- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - page 2 of 2
_______________SEX AND THE SINGLE INTERN BY RICHARD GOLDSTEIN (02/19/99)
	It speaks well for Richard Goldstein's behavior and perspective that he perceives President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky's relationship as being so essentially unequal. But in fact, the relationship is one of equals -- although not of peers. Each party brings something different, but of equal value, to the relationship. The older fellow brings the currency of worldly success in the form of institutional power, money, respectability. He also likely brings sagging skin, wrinkles, perhaps girth, encumbrances of marriage, children, debts. It is an obvious commonplace that some curious or ambitious or adventurous young women find the assets more compelling than the problems off-putting. The young woman brings youth, beauty and hero worship -- a refreshing oasis in the troubled world of the 50-year-old: powerful currency. She may have bad taste in music and have no memory of Jimmy Carter, but her skin, her breasts, her smile! Hard as it is to believe, 50-year-old men find it attractive, every day. In the workaday world, power confronts power. In an April/October relationship, powers are different and complementary. Linda Tripp and Ken Starr used and exploited Lewinsky, but her relationship with Clinton was one of mutual uses and power. Think of the childhood game of rocks, paper and scissors; rock's power is trumped by paper, paper's by scissors, scissors' by rock. One power is undone by a different power. Don't feel overly sorry for Lewinsky or other women like her. Their currency operates on a particularly weak and vulnerable part of men's psyche. Breaking up is hard to do and feelings do get hurt, but my observation is that it is the young woman who more commonly moves on with her life than the man, whose life circumstances (if not emotional composure) are fixed in place. -- Peter Sage Richard Goldstein's advocacy would be greatly appreciated in a real sexual harassment case with a real victim, of which there are plenty. As a feminist, I would be most grateful if he chose any one of them to voice criticism of sexual harassers. However, in the case of Monica Lewinsky and President Clinton, his entire argument is invalidated because he leaves out one crucial fact: Monica Lewinsky sexually harassed the president, not the other way around. She went to Washington, D.C., with the declared intention to fellate the president, and avidly pursued him until she wore him down. His great sin was not getting rid of her at the first sign of trouble. Perhaps he overestimated his ability to resist. Furthermore, Goldstein ignores the fact that Lewinsky has pursued and seduced at least one other married man, so it could hardly be said that she was virginal. Lastly, she was well of age at the time she seduced the president; she may have qualified as a Lolita in high school, but 20 is too old to be called an innocent child, particularly in Lewinsky's case. As for the age factor, feminists would surely love Goldstein's support in protesting the tendency of Hollywood to cast actors with leading ladies half their age. That would be a genuine feminist issue. He might protest the fact that young women are socialized to believe that their sexuality is their only important asset. That, however, cannot be blamed on the president. In fact, there are any number of women who have been victims of inequities and persecutions who deserve Goldstein's help. We hope he will offer it, and that meanwhile he'll stop wasting time making Lewinsky the president's victim, when it was the other way around. -- Maggie Bryan
_______________THE SCANDAL DOMAIN NAME GAME BY PATRICK J. SHIELDS (02/11/99)
	I'm puzzled by Patrick Shields' examples of Internet technocracy gone awry. It's difficult to imagine anything less technocratic than the government- appointed monopoly that currently handles the domain-name registration process. Although spam is an unintended consequence of an e-mail protocol designed in more trusting times, technical solutions are already available. The difficulty lies in convincing entrenched bureaucracies to simply update their software! If I understand the term correctly, these should be cited as glaring examples of old-fashioned statism. It may be dressed up in new technology, but that doesn't make it a technocracy, much less a dynamic one. -- Jason Steiner SALON | Feb. 23, 1999

R E C E N T L Y+| "THE POLITICS OF BAD FAITH" REVIEWED BY DAVID WEIR

Do you want to respond to a letter to the editor? Join the ongoing discussion in the Welcome area of Table Talk If you would like to submit a letter to the editor for publication, please e-mail us at letters@salonmagazine.com. Letters sent by fax or "snail mail" are less likely to be accepted. Do not send attachments. Please include your full name and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours, so we can confirm your identity. This information will not be used for any reason other than verification and will not appear on the site. Letters may be edited for clarity and conciseness. Brief letters are more likely to be published. Place the name of the article you are responding to in the subject heading of your e-mail. If you do not wish your letter to be published, please say so in the subject line. For more information on Salon's letters policy, click here.