PDA

View Full Version : The Monica Lewinsky-ing of Paula Broadwell



Adelaide
11-19-2012, 01:00 AM
Almost none of the coverage of the scandal involving both Petraeus—the retired four-star general who commanded the U.S. and coalition forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan—and Marine Four-Star General John Allen, who’s presently leading the forces in Afghanistan, has connected the behavior of two of the military’s most decorated leaders with the wave of sexual assault and harassment scandals that has plagued the U.S. military.

Instead, much of the coverage has focused on Broadwell’s fashion sense and the tone of her arms.

...

As with Lewinsky, much of the coverage of Broadwell has focused on her exchange with another women. Even an intelligence community source described emails Broadwell sent to Petraeus family friend Jill Kelley (who’s also the woman whom General Allen reportedly had "inappropriate communications" with over email) as "kind of cat-fight stuff."

Women have long been unfairly assigned the role of gatekeepers of sexuality morality, a designation that makes them easy to blame when men fall short, said Occidental College professor of politics Caroline Heldman. “The onus should be on Petraeus,” she said. “He has a lot more to lose and he’s a lot more to blame in that breach.”

Instead, said Heldman, media coverage give “the impression that Broadwell’s the bad woman, the slut, manipulative and conniving, a climber.”

A Scarlet Letter - the Monica Lewinsky-ing of Paula Broadwell (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/14/a-scarlet-letter-the-monica-lewinsky-ing-of-paula-broadwell.html)

Yes, I realise it's a Daily Beast article but it raises some good points.

For those that wish to deny sexism, just take a look at Paula Broadwell and the affair. The media is portaying her as this horrible slut and while she's guilty of sleeping with a married man and should take responsibility for that, it's the married man that ultimately is breaking the oath he took to his wife. It reminds me of rape victims in the military that get charged with adultery because their rapist who goes uncharged was married - complete, and utter crap.

It's embarrassing that people in this day and age are just letting this happen, most without even noticing that the language being used and the attitudes being taken are absolutely sexist.

hanger4
11-19-2012, 07:01 AM
A Scarlet Letter - the Monica Lewinsky-ing of Paula Broadwell (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/14/a-scarlet-letter-the-monica-lewinsky-ing-of-paula-broadwell.html)

Yes, I realise it's a Daily Beast article but it raises some good points.

For those that wish to deny sexism, just take a look at Paula Broadwell and the affair. The media is portaying her as this horrible slut and while she's guilty of sleeping with a married man and should take responsibility for that, it's the married man that ultimately is breaking the oath he took to his wife. It reminds me of rape victims in the military that get charged with adultery because their rapist who goes uncharged was married - complete, and utter crap.

It's embarrassing that people in this day and age are just letting this happen, most without even noticing that the language being used and the attitudes being taken are absolutely sexist.

What more would you expect from the MSM.

The more evil, disgusting and titillating they can make this story the easier it is to deflect the masses form Obama's cover-up of the Benghazi debacle.

Just look at the denial of the facts by the lefties at this forum.

Cigar
11-19-2012, 08:28 AM
The Monica Lewinsky-ing?
Don't tell me ... did she smoked the Big Cigar?

Peter1469
11-19-2012, 06:35 PM
A Scarlet Letter - the Monica Lewinsky-ing of Paula Broadwell (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/14/a-scarlet-letter-the-monica-lewinsky-ing-of-paula-broadwell.html)

Yes, I realise it's a Daily Beast article but it raises some good points.

For those that wish to deny sexism, just take a look at Paula Broadwell and the affair. The media is portaying her as this horrible slut and while she's guilty of sleeping with a married man and should take responsibility for that, it's the married man that ultimately is breaking the oath he took to his wife. It reminds me of rape victims in the military that get charged with adultery because their rapist who goes uncharged was married - complete, and utter crap.

It's embarrassing that people in this day and age are just letting this happen, most without even noticing that the language being used and the attitudes being taken are absolutely sexist.

I prosecuted sex crimes in the Army and am not familiar with any rape victim being charged with adultery. I have seen allegations from female Soldiers who felt that their cases were not taken seriously, but I haven't seen them also be charged with adultery. Traditionally, at least in the Army, we only charged adultery as a secondary office and not for the first time such as a rape case.

Adultery is usually charged when their is an open relationship and the command orders the couple to stop. When they don't they are charged with failure to obey a lawful order and perhaps adultery- you have to add that on because under military rules of evidence, if the prosecutor doesn't charge the adultery the defense attorney will object any time you try to mention the affair (can't argue uncharged misconduct in a court-marital.) And the military judges know all this and don't really pay attention to adultery for punishment. The failure to obey a lawful order is much more serious and is the prime offense.

I had to teach lots of classes to my commanders in Korea where adultery was rampant. They didn't understand that adultery has 3 elements (not just the first two):

1. Penetration, however slight (only the vagina)
2. Knowledge that one party is married to someone not in the charged offense
3. conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline or service discrediting.

