Silence of the feminist lambs

Analysis by
Cal Thomas

Juanita Broaddrick -- also known as "Jane Doe No. 5" -- finally got her chance to tell the nation that Bill Clinton, then attorney general of Arkansas, raped her in a hotel room in 1978. Her story was persuasive. NBC News corroborated most of it (except the alleged rape because there are no other witnesses).

While Broaddrick's allegations will not put the president in legal jeopardy -- the statute of limitations having expired -- her story, if true, further diminishes our rule of law and unravels what remains of the consciousness-raising performed by especially feminist women since the Sixties.

Following Broaddrick's rape charge against Bill Clinton, there is a deafening silence from the National Organization for Women crowd. Feminists have submitted to this president and allowed him to abuse them for the cause of abortion and gay rights. How anti-woman. How pathetic.

Feminists have come a long way (baby) since the phony claim that "one in four" women have been raped in America. In her book "The Beauty Myth," Naomi Wolf claimed that acquaintance rape, the type Broaddrick accused Clinton of committing, "is more common than left-handedness, alcoholism and heart attacks."

In 1982, Professor Mary Koss of Kent State University claimed that "rape represents an extreme behavior, but one that is on a continuum with normal male behavior within the culture." If this is true, you would think feminists would be demanding in their male leadership a man who does not practice the kind of behavior alleged by Broaddrick.

Those Sixties bra-burners got pretty exercised about rape. Catherine MacKinnon wrote in "Professing Feminism": "In a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent."

Robin Morgan, in her "Theory and Practice: Pornography and Rape," wrote: "I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire."

Andrea Dworkin wrote, "Under patriarchy, no woman is safe to live her life, or to love, or to mother children. Under patriarchy, every woman is a victim, past, present and future. Under patriarchy, every woman's daughter is a victim, past, present and future. Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman." Substitute "Bill Clinton" for "patriarchy," and you have a more contemporaneous assertion.

Richard Nixon was president when many of these thoughts were written and spoken. Under Clinton, feminists have taken the outrageous advice of some rapists. They are relaxing and apparently enjoying it. Apparently it was never about sex for feminism, only about policy. As long as you are "right" on the issues, a political leader can rape his brains out. Is that the message feminists and liberal Democrats want to send?

Clinton supporters are raising the usual defenses. "What took her so long to come forward?" is the one heard most often. But feminists told us, as Broaddrick did on NBC, that many women feel shame after being raped and go into periods of denial. She also said she feared for her safety.

Alleged remarks by Clarence Thomas to Anita Hill outraged feminists and brought us "The Year of the Woman." Angry female members of Congress marched up the steps of the Senate and demanded that Thomas not be confirmed to the Supreme Court. But when Bill Clinton is accused of rape, there is silence. Thomas issued a categorical denial eight years ago. Bill Clinton refers us to his attorney. Then, we were told that women don't lie about rape. We're waiting to hear what excuse feminists will make for Clinton this time.

First it was a bailout on sexual harassment laws in the Paula Jones case. Now it is inattention to a charge of rape against a man who is president of the United States. Why should feminists ever be listened to again? They have been accessories in Bill Clinton's raping of America, its laws and its virtue.