A Ladybug?
November 1, 2010
JANE writes:
The Gawker story about Christine O’Donnell and her one-night stand with a 25-year-old seems to be helping her campaign; people see her as a victim of sexism. While a similar story might be political suicide for a man, somehow it’s a boost for a woman candidate. Surprise. Surprise. The following is the opening statement from her campaign Communication Director in response to the Gawker story.
“This story is just another example of the sexism and slander that female candidates are forced to deal with. From Secretary Clinton, to Governor Palin, to soon-to-be Governor Haley, Christine’s political opponents have been willing to engage in appalling and baseless attacks — all with the aim of distracting the press from covering the real issues in this race.”
Gee, I guess they would like me to think that the question of her character is a distraction from the issues. I suppose their is a little truth to that, but isn’t character all that really matters?
Laura writes:
This may be just an election-eve smear, but the response from O’Donnell’s campaign is very disturbing, as are the events described in the original piece. O’Donnell’s spokesman does not deny the contents of the story. Whether the story is true or not, his claim that she is the victim of sexism is ridiculous. The National Organization for Women has come to her defense saying the piece is an attack against all women “contemplating stepping into the public sphere.” When a conservative candidate turns to NOW for protection, she has abandoned her principles and permanently aligned herself with shrill feminist politics. Given what is at stake, I would still vote for her if I lived in Delaware. I definitely would, but she is a huge disappointment.
— Comments —
George writes:
I had to write in after I read the Gawker story. Aside from there being no way to prove or disprove the story I did find one part that stood out for me:
“When her underwear came off, I immediately noticed that the waxing trend had completely passed her by. Obviously, that was a big turnoff, and I quickly lost interest. I said goodnight, rolled over, and went to sleep. “
Stop and think about this. A 25 year old man who has embraced the culture of liberal sexuality and is with a woman he earlier said he found attractive wants us to believe that he lost interest after he saw this woman naked and found out that she, shock and horror, has pubic hair. The writer of this story actually wants us to believe that pubic hair would be a big enough turn off to stop him from having sex with a woman he otherwise found hot?
So here is my thought: either the man who wrote this story is 1.) a liar, 2.) an absurd narcissist, or 3.) a latent homosexual.
Well if you believe this man’s story about O’Donnell then I have a story for you about how I almost had sex with Scarlett Johannson until I found out she had pubic hair.
Laura writes:
I agree that the lines you mention undercut this man’s credibility and makes this seem like nothing but a smear.
The O’Donnell campaign should have simply said: “This is just a nasty pre-election attack,” and left it at that.
Roger G. writes:
I do believe this “man’s” story. George seems like an honorable guy, so if he’ll give his word re Scarlett Johannson, I’ll believe that too.
Laura is right. If this were a fabrication, the O’Donnell campaign reply could have been “filthy lie,” instead of that 300-word measure of goop they ladled out – and denial-free goop at that.
So the answer is at least 2.) and no doubt 3.) also. I was once 25, and wouldn’t have noticed, let alone stopped for, the Hurtgen Forest.
Laura writes:
This conversation is running off the rails.
Roger G. adds:
The O’Donnell campaign could have simply responded “nasty attack,” though still omitting the denial (since the incident in my view did occur).
O’Donnell’s face seems curiously weak and unformed – very unnatural for a woman her age. And the conduct we’ve learned about – augh. Nevertheless, were I in Delaware of course I’d pull the lever for her. At this point we don’t need John C. Calhoun – a constitutionalist voting machine is plenty for now.
Michael S. writes:
She looks like a cross between Sarah Palin and Rachael Ray.
Laura writes:
Again, I hope O’Donnell wins tomorrow. And yes, her face looks frozen in time, as if life hasn’t touched her since she went to college. Maybe that explains the juvenile behavior described in the Gawker piece.
