THE reaction by feminists to the Kathleen Willey/Bill Clinton alleged groping and grabbing episode tends to support the previously reported Honolulu Lite No. One Rule Regarding Sexual Harassment: It's only harassment if the man is ugly. Harassment is in
hands of beholdedCute guys don't sexually harass women, they "misbehave" or "exhibit roguish behavior." Feminists cried that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas sexually harassed Anita Hill because he used the words "pubic hair" and "Coca-Cola" in the same sentence. Apparently, to assure herself that she really was being sexually harassed, Hill followed Thomas from job to job for years.
Clinton, on the other hand -- actually, with both other hands -- may have been all over Willey like a Greco-Roman wrestler, yet feminists have not yelled for his head on the sexual harassment platter. Patricia Ireland, head of the National Organization of Women, and Democratic speech-writer-turned USC law professor Susan Estrich say that IF Clinton did grope Willey, it is harassment. But Estrich says there needs to be a new system to af-ford those accused of sexual har-assment protection from public persecution until the matter is settled in court. That's pretty funny, considering she was one of the people taking part in what Thomas called his "electronic lynching." They branded Thomas a sexual harasser based only on Hill's word. And you know that if some ugly old USC professor had a sexual encounter with a female student, even a consenting Mon-ica Lewinsky-type, Estrich would be one of the first people to call for the ugly man to lose his job.
BUT Clinton's cute, so he gets a a pass. In the new movie "Primary Colors," the Clinton character is played by good-lookin' John Travolta. If they make a movie about the Anita Hill affair, Clarence Thomas will NOT be played by some handsome bugger like Sidney Poitier or Denzel Washington. Thomas will be played by Al Sharpton or Don King. Trust me on this.
If you don't believe the ugly-man harassment analysis, try this test: Imagine any other famous person being accused of what Clinton has been accused of and decide if they would be presumed guilty of sexual harassment.
Here are some examples: Ross Perot (ugly, guilty); John John Kennedy (extremely cute, presumed extremely innocent); Newt Gingrich (weird-looking, guilty); Al Gore (sort of cute life-like object, presumed embalmed and innocent); Jerry Tarkanian (off-the-board ugly, lifetime presumption of guilt); Leonardo DiCaprio (Come on. Don't even ask.); Sam Donaldson's Hair Piece (rug ugly and guilty.)
Someone should put out a special Ugly Man Miranda Warning Card that ugly men can carry with them. It would be a remind-er like, "Anything you say, no matter how charming or funny you think it is, will be reg-arded as a crude, sexually hostile remark and will be used against you in a court of law, if you ever get to court, which you won't, because you'll be strung up before the preliminary hearing."
I've said it before -- ugly men need to be reminded that they are ugly so they won't accidentally fall into the harassment trap.
So, that's all there is to it. Clinton's aides are wasting a lot of time waging the "nuts or sluts" defense, basically charging that any female who claims a sexual liaison with the prez is either an unbalanced mental case or a wanton woman out for bucks. Clinton probably could have ravaged Mother Teresa on his Oval Office desk and gotten away with it. As one of the talking head feminists said this week on CNN: "I don't care who he screws as long as he doesn't screw the country."
Yeah. Right. Like she'd say that if Steve Forbes was president.