Before there was Harvey Weinstein…

AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File

Listen To You Tell Me Texas Friday 11/17/17


From seemingly out of nowhere has come a virtual explosion of allegations and charges of sexual misconduct by high-profile men. It all started in October with a New York Times story detailing the misdeeds of Harvey Weinstein. That story triggered an avalanche that has rolled over other show business celebrities, most notably actor Kevin Spacey. In the world of politics, allegations of sexual misconduct now threaten to derail the Republican senate bid of former Alabama judge Roy Moore.

Since the dawn of time, men have been sexually abusing women. Anthropologically speaking, the male of the species has strong sexual desires that are accompanied by superior physical strength. Abuse lies waiting.

But the idea with respect to human males is that by virtue of superior intellect and the resulting civilizing effect of ordered societies, the base instincts of men would be tamed. Over the centuries, and particularly in the 16th and 17th centuries, an increasing proportion of the male population underwent the transformation from man to gentleman. As prosperity increased, the proportion of the population that could be so described also increased.

So why, now, are we seemingly going in reverse with respect to the treatment of women by nominally well-educated, well-refined men?

Millions of words could be written to answer that question but I offer one possible contributing factor.

Democrats and feminists got it wrong in 1998. When allegations of serial sexual misconduct by Bill Clinton coalesced into concrete, provable and, ultimately, admitted behavior, the Left rallied to Bill Clinton’s defense.

The same feminist movement that would have gone nuclear if Bill Clinton had happened to be a Republican, instead stood by Clinton’s side. Prominent feminists like Gloria Steinem wrote op-ed pieces defending Clinton while Bill’s own wife set about systematically destroying women like Juanita Broaddrick, who very credibly accused Clinton of rape.

Bill Clinton not only survived in political office, he went on to become a celebrated rock star of the political world.

For its part, the feminist movement – which in reality is simply liberalism by a different label – was busy condemning centuries of accepted custom as it pertains to how gentlemen should treat ladies. To hold a door for a lady, or to stand when she excuses herself from the table, or to pull out her chair, or to offer one’s jacket to ward off a chill, was condemned by feminists as condescending, demeaning and patriarchal.

And thus we arrive nearly two decades later to learn that men, liberated from many of the societal sanctions that gentlemen who would disrespect a lady once feared, gravitate toward the brutish behavior to which males of every species default.

Depending on one’s core beliefs, a woman is either God’s earthly vessel of life, deserving of protection and veneration by men; or she’s a sexual object from which a man may forcibly obtain selfish pleasure.

We are now coming to realize that the core beliefs of a significant number of men were set when Bill Clinton got a pass in 1998.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Paul Gleiser

Paul L. Gleiser is president of ATW Media, LLC, licensee of radio stations KTBB 97.5 FM/AM600, 92.1 The TEAM FM in Tyler-Longview, Texas.

You may also like...

10 Responses

  1. Roy G. Biv says:

    Now it all makes sense. Bill Clinton was the reason that people like you voted for Donald Trump … who by his own admission sexually abused women.

    • Paul Gleiser says:

      Wow, you really missed the point. Try reading the piece again…slowly this time.

      • Guys like Roy ALWAYS miss the point. I hope his scream went well.

      • Roy G. Biv says:

        Sometimes I do read a bit quickly, so let me go through this a bit slower this time.

        You start by discussing the wave of allegations of sexual misconduct that has surfaced recently. You then point out that from the beginning of time men have been guilty of this type of behavoir, but a few hundred years ago it started to wane. But then for some reason it has sufaced again and you proceed to offer your rationale for why this is so. It all began with the behavior of Bill Clinton, who was most certainly guilty of these egregious crimes. You then state that the feminist movement exacerbated it by defending his behavior. You then talk about how the feminist movement started demanding that men stop pulling out chairs and offering their jackets. Somehow you then make the leap that since men aren’t allowed to perform these functions, they naturally resort to their brutish behavior. Finally you conclude by reiterating the point that this recent behavoir all started with Bill Clinton in 1998.

        Now … Donald Trump is guilty of this very behavior, he even admitted it. So he must be a product of this radical transformation that was started by (as you point out) Bill Clinton. And just like the people who looked the other way when it was Bill Clinton, you have looked the other way for Donald Trump. You sir are no different than the femininsts you called out. And all of this was because of Bill Clinton. I guess it’s better than saying “the devil made me do it”.

        It seems that all of this is what my first comment insinuated, so maybe I didn’t read it too quickly.

        But if you feel uncomfortable blaming your support of a sexual predator on Bill Clinton, please offer us another reason for doing so.

