stern and deeply critical of Weinstein, as well as a system that punishes victims of sexual harassment, seemed quite reasonable to anyone looking at this objectively.  People calling her out for not being quick enough or angry enough are also the people who regularly question her being part of a conversation at all, and have questioned her entire career-these are people that generally enjoy telling powerful women what to do, in my opinion (that most of them have a penis should surprise no one).

In the wake of Clinton's tangential involvement in this scandal, it has to be pointed out that few politicians have made championing women's rights more central to their careers than Hillary Clinton who has made women's rights a cornerstone of her public service career, from work with the Children's Defense Fund to the Family and Medical Leave Act during her husband's administration to her work on the Lilly Ledbetter Act as a senator.  Quite frankly, she's earned some breathing room on an issue like this because she's always siding with women's advocates, she's in fact one of the leading women's rights advocates in politics today.  Media jumping down her throat about Weinstein seems like opportunistic journalism, and the sort of "tear-them-down" journalism that contributed to her loss last year.

President Donald Trump with Bill O'Reilly

Because the real honest thing is that Clinton gets these attacks because she's a woman.  Just look at how, say, Donald Trump defended Bill O'Reilly when he faced near identical accusations to those that Clinton faced.  Trump didn't have to face a grilling for not publicly deriding O'Reilly the way that Clinton did over Weinstein.  Trump, in fact, still supports O'Reilly despite the fact that he and the right-wing news machine seem intent on going after Clinton full-throttle over Weinstein, whom she has condemned.  In fact, FOX News salivating at the chance to tear down Clinton once again is a level of hypocrisy that I feel I need to note in an era where hypocrisy of all kinds seems to be the norm-of-the-day.  They are in the house that Roger Ailes & Bill O'Reilly built, and they hardly get to claim the moral high ground by firing these men, since of course they just had O'Reilly back on Sean Hannity's program a month ago.

This is to say nothing of the fact that calling out Hillary Clinton harder than you call out Donald Trump is the height of absurdity when you remember that Trump himself has been accused of harassment by nearly a dozen women and bragged (on-camera!) about assaulting women.  It should be a question, quite frankly, he should have to answer every single day he is in public office, particularly if Clinton has to answer for the sins of one of her donors!  Trump calling out any person on sexual harassment is laughable, and the fact that the media is willing to go along with it, that Andrew Marr is questioning Clinton in this way while there appears to be no pressure to challenge Trump and Republican attempts to link Clinton to Weinstein while also not calling out every single Republican who has endorsed or received money from Donald Trump, who has suffered similar accusations from women, is the height of hypocrisy.  It's so hypocritical, I honestly find it hard to discuss without wanting to type YOU PEOPLE ARE TERRIBLE in gigantic letters over and over again.  It's like someone lecturing on the dangers of drunk driving while guzzling Jim Beam as they turn onto the freeway.

I also want to throw out, before I end this, the addendum that Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton; this conversation would deserve a different tenor if this were the case.  I'm aware that Bill Clinton has also been accused of sexual misconduct/harassment in three well-known cases (Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and Paula Jones).  What I have to say here is that I don't think it's reasonable for people to expect Mrs. Clinton to publicly admonish her husband in the same way I wouldn't expect Melania Trump to admonish her husband.  I think expecting her to publicly attack her husband has always been an unfair line-in-the-sand, as we would all struggle to go after someone we love with the entire world watching.  You can believe whatever you want about the Clinton marriage, but I believe at the very least she loves her husband and that we shouldn't expect her to prove her feminist credentials by expecting a divorce or a public disavowal of the man she's married to for 42 years.  Attacking her for the sins of her husband has always felt wrong-she should be able to stand on her own merits, not also have to burden Bill's.  The same thing could be said for Melania Trump, Camille Cosby, and Georgina Chapman.  Go after their husbands, the men who have attacked women-don't victimize more women for things that they themselves didn't do.  This serves no purpose other than to continue to subjugate women for things they didn't do, and doesn't place the blame where it should be.