LordEden

Rest Here (Linky)

This questions stems from the recent Gawker article about Christine O'Donnell's "one night stand" with a 25 year old that lived in an apt that her aunt owned.

She did what a lot of us have done in the past; went drinking with someone, got hot and heavy with them, passed out in an stranger's bed. This is not a big deal... except when your whole campain focuses around Christian values and no sexual contact before marriage. There have been a lot of attacks on her including her admitting she practiced "witchcraft" at one point in her life.

She is mad that gawker posted this story (Linky) and it seems that a lot of others are angry too.

My question is, do these campaigning politicians have a right to be angry about these stories being posted?

You are in the public limelight, you are running for an office that will allow you to make choices that effects millions of people's lives on a daily basis (and could effect generations). The morals and ideals you stand behind will come under attack and people will go out of their way to disprove you. When you run for a public office, you better be able to defend things/events in your past, especially when it goes against your own campaign stances.

What do you think?

__________________
Vice-President of the CinnamonGirl Fan Club - The Meat of the Zombiesquirrel and CinnamonGirl Sandwich

Strange Famous

I can only speak from personal experience.

With things like affairs especially - it doesnt really hurt the people who are honest about it

It hasnt done Boris Johnson much harm, even if he might not like being called "Bonking" Boris.

And John Prescott really didnt suffer any from it, the public just seemed to feel a sense of mild amazement that a man his size had the energy for it.

If you preach moral standards at people, and if when it happens you try and hide it... I think it can hurt you

If you just shrug your shoulders and say "well... I was in the wrong" people forgive most things. People like Prescott and Johnson, although very different politically, both had a straightforward style, they werent "like" politicians.

The people who play the political game and try to spin everything I think do most of the damage to themselves.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Willravel

I think if you make a fact a part of your political persona, it's up to the media to investigate that fact. When Sarah Palin was running for office, she tauted abstinence only sex education as superior to more realistic systems and yet at the same time she eloped 8 months before the birth of her first son, Track, and her own daughter had a child out of wedlock. Do I have a problem with Sarah Palin or her daughter getting pregnant before marriage? Nope. Do I have a problem with her not practicing what she preaches? Yep.

Jinn

As a feminist, I think there's another side here, which is that female politicians deserve more privacy in this day and age than do male politicians. That might seem an odd sort of protectionism, but we live in such a society that promiscuity is essentially a character assassination for a woman and an achievement for a man. Until we live in a society where either gender can have sex when and with whomever they desire in a responsible manner with equal disdain or lauding then I think it's more offensive to cast a female politician in a negative sexual light than a man.

And its really upsetting that I'm bearing the cognitive dissonance of loathing the woman and everything she stands for and simultaneously saying it is wrong to reveal this sort of information, even if it would point towards hypocrisy.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Willravel

Feminism is about equality. If we were talking about Samuel Palin who got his girlfriend pregnant before getting married and who's son had a child out of wedlock, and who was espousing bullshit about abstinence only, the same standards would apply in my mind.

Jinn

Your mind.

If you're not privy to the overwhelming difference in standards for men and women in modern society I'd be happy to provide you with some.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Willravel

I'm not society, I'm Willravel. If society on average fucks up, I'm not responsible for that.

Jinn

The OP didn't ask whether Willravel should respect the privacy of a politician, he asked a rather open ended philosophical question of whether they deserve a right to privacy. And I believe they do, but that women deserve additional privacy regarding sexual matters, giving consideration to what society at large does (and thinks) when given sexual details about people, including political candidates.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

FuriousAvatar

I'm not sure I understand why female and male politicians should have different standards for privacy. If, during your campaign, you say you despise adulterers but are later caught for that same issue, why does it matter whether you're male or female?

Most of the time, I think a politician's life should be private, but when they lie about something they supposedly believe in, that they use in their campaigns to further their position, that's not fair to the people who have to take you on your word. I suppose in my mind it yet further discredits a group of people that I already distrust for not 100% knowing what their real agenda is.

__________________
“Consult not your fears but your hopes and your dreams. Think not about your frustrations, but about your unfulfilled potential. Concern yourself not with what you tried and failed in, but with what it is still possible for you to do.”
-Pope John XXIII

Hektore

I could not disagree more about women needing more protection for their sexual history than men. This is no different than when that George Rekers fellow showed up in the airport with a Rentboy. In this case it's even more relevant because of her platform and it's condemnation of sexual promiscuity.


As for the more general question, politicians' personal and political lives cross in many areas and where it is relevant personal details out to be made known. People have no problem with it already when it comes to financial conflicts of interest. If a person wants to make character and human sexuality a campaign issue, then they should be prepared to have their character and sexual history vetted.