David C. writes:
Of course, Ms. O’Donnell’s behavior does not reflect well on her, but it seems even more shameful to me that Gawker thought well to publicize this piece, especially given the lewd details the author so cavalierly shares with us about the poor woman. This piece speaks far more negatively to the character of the writer than that of Ms. O’Donnell. Though her conduct does raise some questions about her character, it seems quite another thing, in my view, to publicly humiliate a woman in this manner. Her pubic hair? Really? Who cares? Gawker ought to retract the piece, condemn its author, and publicly apologize to Ms. O’Donnell. There was absolutely no honor in sharing this article with the world.
David adds:
What does everyone think of Gawker’s defense of its having published the article?
Laura writes:
I don’t support Gawker in general and would just as soon see it go out of business, but provided the site did an adequate amount of fact-checking on this piece, I think it had an obligation to post it. The fact that it was posted on election eve is suspicious and very sleazy. That is wrong. The whole thing could be a fabrication, but then why hasn’t O’Donnell denied it? The intimate description of O’Donnell was out of line, but the private life of a candidate is the public’s business. O’Donnell is running for one of the highest elected offices and has made her views about traditional sexual morality known. She should be prepared to respond to any revelations, true or false, about her personal life. When false charges emerge, the candidate should immediately respond, “That is false. I did no such thing.” Voters should also weigh any private infractions against the good that might be achieved in office. Personal matters are important; there are other considerations too.
Again, the idea that O’Donnell is being singled out because she is a woman is absurd.
Jesse Powell writes:
In regards to the Gawker story about Christine O’Donnell, first of all, clearly Gawker is opposed to Christine O’Donnell’s candidacy and it is opposed to O’Donnell’s lecturing on moral values and chastity. Gawker admits this explicitly in it’s justification for running the story in the first place. Gawker states that it wants to “out” O’Donnell for her supposed hypocrisy. Secondly, the accusation against O’Donnell’s moral character is being supplied by an anonymous man, so the story could be totally made up. Some pictures of O’Donnell in the Ladybug costume are given but all that proves is that O’Donnell dressed up in a Ladybug costume once; it does not support at all the sexually oriented accusation that she acted “slutty.” The anonymous male accuser himself states that he doesn’t want O’Donnell to win her election.
So, Gawker, some kind of online gossip site, states it is against O’Donnell politically and that it is against O’Donnell’s moral stances and that the purpose of posting the story was to reveal O’Donnell’s hypocrisy for the world to see. So, Gawker admits its motivation is to promote a false smear about O’Donnell’s sexual conduct. The accuser himself admits that he is against O’Donnell politically. The accuser makes an accusation meant to undermine O’Donnell politically by showing her to be a hypocrite who does not follow the moral values she preaches. This accuser very conveniently chooses to remain anonymous. So, there are many reasons not to believe this story and no reasons to believe it, other than the assumed reliability of those who make anonymous sexually oriented accusations against public figures.
It is a low-life smear, plain and simple.
As for the O’Donnell campaign’s response, not denying the accusation specifically, my reading of the O’Donnell campaign response is that it is perfectly reasonable and understandable. True, it is very feminist but it has to be understood that the accusation that Republican women are the victims of sexism and that the Democrats avoid dealing with issues and instead focus on personal attacks when battling their Republican women opponents is a very common retort against Democratic campaign tactics. We may not like it that O’Donnell is playing the feminist card of female victimization but in the political environment of the 2010 election campaign these are standard Republican arguments that presumably are effective. I do not think the failure of O’Donnell to specifically refute the charges lends any credibility to the charges. If an outrageous accusation is leveled you ignore the accusation and “refuse to dignify it with a response,” you don’t deny the charge as if the charge has enough legitimacy to need to be denied. I think that is the approach O’Donnell is taking.
Laura writes:
“If an outrageous accusation is leveled you ignore the accusation and refuse to dignify it with a response.”
That’s exactly right. Unfortunately, O’Donnell did not ignore this charge and showed very bad judgment in not ignoring it. Whether playing the feminist victim is a standard response or not, it is wrong, especially in light of O’Donnell’s stand on behalf of traditional morality. She did not have to respond in that way. She could have simply said, “These charges are false” or “This is a smear.”
