Why do all the feminist groups not have a problem with Bill Clinton's "inappropriate relationships", but were so up in arms about Clarence Thomas? Bill Clinton's long history of repulsive activity is well documented. But for some reason Clarence Thomas was thought to be so bad because of a comment? I agree this was probably not an appropriate conversation for him. However, Bill Clinton went a little further than just talk... I think this is hypocrisy on the part of women's groups. I suppose as long as you support killing babies, you can do anything and get away with it. Stand up for all women equally and don't just pick and choose according to their political views. - Jane

Per your note to FEMINIST.COM, Clarence Thomas didn't just make a "comment" he sexually harassed Anita Hill for years. Sexually harassment by law can mean two things: 1.) quid pro quo--you do this or you will be fired 2.) you create hostile environment for the employee by repeatedly making comments and making the employee feel uncertain about themselves and their job. Clarence Thomas was guilty fo the latter. To date none of Clinton's escapedes fall under either of these definitions. However, this does not mean that Clinton isn't a sleaze, but that's a different issue.

Also, feminists came to Anita Hill's defense not so much because of what Thomas did to her, but as a result of how the Senate Judiciary committee was treating her--i.e. they supported the rights of the woman to be heard. In the case of Jones and Lewinsky, feminists have also listened to the women. As a feminist, I do stand up for women equally - and I trust each woman to stand up for herself and when that is being inhibited, I work extra hard at the former

—Amy