|
|
|
October 03, 2006
What if the page had been female?
I'm puzzled by something. With all the talk about hypocrisy and double standards, I'm wondering whether the Foley case would be treated any differently had the page been female instead of male. Unless homosexuality is inherently immoral, I don't see any real distinction, but I think some people do, and I think this will become more and more of an issue as the usual intraparty recriminations set in. I see the problem as involving a major breach of the public trust by Foley. He was a big shot, a powerful congressman, and the page was at the bottom of the pecking order, and essentially his employee. I think it's wrong to mess with employees, and especially wrong for someone in a position of trust to mess with people new to life and just starting out their careers -- all on the taxpayers' dollar. Without the issue of age, it's the equivalent of a Monica Lewinsky deal minus the sex. Factor in the age issue, and it makes this situation even more egregious from a moral perspective, even though not all immoral things are illegal. But does it become more immoral because of homosexuality? If so, why? Remember, in the 1983 Congressional page sex scandal, two congressmen were caught having sexual relations with 17-year-old pages -- Dan Crane with a female page and Gerry Studds with a male page. They were censured and not expelled (although Crane subsequently lost his reelection bid). The current scandal is not alleged to have involved sexual relations, but dirty discussions in emails. So unless my logic is faulty, it would not appear to be as serious as the 1983 scandal. So what gives it the appearance of being more serious? (The way some people are acting, you'd think this was the Republican equivalent of the Vatican priest scandal.) Would it be less serious if a Democratic congressman had done the same thing? Would there be as much fuss if Congressman Foley had sent dirty emails to a female page? I honestly don't know, but I suspect not. (I'm pretty sure that certain leftwing gay activists are as happy as the anti-homosexual wing of the Republican Party.) MORE: In a heterosexual context, a sixteen year old girl would be considered "jail bait" in states which set the age of consent higher. But isn't it nonetheless considered traditionally more "normal"? What about songs like "Sweet Little Sixteen" and "Young Girl"? AND MORE: Those who think the Foley scandal is causing a Republican implosion might be interested in Rush Limbaugh's comments: Rush repeated his charge that the whole thing is a "strategic Democrat-timed scandal" to discourage the conservative Republican base and dissuade them from voting in the upcoming mid-term elections.I'm not a Limbaugh fan, but I think he might be right. Of course, if you take a look at this blog, you'll see "child" and "child sex predator" appearing too many times to count. I'm still confused. Is this all part of the Republican strategy of losing deliberately? posted by Eric on 10.03.06 at 08:29 PM
Comments
I'd say it's a classic damned if they do, damned if they don't. The Dems must think the public doesn't remember the Studds or Frank scandals. And since when is there a duty to read through congressional emails for sexual content, anyway? I certainly hope the Democrats will be conducting their own email investigation. I'd like to know what is being said to all the pages, by all the congressmen! Eric Scheie · October 3, 2006 11:58 PM They should really start letting congressmen marry. This kind of thing wouldn't happen then. Welcome to the world of the Catholic clergy. Mick · October 4, 2006 01:59 AM I guess it never occurred to me that Foley would claim he was betrayed by the Catholic clergy. I'm not Catholic, but it's my fault anyway because of a climate or something. (The moral equivalent of Global Warming.) And I thought I was being sarcastic when I brought up the Vatican priest scandal! Eric Scheie · October 4, 2006 09:06 AM I think that it is absolutely self-evident that this was timed for maximum damage during the election. *But* Foley did one thing different than Crane and Stubbs - he resigned. That seems to have put blood in the water. If he had fought back, he and the republicans might be in better shape. Michael Heinz · October 4, 2006 09:45 AM While it may seem sexist to say, I honestly think that if he had been e-mailing a young girl, it would have been worse, not better. A young man, as you've said, could easily avoid or badly injure Foley if he went too far. A young girl, on the other hand, is simply in a more vulnerable position, at the least physically, and perhaps even emotionally. Jon Thompson · October 4, 2006 11:16 AM I think 80% of the public would say that if Foley had been pursuing a 16-year-old girl instead of a boy, then yes, it would be more "normal", and no, that would not make it any more acceptable. Males who will spend their adult lives being exclusively heterosexual sometimes go through a brief period of experimental bisexuality in adolescence. Many people feel that there is a risk that an adolescent male exposed to homosexual seduction during this period could be "turned" toward lifelong homosexuality. (I have no idea whether this could really happen, though I rather doubt it.) On the other hand, as Jon Thompson points out, girls are generally more vulnerable psychologically. Also, they can get pregnant. In any case, the feeling that powerful middle-aged males should not sexually pursue 16-year-olds is nearly universal in our culture and does not depend on the gender of the 16-year-old, nor on the exact nature of the harm, if any, that he or she might be expected to suffer. Infidel753 · October 4, 2006 12:15 PM He was a big shot, a powerful congressman, and the page was at the bottom of the pecking order, and essentially his employee. I think it's wrong to mess with employees, Wait a minute, as far as I have gathered, the boy in question was a former page, who was already back home in Louisiana. So how was he Foley's employee? How is this somehow workplace harrassment? Had Ms Lewinsky been a former White House intern when she had her encounter with Willie's willie, Paula Jones would never have subpoenaed her, and we would probably never have heard of her. This boy was over the age of consent, so by definition he was not a minor. I see people claiming that he was only "technically" of age, so somehow Foley is still guilty of "child abuse" or some such thing. That's ridiculous. Imagine if it Foley was "caught" driving 85mph, but on a road where that was the speed limit; now imagine people condemning him anyway, because he was only "technically" not speeding! Or if he had a BAC of .07, where the limit is .08, and people claimed that he was only "technically" not DWI. Would that fly? Bottom line. The kid was of age. He wasn't working for Foley. So what exactly did Foley do wrong? Anonymous · October 5, 2006 02:15 AM For better or worse, it probably would be a bigger story if it had been an attractive teen-age girl and they had a picture of her. anonymous · October 15, 2006 12:34 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• The right to be irrational?
• I'm cool with the passion fashion • Climate change meltdown at the polls? • If you're wrong, then so is God? • Have a nice day, asshole! • Scarlet "R"? • Consuming power while empowering consumption • Shrinking is growth! • My dirty thoughts • art not codes?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Eric
I'm beginning to think the Left may overreach themselves on this one. The histrionics that the "Republican leadership should have known (cue the dramatic music) Foley was a predator" and launched an immediate investigation last Nov based solely on the first emails comes suspiciously close to saying that a gay man, by default, cannot be trusted around adolescent boys.
:::cough::: Boy Scouts have no right to ban gays as leaders! :::cough:::
Let's say there had been a public witch hunt on those emails. Wouldn't the papers that passed on the story last Nov. start running "GOP investigates friendly emails because Congressman is gay" headlines?