__________________
The advantage law is the best law in rugby, because it lets you ignore all the others for the good of the game.

dksuddeth

when you make your character a part of your campaign, expect it to be raked over the coals.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

MSD

She has specifically said in her campaign that her religious views have matured and she hasn't made promotion of abstinence and anti-sex stuff part of her campaign. People change a lot in 10 years and she clearly doesn't believe the same things she did back in her born again phase. Some guy's only claim to fame is that he almost had sex with someone famous and it became "news" because Gawker saw an opportunity to get a whole bunch of traffic to their site. Gawker is fucking terrible as always and this irrelevant tabloid shit will only get her sympathy and distract people from the fact that she's completely unqualified to hold office yet somehow has the support of ~40% of likely voters.

william

To me, the bottom line is this - if you choose to be a politician, your life is in the open. I don't care how you live your life, but do not try to hide who you are. I don't care if you're male/female and want to live the "good life". Go for it. What matters is the bottom line. Don't preach to me, give me results.

Cynthetiq

Your life and your finances are open to the public for scrutiny. Not much different when yo are applying for a job, only instead of it being a handful of people it's a bunch of people with voting power.

it's that simple.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Jinn

It *is* different than Rekers, and that was precisely my point. I think it takes only a basic understanding of sociology to say that there is a far greater stigma for women engaging in sex than men. It comes out in our very basic use of language, from slut to whore. Men are lauded, women are condemned. We're just barely peeking out of the Puritan morals which have plagued the country for so long, and yet still women are not in any way shape or form encouraged to be sexual, have a positive view of sex or sexuality, or even ensure that their own sexual needs are met. Dildos are still illegal in many states, Texas included. Colleges still have "walks of shame" and college men still hang panties on their doors and women pretend it didn't happen. Pop culture icons like Letterman can have multiple affairs with coworkers and the country barely blinks an eye, but if a woman does it it's an absolute travesty.

You'd really have to be blind to the difference to think that revealing the sex life of a man or a woman is equal in terms of societal acceptance. We still have rape victims whose credibility is undermined because they were dressed too 'provocatively.' Really? There's no difference between how men and women are told to behave in regards to sex?

I'm certainly no protectionist and the very last thing I want to do is defend this terrible woman, but there is certainly a point to be made that revealing the sexual lives of women is not in any way equal to revealing the sexual lives of men, if only because the former is considerably more damaging to the person involved.

In this case, she really did nothing hypocritical. So far as I can tell from the stories I've been trying to ignore, she didn't even have sex. She got naked. HEAVENS NO! NOT NAKED! If this were a story about a male politician who got drunk and naked with some lady, it'd be a nonstory, and you know it.

---------- Post added at 08:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:45 AM ----------

So I finally got around to reading this wretched abortion of journalism and I find this part especially pertinent:

If you really don't think this reads like juvenile slut-shaming than I'm not sure we can a real discussion. But it gets better..


This story has merit as something that makes her a 'hypocrite' or something even worth sharing? Really? It's a pretty clear slam that wouldn't work if the politician were a man and so I think its pretty clear that it doesn't follow the same "you're a politician, so your life is an open book" nonsense being espoused here.

I'm not alone, either:

Gawker's Christine O'Donnell tell-all backfires - Broadsheet - Salon.com
Shakesville: Holy Shit

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

StanT

When you run on a platform of chastity and purity, any minor deviation is going to be under a microscope. There's a fair number of women running for office. This only an issue when you present a holier than thou agenda.

No special rules for women, this isn't a jar that needs more muscle to open.

If you run on an anti-socialism platform, every single cent you've accepted from the government becomes relevant (Joe Miller).

Moderate candidates can use "I was young and stupid" and get an awful lot forgiven. That doesn't work as well for the more polarizing ones.

EventHorizon

i dont think politicians have a right to be angry when stories like that come out.

what did they think was going to happen? they were going to represent a bunch of people to a higher authority and nobody would be keeping an eye on them? seriously. what the hell could you possibly be thinking that would make it seem like it was ok for a public figure to make an ass out of himself?

as for the sexes thing, i agree that two different standards exist for males and females at a basic social level, but when a political figure, male or female, becomes involved in sexual scandal, they are treated equally.

__________________
Does Marcellus Wallace have the appearance of a female canine? Then for what reason did you attempt to copulate with him as if he were a female canine?

Quote:

Originally Posted by canuckguy Pretty simple really, do your own thing as long as it does not fuck with anyone's enjoyment of life.

Jinn

How is this a "scandal"?

From another Republican woman who thinks O'Donnell would be a terrible Senator but thinks this is wrong:

"What we are creating is a world in which no woman will ever be courageous enough to want to run for office because, god forbid, one night they drank beer and dressed up in a ladybug costume."

