[ Back ] [ Main Paula Jones Page ] [ Carolyn's Home Page ]

Support Paula Jones Lavender Ribbon Campaign
[ Join the campaign! ] [ Voices of Support ] [ *Sigh* ]

This used to be the first page of the my Paula Jones site, prior to April 1, 1998. If you got here without reading the current first page, you should read that page first.

Support Paula Jones Lavender Ribbon Campaign The Support Paula Jones Lavender Ribbon Campaign was started in June, 1997 by one person - me. I am not part of any official organization related to the Paula Jones case - I am a single female web developer who decided to do something to voice my support for Paula Jones' right to a fair trial, and provide a way for other people to show their support. It's that simple! While the Paula Jones Legal Fund had a ribbon on their site, I am not officially affiliated with them. I felt I needed to state this since I keep getting e-mail that should be directed to the Legal Fund.
Please note: Nothing should be inferred from my choice of colors. I picked lavender without any thought to whatever symbolic significance, if any, it might seem to convey. Quite simply, with such a large number of other ribbon campaigns (at least 200, at present) there were just not a lot of colors left for me to choose from.

I ask that people please read this entire web page, since people have been asking me questions which are explained here.

This campaign is not necessarily just an "Anti-Clinton" campaign - it is a campaign in support of a fair trial for women who have been subjected to real (I repeat - real) sexual harassment, regardless of social status. Supporters of this campaign believe in Paula Jones' right to a fair trial. This campaign is not passing a judgment on Clinton's guilt or innocence. That is for the court to decide. While supporters may have their own opinion on Clinton's alleged actions, that is all it is - an opinion.

Paula Jones has been treated shabbily because of her social standing - as if only certain "types" of women are worthy of bringing up a valid sexual harassment suit, mainly "well-to-do", liberal women. I found it interesting that many Democrats, who complain that Republicans stomp all over the "little guy" feel that Paula Jones is somehow less credible because she's not a high status lawyer like Anita Hill. Women ran to the defense of Anita Hill when she accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment, even before the case was heard. Yet somehow, Paula Jones was all but ignored by women's groups when she brought the very same charge against President Clinton. Why is this?

Think about it - Anita Hill was defended by feminists as a "victim", even though she received a YALE law degree, held a prestigious job and, after following Clarence Thomas from job to job, and asked her "harasser" for a recommendation to teach at the University of Oklahoma College of Law. Yet people turned their back on Paula Jones, because she wasn't one of the "elite" like Anita Hill. She was even mocked for having once lived in a mobile home! How ironic that James Carville, one of the President's most ardent defenders and a leading proponent of the view that "character doesn't matter," said of Paula Jones, "Drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park and there's no telling what you'll get." (!!!)

What is going on here?!

This is not to say that Anita Hill did not have a right to bring such charges against Thomas. She had the right to do so. The point I am making is that when she did bring forth such charges, most people seemed to automatically believe her, but when Puala Jones brings similar if not worse charges against Clinton, people are quick to call her a liar.

Can these "liberals" only be bothered to involve themselves on behalf of "elite" women? And, even then, perhaps only when a Republican man is being accused. What hypocrisy! I receive mail every day from people whose primary grievance against Paula Jones is the way she looks: her hair, her makeup, her smile, her nose, etc. What on earth does this have to do with the validity of the case? Would these same high-minded "liberals" ever have let themselves be quoted making such dismissive remarks about Anita Hill? Not a chance. The attitude of pundits smacks of media bias and feminist hypocrisy together with a general indifference to official misconduct.

Many may still see Clarence Thomas as a sexual harasser. But a comparison of the Paula Jones and Anita Hill episodes suggests that the evidence against the president is far stronger than the media has let on--and far stronger than the evidence against Thomas.

In addition, this campaign isn't strictly a "Republican" campaign. I will admit that I myself am Republican and do not particularly like Bill Clinton. Yet even people who love Bill Clinton or who are Democrats can be outraged at the double standard shown in the Paula Jones case, as is stated very nicely by Camille Paglia - a Clinton Democrat!
"All feminists who sincerely support sexual harassment guidelines should indeed defend Paula Jones, since Bill Clinton's alleged behavior broke every rule. She was on the job at the time, and he was her ultimate boss; he illegally used state troopers for a private escapade; and he began his approach by coercively mentioning a friendship with her immediate boss. Feminist leaders would have tarred and feathered any Republican who carried on like this"
Camille Paglia - a Clinton Democrat

Even the ACLU has come out in support of Paula Jones' right to a fair trial. So before chalking this "right-wing plot", ask yourself - if this is a "right wing plot", then why have the ACLU and NOW (albeit rather belatedly) come out in support of Paula Jones' right to a trial? A perusal of my other web pages will make fairly clear the fact that I very seldom find myself on the same side of any public policy issue with either the ACLU or NOW, and this has resulted in quite a number of remarks critical of me for doing so here. It would seem they are of the opinion that I have no right to invoke the name of these institutions only on those (rare) occasions when I find it convenient to do so.

The reason I mentioned groups like the ACLU is because I keep getting mail saying that this was all a right-wing plot. My only purpose in bringing up the ACLU was to counter the idea that the case was not valid in the eyes of anyone except extreme right-wingers. I don't think that the fact that the ACLU or NOW supports the case (though NOW certainly has not supported the case with the same passion shown towards the Anita Hill case) makes the case more valid, it just shows that this isn't some weird right-wing plot. If it was a right-wing plot, I highly doubt the ACLU would voice an iota of support.

If you are someone who feels that there was a double standard in the Paula Jones case, and supports the right of women to stop real sexual harassment, then display the "Support Paula Jones Lavender Ribbon" on your web page!

NOTE: When I refer to "sexual harassment" I am speaking of real sexual harassment, not of the trivial or implausible claims that are occasionally reported. I readily acknowledge that many of the allegations of sexual harassment brought against men have later been proved false and, sadly, that these other cases have a way of undermining the credibility of women generally. But each case demands to be considered on its own merits! Consider that, once in a while, someone is falsely charged with murder. Does that suggest any reason for the public to doubt whether murders occur? Of course it doesn't. All that anyone is asking for is that Paula Jones' case be considered on its own merits and that Bill Clinton be held to account for his behavior. Paula Jones is one of the valid sexual harassment cases. This is not an "anti-male" campaign!!

Choose a Ribbon for your web page - there are now 6 available!

[ Back ] [ Main Paula Jones Page ] [ Carolyn's Home Page ]