It is difficult to imagine a more comprehensive unveiling of the illusion of male dominance than the events concerning the Clinton Presidency of recent weeks. They bespoke a world changed utterly not merely from what it was but from what we still believe it to be - as evidenced by the global insistence on discussing the matter as though the old rules still obtained.This perspective focused most of the questions on the issue of why Hillary Clinton chose to "stand by her man". Ten seconds' consideration would have disposed of this question, even on its own slightly ludicrous terms. Long-suffering wives standing by wayward husbands is hardly a new phenomenon.
Usually it occurs because such women know which side their bread is buttered on: a rational decision to hold on to what obtains rather than invite the less predictable.And in this case we are talking about the woman who is married to supposedly the most powerful man in the world. What else would she be expected to do? Where do we think she might intend to go, or to achieve, in the coming three years, whereby she would be offered more opportunities for self-realisation than on the arm of the President of the United States of America?Even in terms of old rules and perceptions, her actions make perfect sense. But we are not playing by the old rules. Was anybody listening, back in 1992, when Mrs Clinton told the world that she wasn't some little woman, "standing by her man like Tammy Wynette"? She meant that she had cut a deal. Her husband was a sad old Sixties throwback who couldn't control his libido but he stood a good chance of becoming the most powerful human being on the planet.She, although about 50 times smarter than he is, had zero chance of becoming president. They would go on. She would use the influence which his charisma delivered to make the Presidency work for the things she believed in, and he would use what was left to get off with young ones. ONE of the most striking things about the past week has been the absence of even a hint of feminist criticism of Bill Clinton. On the face of it, this might appear strange, since the President stood accused of a string of crimes against women which, in almost any other conceivable instance, would have resulted in the roundest condemnation.And yet there was not a word out of the usual spokeswomen for the sisterhood. Shere Hite, on Channel 4 News, put it all in perspective: President Clinton was a man who "supported rights for women". Asked to elaborate, she explained that he was a supporter of abortion. She seemed amused by Jon Snow's puzzlement, and so she should. What she was saying was that the President of the United States was being held to ransom, and she and Hillary Clinton were the spokeswomen for the kidnappers.Apart from the television pictures of Clinton and his wife, the most intriguing images of recent weeks have been those of his accusers who, by virtue of their accusations, have become figures of almost equal stature to the President himself. Each of them has spawned a multi-million-dollar industry, on the scale of, say, a world-rating rock'n'roll band.They are ferried around in limousines, accompanied by lawyers and other advisers. This is entirely appropriate, since they are the agents of a culture which delivers power to the women's lobby without a quota in sight.
Although feminists still play the numbers game, pointing out the distance still to be made up before full equality is delivered, the smarter ones know full well that their major objectives can be realised using more immediate methods.Hillary Clinton knows how far reality has moved on from those Sixties campus crusades, and is well versed in how the present period of transition allows feminists to maximise their strike capacity by mixing and matching tactics and weaponry from the old and new cultures.IN TRUTH Bill Clinton, who has a serious sexual addiction, is more to be pitied than laughed at.
Without the support of his wife and other feminists, his problem would render him unfit to govern. The old culture would have perceived his predicament with a mixture of amusement, disapproval and secret envy. In the new, post-feminist culture, his previously celebrated macho sex-drive makes him a kitten in the hands of allegedly powerless women, and what would previously have been his macho/chauvinistic behaviour is seen as an opportunity to appropriate his power and make him pay for his weakness of character by doing what feminists ordain. It amounts to no more than the overt politicisation of the natural power of women over men. Politics, media and the legal arena are littered with men who have been similarly caught with their trousers down, and must do as they are told. The notion of Bill Clinton as a feminist is hilarious beyond words. The fact that the modern Don Juan almost invariably tries to pass himself off as an ardent feminist has led to a myth that such men "just love women". In reality, the "feminism" of these men is a subterfuge to facilitate their addiction. Like all addicts, such men secretly despise that which enslaves them and, far from "loving" women, simply hide their contempt for what they are unable to resist behind uncritical acquiescence in the female perspective. This is why they give such short shrift to matters affecting the lives of other men.In the long run, all this will balance out, as the pretences drop away, one by one. In the meantime, the best interim solution would be the creation of a mechanism by which public figures who fall foul of feminist dogmas could be replaced by their wives. Under such a scheme, for example, Hillary Clinton would last week have become president of the United States, on the basis that her husband was too compromised to continue.This would have three significant advantages: the United States would have an infinitely more capable president; it would render open and visible what is happening anyway; and it would act as a salutary lesson to powerful men that, if they wish to retain their independence, they must learn to control themselves.