Gawker admitted its motives but not that the story was false. A site does take legal risks by publishing a complete fabrication, even with regards to a public official. Not only does it expose itself to a potential lawsuit but its reputation could be ruined. Still, Gawker may have taken these risks. I agree that the anonymity of the author throws serious doubt on the story’s credibility. If it is a lie, why didn”t she say so? She has an obligation to those who have worked for her campaign to say it is a lie.
Eric writes:
She could have just said, “I am not a wench ….”
(Sorry. But it’s already in the gutter.)
Laura writes:
She also could have said, “I made a huge mistake and showed poor judgment. But many people do much worse. Let’s get on with the serious business of fixing Obama’s mistakes.”
Jesse Powell writes:
In regards to Christine O’Donnell, her allegation against a former employer on sexual discrimination grounds does not speak well to her character. On March 12, 2003 Christine O’Donnell was hired by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), a culturally conservative think tank that seeks to fight against liberal leftist bias among college professors. She was hired as Director of Communications and Public Affairs for ISI and paid $65,000 a year in her position, a position that allowed her to continue other activities of self-promotion and making money while being employed by ISI.
She was fired from her position at ISI on February 26, 2004 after ISI learned of her contacting the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in pursuit of her looking into the possibility of filing a sex discrimination lawsuit against her employer (according to what O’Donnell says in a legal complaint she filed against ISI).
In the legal complaint that O’Donnell filed she claims that she was demoted from her original position to a lower ranking position under a man, Doug Schneider, which she had earlier worked with in the role of providing him training. Doug Schneider was just out of college and O’Donnell had 15 years of experience in the field, this is why O’Donnell initially was in the role of training Schneider in his job.
As O’Donnell in her legal complaint states:
“Miss O’Donnell was and is profoundly humiliated by this demotion of being asked to perform clerical and administrative tasks, after performing on national television as a media and public relations expert and spokeswoman, for a man who was hired straight out of college as ISI’s receptionist and clerical assistant, and whom she had been asked to train previously.”
(The above is given in a legal complaint, but since Christine O’Donnell filed this legal document Pro Se, representing herself, the above are O’Donnell’s own words written by herself.)
As Christine O’Donnell explains the situation:
“ISI demoted Miss O’Donnell because of a three month Sabbatical by Vice President Jeff Nelson starting in early February 2004, during which Christine O’Donnell would have been a woman standing on her own without being supervised by a man.
This was a babysitting measure so that while the male supervisor was absent on sabbatical, Miss O’Donnell as a woman would have a male “minder” to look after the woman.
As of the time Miss O’Donnell was fired on February 26, 2004, ISI had never had a woman executive or manager who was not under the ‘covering’ of a man. Because of ISI’s conservative beliefs, subscribing to a particular interpretation of gender roles, during Miss O’Donnell’s employment there, ISI expressed its organizational beliefs that women must serve under a man’s supervision or ‘covering’ and should not have authority without being under the headship and authority of a man.
In fact, Spencer Masloff expressed dissatisfaction and concern that ISI would be hurt in raising money from ISI’s donors if ISI’s donors noticed that a woman, Christine O’Donnell, was heading a department at ISI without being under the covering of a man.”
Finally, in support of O’Donnell’s claim that the gender discrimination she experienced was intentional O’Donnell states:
“In decision-making meetings among ISI executives, as well as in lectures which ISI hosted as part of ISI’s program activities, and in articles published as part of ISI’s program activities, ISI executives publicly stated ISI’s chauvinist beliefs that a woman requires the supervision, authority, headship, or “covering” of a man.”
What strikes me about all this is the incongruity of Christine O’Donnell agreeing to be employed as a public relations promoter of the ISI institute and then turning around and going part way towards suing the ISI for being “sexist.” Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. O’Donnell’s position at ISI was all about promoting the institute’s message and beliefs. That was the entire purpose of the job that she accepted. If her allegation is true and ISI openly advocated that women should be under the authority of men, as she says, and she chose to work for this employer knowing and presumably understanding this, then on what basis can she cry that she’s a victim deserving of millions of dollars of compensatory and punitive damages?