Each element must be proven by different facts. So just because you have 1 and 2 doesn't mean you have 3.

An illustration:

A. Private Strong's wife left him and emptied the bank account. She is no longer in government housing, but they are still legally married. Private Strong meets an ex-girlfriend with no contacts with the military and gets caught having sex with her.

B. SGT Moore has a problem soldier, Private Smith, who is married and lives in government quarters with his wife. SGT Moore gets the commander to restrict Private Smith to the barracks as punishment. Then SGT Moore sees Private Smith's wife at the enlisted club, takes her back to her place and gets caught having sex with her.

I would argue that in A there was nothing to satisfy the 3rd element, which in B, there certainly is.

BTW. A is like a prior 4 star general from years ago who was forced to resign; B is like a case that occurred in Korea while I was there.

Adelaide
11-19-2012, 08:59 PM
I prosecuted sex crimes in the Army and am not familiar with any rape victim being charged with adultery. I have seen allegations from female Soldiers who felt that their cases were not taken seriously, but I haven't seen them also be charged with adultery. Traditionally, at least in the Army, we only charged adultery as a secondary office and not for the first time such as a rape case.

Adultery is usually charged when their is an open relationship and the command orders the couple to stop. When they don't they are charged with failure to obey a lawful order and perhaps adultery- you have to add that on because under military rules of evidence, if the prosecutor doesn't charge the adultery the defense attorney will object any time you try to mention the affair (can't argue uncharged misconduct in a court-marital.) And the military judges know all this and don't really pay attention to adultery for punishment. The failure to obey a lawful order is much more serious and is the prime offense.

I had to teach lots of classes to my commanders in Korea where adultery was rampant. They didn't understand that adultery has 3 elements (not just the first two):

1. Penetration, however slight (only the vagina)
2. Knowledge that one party is married to someone not in the charged offense
3. conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline or service discrediting.

Each element must be proven by different facts. So just because you have 1 and 2 doesn't mean you have 3.

An illustration:

A. Private Strong's wife left him and emptied the bank account. She is no longer in government housing, but they are still legally married. Private Strong meets an ex-girlfriend with no contacts with the military and gets caught having sex with her.

B. SGT Moore has a problem soldier, Private Smith, who is married and lives in government quarters with his wife. SGT Moore gets the commander to restrict Private Smith to the barracks as punishment. Then SGT Moore sees Private Smith's wife at the enlisted club, takes her back to her place and gets caught having sex with her.

I would argue that in A there was nothing to satisfy the 3rd element, which in B, there certainly is.

BTW. A is like a prior 4 star general from years ago who was forced to resign; B is like a case that occurred in Korea while I was there.

You obviously have more firsthand knowledge on this, but based on my research (books, documentaries, etc.), there have been women in the military charged with adultery after their rape case was basically dismissed and they were deemed to have consented.

At any rate, the thread is about the sexism in the media pertaining to Paula Broadwell. Ironically, there was another article on the Daily Beast below the story I quoted in the OP that was titled, "The General, the Flirt and the Harlot." I mean, really? Maybe it's because I'm female and I understand the issue from a different viewpoint, but I would never use certain words to describe another woman. Slut, whore, bitch, harlot, ****, etc..

It shocked me that a fairly Liberal news organization would use the word "harlot" - typically, it seems like political correctness is more of a Liberal thing, sometimes excessively, so to see this language shocked me. And, as the article points out, what is up with the constant objectifying behaviour towards women featured in media? Why does it matter what she wore? Why does it matter what her general appearance/grooming is?

We're basically teaching young girls that all we are are objects whose worth is measured by appearance, and that sexual chastity is the only way to be respected as a female. But it's perfectly acceptable for men to sleep around.

KC
11-19-2012, 09:09 PM
You obviously have more firsthand knowledge on this, but based on my research (books, documentaries, etc.), there have been women in the military charged with adultery after their rape case was basically dismissed and they were deemed to have consented.

At any rate, the thread is about the sexism in the media pertaining to Paula Broadwell. Ironically, there was another article on the Daily Beast below the story I quoted in the OP that was titled, "The General, the Flirt and the Harlot." I mean, really? Maybe it's because I'm female and I understand the issue from a different viewpoint, but I would never use certain words to describe another women. Slut, whore, bitch, harlot, ****, etc..

It shocked me that a fairly Liberal news organization would use the word "harlot" - typically, it seems like political correctness is more of a Liberal thing, sometimes excessively, so to see this language shocked me. And, as the article points out, what is up with the constant objectifying behaviour towards women featured in media? Why does it matter what she wore? Why does it matter what her general appearance/grooming is?

We're basically teaching young girls that all we are are objects whose worth is measured by appearance, and that sexual chastity is the only way to be respected as a female. But it's perfectly acceptable for men to sleep around.

It shouldn't really surprise you that a liberal news organization is engaging in some sexism. I mean, they're in it for the money too, and sex sells, liberal or conservative. Sex scandals about government officials sell particularly well, I imagine, since they have both a political flavor and a gossip column flavor.

Adelaide
11-19-2012, 09:10 PM
What more would you expect from the MSM.

The more evil, disgusting and titillating they can make this story the easier it is to deflect the masses form Obama's cover-up of the Benghazi debacle.

Just look at the denial of the facts by the lefties at this forum.

It is a legitimate topic to cover in the news, but some of the language used and general direction of the articles is unacceptable.

I don't think this is detracting from the Benghazi scandal. I think most people acknowledge that nothing is adding up as it applies to that. This scandal with Petreaus is just another story being covered, and soon, hopefully, it will die down and we'll find out the real reasons behind Benghazi.

Adelaide
11-19-2012, 09:12 PM
It shouldn't really surprise you that a liberal news organization is engaging in some sexism. I mean, they're in it for the money too, and sex sells, liberal or conservative. Sex scandals about government officials sell particularly well, I imagine, since they have both a political flavor and a gossip column flavor.

True... but that in itself is pretty sad. So many real issues to be covered and instead we're getting to read about how much Jill Kelley is like one of the women from the Real Housewives franchise. Ridiculous.

KC
11-19-2012, 09:27 PM
True... but that in itself is pretty sad. So many real issues to be covered and instead we're getting to read about how much Jill Kelley is like one of the women from the Real Housewives franchise. Ridiculous.

It is very sad. I rarely understand why these things are our business anyhow. I understand that we're talking about public figures and public figures are open to public scrutiny, but their personal lives, as immoral or sad as they may be, have little to do with how well they do their job.

I do see what you mean about the sexist flavor of the news though. Do you think it's because media counts on us seeing this from the perspective of Mrs. Petraeus as the protagonist? I notice that when people talk about cheating, they tend to direct immediate anger at the other man/woman rather than the significant other. Maybe the media is counting on us projecting this attitude on our public figures. The high volume of news about this scandal suggests that it's working.

Peter1469
11-19-2012, 09:45 PM
You obviously have more firsthand knowledge on this, but based on my research (books, documentaries, etc.), there have been women in the military charged with adultery after their rape case was basically dismissed and they were deemed to have consented.

At any rate, the thread is about the sexism in the media pertaining to Paula Broadwell. Ironically, there was another article on the Daily Beast below the story I quoted in the OP that was titled, "The General, the Flirt and the Harlot." I mean, really? Maybe it's because I'm female and I understand the issue from a different viewpoint, but I would never use certain words to describe another woman. Slut, whore, bitch, harlot, ****, etc..

It shocked me that a fairly Liberal news organization would use the word "harlot" - typically, it seems like political correctness is more of a Liberal thing, sometimes excessively, so to see this language shocked me. And, as the article points out, what is up with the constant objectifying behaviour towards women featured in media? Why does it matter what she wore? Why does it matter what her general appearance/grooming is?

We're basically teaching young girls that all we are are objects whose worth is measured by appearance, and that sexual chastity is the only way to be respected as a female. But it's perfectly acceptable for men to sleep around.

I am totally against those characterizations of Broadwell. It takes two to tango and Petraeus was the one with the greater moral obligation to say no. I think the French have a better attitude about these sorts of affairs.

Regarding sex crimes in the military it is a very complicated topic. From my experience if there is credible facts that there may have been a rape, even if the government couldn't prove it, the government never goes ahead and charge the victim with adultery. Of course there may be some strange cases out there, but that is not the way it works.

The military was forced to stop charging consensual sodomy (oral sex). One of the judges on the army's criminal appeals court (very hot) used to say to government appellate attorney's during oral argument that she failed to understand how consensual oral sex could negatively affect good order and discipline. The court was overturning all the convictions for consensual sodomy that they gave up charging it. :laugh: I have a good non-X rated story about her and me at an Army JAG annual ball one year.....

Peter1469
11-19-2012, 09:57 PM
My favorite "rape" case was in Korea. You will see why I use quotations. A white female soldier accused a black male soldier of rape. When the MPs tried to arrest him, he kicked their asses. That turned out to be a complication.

I charged him with rape and assault of MPs and set an Article 32 hearing up. It is like a grand jury. An independent (non legal) officer listens to evidence from the government and the defense and recommends whether a general court martial shall proceed. The general doesn't have to follow the recommendation. During the course of my investigation I heard lots of strange things. The defense attorney was trying to out process from Korea and wasn't doing much. Some of the witnesses said some strange stuff. When I poked around I heard some disturbing things. I gave key names to the defense attorney and his boss- so he ended up having to do work. This is what happened in the Article 32 hearing:

We all knew that there was a "racist army gang" in Korea. The name is not important. The victim wanted to be a member. So they told her that she had to get a black soldier in trouble. So she slept with him, then called the MPs claiming that he raped her. Did I say, she was not that smart..... I mean she was trying to join a gang that hated black people.....

The Article 32 officer listened to the testimony and recommended to the general that the case be dropped.....

The hard part was getting the MPs to drop their charges for their ass kicking. I chalked it up to training.