  2. The left can’t have it both ways, excusing one man’s behavior while defending that of another. Here I’m thinking specifically about Judge Roy Moore. So much of what is happening has little to do with male/female interaction, and much to do with the political destruction of enemies (note how quickly the Republican establishment, who want no part of Judge Moore, were quick to condemn). The left didn’t just ignore Bill Clinton’s predatory behavior toward women, they have to this day by their silence endorsed it. He was their man. But Judge Moore, in no way their man, is the devil incarnate.

    If Roy Moore is truly guilty of the actions alleged, that behavior was as much as four decades ago. A man change change in that span of time, a point made by liberals and conservatives alike. BUT if the accusations prove true, then he has disqualified himself from office by lying, behavior that is as recent as yesterday.

    But is he guilty? There is a LOT about these accusations that just doesn’t smell right, beginning with the timing. Given Judge Moore’s high visibility, why have none of these accusations surfaced before now? The timing is very convenient for those wanting to stop another conservative from reaching the senate. Coming as they do just before the election, they give neither Judge Moore nor those who support him time to refute the charges. This all seems too calculated, and the media, given its deep and abiding liberal bias, can’t be trust to help us sort things out. We know where they stand, along with the Democrats and the Republican establishment.

    We need proof one way or the other.

    That yearbook message supposedly signed by Judge Moore would be a good place to test the veracity of both the woman and Judge Moore. Maybe or maybe not the writing can be confirmed as in Judge Moore’s hand. Even better, is the ink used something from forty years ago or is it more recent. Is it possible to determine when the comment was written? If it is verified to be forty years old, it would look very bad for the Judge. Why would the then young woman have faked such an entry forty years ago? But if the writing is contemporaneous, then it makes the woman a liar, and that in turn gives cause for one to wonder if all the complaints against Judge Moore are likewise part of a very nasty political fabrication.

    Given our understand of the liberal left, including its equally leftist media, we currently trust Judge More more than we trust his accusers. A lot of folks feel as we do.

    Our hope is that Judge Moore will stand firm, and that when the dust settles, he will vindicate our faith in him.

  3. Brendan says:

    Oh, Paul, that’s seriously the best you can do? Defend a man who advocates grabbing women by their vaginas and deflect it to a movement who didn’t hang a man for consensual adultery? Specious at best, big guy. How does Mr. Trump stack up against your oh so enlightened gentlemen of the 16th and 17th century?

  4. Linda E. Montrose says:

    Not only did bill clinton and his enablers give a pass to taking pleasures where you find it…willingly or not, they also gave children the idea that oral sex was not sex at all. Elementary school children were trying it because if it was alright for the president, it was alright for them to do it. After all, he was the president. Clinton was a very BAD role model and his wife enabled him to keep doing what she knew was going on! By demonizing the women clinton groped, had pleasure him under the table, and raped, it set a prejudice which these predators such as weinstein took as a free pass to keep doing. Now the chickens have come home to roost. What is done in darkness eventually comes to light. I would say that LIGHT is shining on these people now and they are finding it a little too bright for their liking!
    For the left to be the so called champions for women and children, they are doing a very poor job of doing so…wouldn’t you say?

  5. Brendan says:

    I didn’t see Trumps name. I thought to myself “thank God we’ve elected a President who no longer follows those base urges”…

    Can you sense the irony, or at least the sarcasm?

  6. Richard Anderson says:

    Excellent think piece essay Mr. Gleiser, especially to those who subscribe to the false doctrines of progressivism & secular humanism.

    The bottom line concerning the special election for U.S. Senate in Alabama on December 12, 2017 is this.
    There simply isn’t enough time at this 11th hour to prove or disprove ALLEGED events from 40 years ago, which have NEVER been brought up before, for some reason, UNTIL now, on the eve of an important election.
    Only the good people of the state of Alabama are going to decide this race — NOT the pundits & pooh-bahs in DC, NY, CA, or any other enclave elsewhere of progressive establishment elites who have run our grand country, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, into the ditch.
    Words of wisdom from Congressman and former Senate candidate Mo Brooks of Alabama, who said on the record, that he will be voting for Republican Roy Moore, because if the democrats should win this election in Alabama, he believes they will do great damage to our country. Alabama Governor Kay Ivey said she too will cast her ballot for Judge Moore.
    A Moore victory means Alabama, indeed the entire nation, will benefit from having his non-establishment voice who stands up for LIFE* [*i.e. LIFE of the Unborn, the Infirm, and the Aged], our CONSTITUTION, our FLAG, our NATIONAL ANTHEM, our FREEDOM, and AMERICA as One Nation Under GOD.
    GOD is the ROCK and moral foundation, WHOM our Republic was established on, and only by looking to HIM can the fabric of our great nation be restored and kept, as our Founding Fathers knew.
    God Bless The U.S.A..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *