[from Joel] Apparently politicians are the least evolved of males. Shades of Bill Clinton, another socialist can't keep his hands off women. Here's the way French journalists see the problem of Strauss-Kahn.
"In 2007, he was given the opportunity to make a quick comeback, as the head of the International Monetary Fund. At the time of his nomination, Jean Quatremer of Libé ration pointed out in his blog: "Strauss-Kahn's only real problem is his behavior with women. Too pushy, he often narrowly excapes [charges] of harassment. This fault of his is well known by the media, but no one speaks about it." Several months earlier, on Feb. 5, 2007, during an interview on the Paris Première program, a young woman, Tristane Banon, daughter of a Socialist party regional council member, said Strauss-Kahn had attempted to rape her in 2002. But the television network, fearing defamation charges, covered the name of the former minister with a bleep. Her failure to press charges cast doubt on her testimony."
2 comments:
Thanks Joel.
Like the male Kennedys, the problem is in their "genes" - they can't keep it in their jeans.
Perhaps we should not judge these famous people by our standards and (limited) opportunities. Would you or I, if we were rich and powerful, be able to resist an opportunity to have an affair with a woman who was attracted to us due to our fame and wealth?
Biologically, the male has been bred for QUANTITY - the most "fit" males in the animal world, including our great ape primate ancestors, spread their genes far and wide because they may have an almost unlimited number of offspring each season. Females, on the other hand are bred for QUALITY - the most "fit" females in the animal world are as selective as possible, choosing the strongest and most aggressive males as partners, because they may only have one pregnancy per season.
"Civilized" males, at least in the Judeo-Christian world, are supposed to be totally monogamous, or, with the prevalence of easy divorce, at least true to one woman in any given season.
Those (like me) who have limited themselves to one woman are certainly the exception in the animal world, and may have done so for lack of opportunity.
The thing I find interesting is how men on the political left seem to get involved with the most powerless of women. In the case of Bill Clinton with an intern, Ted Kenedy with a party girl, and in the current case of Strauss-Kahn, (allegedly) with a maid. At least those on the right tend to mess around with women of greater substance, such as Newt Gingrich with a professional staff member in the House of Representatives, whom he later married, and Clarence Thomas who suffered "a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks" when he (alegedly) told dirty jokes to Anita Hill, a lawyer and professional staff member, who never accused him of any form of physical contact, and the current case of Arnold Schwartzneegger with a household maid.
Could it be that left wing causes tend to draw emotional groupies who are young and vulnerable? Right wing causes don't inspire that kind of emotion and therefore attract more mature and logical women. How's that for a theory?
Post a Comment