4 ms·

This is one of those cases where the news cycle and court of public opinion spiraled out of control, never to be corrected. Imagine how surreal and frustrating

This is one of those cases where the news cycle and court of public opinion spiraled out of control, never to be corrected. Imagine how surreal and frustrating that must be? And she makes a good point about how these things get named: Who had the power in the relationship between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky? The president or the intern? It matters what you call a thing. Calling that event the “Lewinsky Scandal” fails to acknowledge the vast power differential, and I’m glad that more people are now referring to it as “the Clinton Affair” which names it after the person with the most agency in that series of events.

iratewizard 5y ago
I think the big difference with the Lewinsky scandal is two things: everyone knows who Clinton is, so "the Clinton Affair" is not as precise; and Monica Lewinsky was not an innocent victim.
- xivzgrev 5y ago
  At least could call it the Clinton Lewinsky affair. Calling it just the Lewinsky affair puts it all on her.
- bahmboo 5y ago
  What was she guilty of?
  - dylan604 5y ago
    Adultery? History tends to always blame the woman and shrugs at the man even though it takes two to tango.
    - horsemans 5y ago
      Lewinsky has never been married. Clinton was the adulterer.
      - rootusrootus 5y ago
        Depends on who is defining the term, and in case of law, jurisdiction. Some places define both parties as guilty of adultery. Some only do so contingent on whether it was the man that was married, or the woman (e.g. Utah). Morally, it is fairly unambiguous. If the unmarried partner knew they were banging a married person, they are just as responsible.
        baobabKoodaa 5y ago
        > Morally, it is fairly unambiguous. If the unmarried partner knew they were banging a married person, they are just as responsible. Perhaps that's your moral view, but it does not represent everyone else's morals, so I don't know why you're claiming it to be "unambiguous". There's plenty of people who would say that the unmarried person in an affair shares less of the blame than the married person in the affair. For starters, the married person breaks a contract, whereas the unmarried person does not have a contract to break.
        rootusrootus 5y ago
        > but it does not represent everyone else's morals Yes, I'm sure you can find at least one person who doesn't agree. Maybe yourself. But how much do you want to bet that if you asked this question to 100 people, better than 90 of them would agree? > For starters, the married person breaks a contract, whereas the unmarried person does not have a contract to break I said moral, not legal. A few people only define right & wrong based on what they can legally get away with, I understand.
        baobabKoodaa 5y ago
        > But how much do you want to bet that if you asked this question to 100 people, better than 90 of them would agree I would guess that more than 50 of those 100 people would agree with me that the married person shares more of the blame than the unmarried person. Anyway, even if you're somehow better than me at guessing what other people think about moral questions, to the point where so much as 90% of people agree with you on this one, is that "unambiguous" in your mind? I would think "unambiguous" is something like 99,99% or more. > I said moral, not legal. I was also referring to a moral contract, not a legal one. Most people who are in a marriage have an agreement between each other that they shall not mess with other people (not a legally enforceable contract, but an agreement nonetheless). If you dedicate yourself to one person, and then you go and betray them behind their back, you're breaking a certain moral code. That's my opinion. If you think that the married and the unmarried person share equal blame, I guess you don't see anything wrong with breaking that contract? If committing adultery is just as bad as committing adultery PLUS breaking a contract, then clearly in your mind breaking a contract is not bad?
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  Lewinsky was abused by a man in power. In a corporate environment she could have easily sued. If they would have met in a bar then the situation would have been different. You are incorrect.
  - iratewizard 5y ago
    You weren't there. You can barely claim having a 3rd hand account of the situation. You're a fool who forms strong opinions around assumptions and political spin. You are incorrect.
    - stjohnswarts 5y ago
      I actually can claim what I said because of the facts of the case. No one can deny she was his intern, no one can deny that he was the President, no one can deny that he shouldn't have done it given his position of power over her future. You are the one who is incorrect.
      - baobabKoodaa 5y ago
        You said: "Lewinsky was abused". "she was his intern" does not mean "was abused". "he was the President" does not mean "was abused". "he shouldn't have done it given his position of power over her future" does not mean "was abused". If you have a specific claim as to why you think Lewinsky was abused, perhaps you should state that claim. (Of course, you don't actually have one.)
  - himinlomax 5y ago
    From what I remember about her (and that was 20 years ago), it seems to me she wouldn't have necessarily considered herself abused or victimized without the media and political circus that followed.
    - stjohnswarts 5y ago
      It really doesn't matter what she thought in context of the situation. The fact remains her boss, the President of the United States of America, the most powerful person on the planet, used his position on his employee to get sex.
Alex3917 5y ago
It's named after the one who told other people about the relationship. That's about as fair as you can get.
prepend 5y ago
I think saying “the Clinton Affair” is not specific enough so the press calling it “Lewinsky Scandal” is more understandable and has nothing to do with agency, I think. There are multiple Clinton affairs and multiple scandals so any headline using those terms wouldn’t make sense. “Clinton/Lewinsky Scandal” would make more sense and be clear.