Meghan McCain:

Christine O?Donnell Sex Scandal: Meghan McCain Defends Her - The Daily Beast

Gawker targets Christine O?Donnell on Halloween sexual encounter

The National Organization of Women similarly condemned them. Perhaps the blindness here is a direct result of the number of men responding. Men who typically don't receive education in just how differently people experience the world. I'd be interested in hearing a female TFP member chime in. I've noticed before that the vast majority of men on TFP seem to have a blind spot when it comes with sociology or the idea that male privilege is alive and well.

How many fucking stories about Hillary Clinton's cankles or pantsuits or Palin's "MILF" or "GILF" status do we need before we acknowledge that there is a fundamental problem with how we frame women and sexuality, and how unfair we treat female politicians? This is not a 'scandal' and it would not have been posted (or paid for) if it were a male politician.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Hektore

Nobody in here said sexism doesn't exist, in politics or anywhere else. Bending to the stigma, by offering up token protection of women that just reinforces the stereotype isn't going to be helpful. Thus the point about Rekers.

Rekers was not lauded for his engagement with a homosexual prostitute. You want to talk about stigma, look at homosexual contact between men. Nobody seems to think it unfair to expose every detail of it in the papers is unfair to the men involved. Because well, they're men and men can take care of themselves.

I think it's much more fruitful to acknowledge that this issue does have relevance to O'donnell's life as a politician (chiefly, that it makes her a hypocrite, not that hypocrisy is in short supply amongst politicians). Give her a chance to address it and move on because, honestly, there are much bigger problems in politics. The entire sideshow were we're told how evil gawker is because a woman shouldn't have to deal with it does not help eliminate stereotypes. It reinforces them.

What you're talking about absolutely reeks of paternalism...'These poor, pitiful women just can't be expected to answer for their actions the same way that men do, society is so unfair to them. We have to protect them from themselves, by hiding their sexual history. They'll never obtain high office if we just expect them to stand on their own, without special protections. Because, you know, they're women. And women need special protections.'

__________________
The advantage law is the best law in rugby, because it lets you ignore all the others for the good of the game.

StanT

Krystal Ball, congressional candidate from Virginia, is probably a fair comparison here.

Krystal Ball's dildo photos won't hurt her campaign for Congress in VA | Nerve.com

She's a liberal Democrat running in a conservative district and never really had a chance, regardless.

Would similar pictures of a male candidate be published? I believe they would.

Does anyone really give a shit? She's not running on a holier than thou platform. I've done stupider things at parties. Male or female, it's fair game and humorous; but not particularly relevant or newsworthy.

EventHorizon

the fact that people say its a scandal kind of makes it one though doesn't it? how many times does the word 'scandal' show up in your post?

and how can you say that male politicians never get nailed to the wall for sex scandals? what about ex-president Clinton? what about that one dude who got caught texting or chatting with one of his pages to do wierd shit with him? what about the generals who were kicked out of the Armed Forces for admitting homosexuality?

do women catch alot of undeserved shit when they're public servants? sure, but i think its unfair to say that men don't get their fair share

regardless, it seems like this is becoming a tangent of what the thread originally meant to discuss. for argument's sake, lets just choose a sexually ambiguous name like "alex smith." if alex holds public office, is it surprising that his/her life is under more scrutiny than your average citizen?

__________________
Does Marcellus Wallace have the appearance of a female canine? Then for what reason did you attempt to copulate with him as if he were a female canine?

Quote:

Originally Posted by canuckguy Pretty simple really, do your own thing as long as it does not fuck with anyone's enjoyment of life.

Cat_Eyes

Do Politicians Have a Right To Privacy~Not really. In their houses with their curtains drawn- sure.
But....
They're paid to represent us, they want to represent us... well, I want to know how I'm being or going to be represented.

MSD

O'Donnell ran mainly on mind-bogglingly stupid economic and nationalistic politics. She specifically disavowed her past statements on chastity and purity.

snowy

To me, it's called "public life" and "public service" for a reason: it's in public, not in private. If politicians wanted a truly private life...then they probably shouldn't be in politics.

That said, sex scandals are so dime-a-dozen these days, I think we're fast becoming immune to them.

__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

mixedmedia

I believe that politicians have a right to sexual privacy, even hypocritical ones, because I simply don't believe that it is relevant to the day-to-day implementation of their jobs. When they are at work, technically they are supposed to be representing the views of the people that voted for them, not their own. So if a politician pretends to be something he's not to get a bunch of people to vote for him, gets elected and sets about making his constituency happy while getting a little prohibited booty on the side, it doesn't bother me in an intellectual sense. Politics is not a virtuous business peopled by gleaming representations of honesty and moral exactitude, as we all know.

That said, I do admit to taking some pleasure in seeing a loud-mouthed puritan forced to stand up at a press conference and admit that he's been doing the pool guy on the side, but I think I could live without it if folks decided that those things weren't as important as how well he did his job.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce