Plum Crazy

If the right has its way, the Foley scandal will go down in history as a bunch of nosey bodies getting all worked up over a few salacious e-mails and IMs. Worse, an invasion of privacy that should chill the blood of all of us, because you never know when our IMs and e-mails might be used against us! [On this point, I'm going to say if anyone is sending out salacious e-mails and IMs from work, you should be worried about that. Your e-mails and IMs are almost certainly being logged by your employers, and they have every right to be concerned about what you do with their equipment on their time that might get them sued.]

Case in point: The blogger and commenter I mentioned in a post last night. The highlights, again.

Blogger: "...but if a few vulgar IMs can send the media into a major fit for nearly two weeks..."

Commenter: "At such a critical point in our history for the campaign to be centered on such trash as a Congressman's salacious instant messages..."

Another case in point, Camille Paglia. It almost makes me want to cancel my subscription to Salon. [Spare me pointing out that Camille Paglia is a Democrat. I know that. However, if she wants to be taken seriously as a liberal, she can cease parroting the talking points of the right.]

The Foley scandal exploded without any proof of a documented sex act -- unlike the case of the late congressman Gerry Studds, who had sex with a page and who was literally applauded by fellow Democrats when they refused to vote for his censure. In the Foley case, there was far more ambiguous evidence -- suggestive e-mails and instant messages. Matt Drudge, to his great credit, began hitting this issue right off the bat on his Web site and radio show. What does it mean for Democrats to be agitating over Web communications, which in my view fall under the province of free speech? It's a civil liberties issue. We can say that what Foley was doing was utterly inappropriate, professionally irresponsible, and in bad taste, but why were liberals fomenting a scandal day after day after day over words being used? And why didn't Democrats notice that they were drifting into an area which has been the province of the right wing -- that is, the attempt to gain authoritarian control over interpersonal communications on the Web? It's very worrisome and yet more proof that the Democrats have lost their way.

Now let's talk about what Foley actually did. He sent sexual IMs and e-mails to minors, something which was illegal under a law he helped pass (Great Irony's Ghost). Even if the age of consent in DC was a factor here, there is still something creepy and wrong about 50-year-olds engaging in sexual relations and communications with teenagers. Just because something's legal doesn't mean you should do it. Adults are supposed to watch out for children and teenagers, not exploit their lack of maturity. But let's ignore that. We wouldn't want to spoil the fun of adult men.

He also sexually harassed pages and former pages. Yes, he did. Not just hostile environment sexual harassment either. Quid pro quo sexual harassment. The most egregious kind (emphasis mine).

The messages were innocent at first. But after the young man moved home, he recalled, Foley started asking about "my roommates, if I ever saw them naked." Within months, the congressman was dangling a job offer, "because I was a hot boy," he said. Two years later, when he contacted Foley for advice on D.C. hotels, the congressman wrote back: "You could always stay at my place. I'm always here, I'm always lonely, and I'm always up for oral sex."

Do you get that? A congressman offering a page a job because he was "a hot boy." A congressman offering a former page, whom he knew was interested in working in politics, a place to stay in exchange for a blow job. Quid pro quo sexual harassment. It's against the law. Even forgetting the age of the people in question.

This is not about "salacious instant messages." This is certainly not about freedom of speech. Free speech does not extend to illegal behavior. You don't get to pass insider information to someone to profit off of via e-mail, for example, and get away with it because you have a right to free speech. The whole idea is preposterous. It's also not about Foley's sexual orientation. His behavior would have been every bit as illegal (and far more common) if the victims had been female.

But why worry ourselves over sexual harassment, right? It's only something that happens to women and gay men*. It's not like it happens to real people.

This is where Paglia truly flies her craven colors. She does talk about sexual harassment. But not with regards to Foley's behavior. With regards to the behavior of Bill Clinton. As it so happens, I agree that Bill Clinton was a sexual harasser (and rapist). I believe that the power disparity between him and Monica Lewinsky was such that consent was rendered effectively meaningless. I also believe Kathleen Willey about being groped and Juanita Broaddrick about being raped (both beliefs perfectly consistent with my feminism). Regardless, Bill Clinton's behavior is irrelevant to Mark Foley's behavior. Foley was still a sexual harasser. The fact that he seemingly never got the fruits of his sexual harassment doesn't change that. Paglia only brings Clinton up to shame other Democrats for their castigation of Mark Foley. It still doesn't matter. Even if other Democrats were wrong about Bill Clinton, that doesn't make them wrong about Mark Foley. It doesn't mitigate Mark Foley's behavior. Just because you don't believe person A is a murderer doesn't mean you're wrong about person B being a murderer or that person B shouldn't be punished for murder. No one really believes that, not even Paglia. Therefore, I conclude she isn't really concerned about actual sexual harassment, but about shaming Democrats.

This dismissal of the age issue and sexual harassment is making me quite angry, even if I find it unsurprising.

*Of course, this is untrue. It can and does happen to straight men too, although with less frequency. Nonetheless, there is a belief that if a gay man hits on a straight man, there's something wrong with the straight man, like maybe he's secretly gay. It gets displayed by the kind of teasing a straight man will get if hit on by a gay man. I find this another way to excuse the behavior of straight men. If they had to admit that a gay man hitting on a straight man can be upsetting because no one likes unwanted sexual attention, they'd have to admit that straight men hitting on women can be upsetting for reasons other than women being overly sensitive bitches or teases.