iratewizard 5y ago

I think the big difference with the Lewinsky scandal is two things: everyone knows who Clinton is, so "the Clinton Affair" is not as precise; and Monica Lewinsky was not an innocent victim.

xivzgrev 5y ago
At least could call it the Clinton Lewinsky affair. Calling it just the Lewinsky affair puts it all on her.
bahmboo 5y ago
What was she guilty of?
- dylan604 5y ago
  Adultery? History tends to always blame the woman and shrugs at the man even though it takes two to tango.
  - horsemans 5y ago
    Lewinsky has never been married. Clinton was the adulterer.
    - rootusrootus 5y ago
      Depends on who is defining the term, and in case of law, jurisdiction. Some places define both parties as guilty of adultery. Some only do so contingent on whether it was the man that was married, or the woman (e.g. Utah). Morally, it is fairly unambiguous. If the unmarried partner knew they were banging a married person, they are just as responsible.
      - baobabKoodaa 5y ago
        > Morally, it is fairly unambiguous. If the unmarried partner knew they were banging a married person, they are just as responsible. Perhaps that's your moral view, but it does not represent everyone else's morals, so I don't know why you're claiming it to be "unambiguous". There's plenty of people who would say that the unmarried person in an affair shares less of the blame than the married person in the affair. For starters, the married person breaks a contract, whereas the unmarried person does not have a contract to break.
        rootusrootus 5y ago
        > but it does not represent everyone else's morals Yes, I'm sure you can find at least one person who doesn't agree. Maybe yourself. But how much do you want to bet that if you asked this question to 100 people, better than 90 of them would agree? > For starters, the married person breaks a contract, whereas the unmarried person does not have a contract to break I said moral, not legal. A few people only define right & wrong based on what they can legally get away with, I understand.
        baobabKoodaa 5y ago
        > But how much do you want to bet that if you asked this question to 100 people, better than 90 of them would agree I would guess that more than 50 of those 100 people would agree with me that the married person shares more of the blame than the unmarried person. Anyway, even if you're somehow better than me at guessing what other people think about moral questions, to the point where so much as 90% of people agree with you on this one, is that "unambiguous" in your mind? I would think "unambiguous" is something like 99,99% or more. > I said moral, not legal. I was also referring to a moral contract, not a legal one. Most people who are in a marriage have an agreement between each other that they shall not mess with other people (not a legally enforceable contract, but an agreement nonetheless). If you dedicate yourself to one person, and then you go and betray them behind their back, you're breaking a certain moral code. That's my opinion. If you think that the married and the unmarried person share equal blame, I guess you don't see anything wrong with breaking that contract? If committing adultery is just as bad as committing adultery PLUS breaking a contract, then clearly in your mind breaking a contract is not bad?
stjohnswarts 5y ago
Lewinsky was abused by a man in power. In a corporate environment she could have easily sued. If they would have met in a bar then the situation would have been different. You are incorrect.
- iratewizard 5y ago
  You weren't there. You can barely claim having a 3rd hand account of the situation. You're a fool who forms strong opinions around assumptions and political spin. You are incorrect.
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    I actually can claim what I said because of the facts of the case. No one can deny she was his intern, no one can deny that he was the President, no one can deny that he shouldn't have done it given his position of power over her future. You are the one who is incorrect.
    - baobabKoodaa 5y ago
      You said: "Lewinsky was abused". "she was his intern" does not mean "was abused". "he was the President" does not mean "was abused". "he shouldn't have done it given his position of power over her future" does not mean "was abused". If you have a specific claim as to why you think Lewinsky was abused, perhaps you should state that claim. (Of course, you don't actually have one.)
- himinlomax 5y ago
  From what I remember about her (and that was 20 years ago), it seems to me she wouldn't have necessarily considered herself abused or victimized without the media and political circus that followed.
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    It really doesn't matter what she thought in context of the situation. The fact remains her boss, the President of the United States of America, the most powerful person on the planet, used his position on his employee to get sex.

Alex3917 5y ago

It's named after the one who told other people about the relationship. That's about as fair as you can get.

prepend 5y ago

I think saying “the Clinton Affair” is not specific enough so the press calling it “Lewinsky Scandal” is more understandable and has nothing to do with agency, I think. There are multiple Clinton affairs and multiple scandals so any headline using those terms wouldn’t make sense. “Clinton/Lewinsky Scandal” would make more sense and be clear.