Mothers Who Think: Does President Clinton feel women's pain -- or cause it?

Feminist author Barbara Ehrenreich lashes out at a White House workplace that seems organized around President Clinton's 'problem.'

By Lori Leibovich

Mar 19, 1997 | The sexual charges swirling around President Clinton have presented a peculiar political conundrum for feminists: Should they grudgingly throw their support behind a president who, while largely sympathetic to their agenda, is an alleged skirt chaser? Or should they chastise him for his indiscretions with the same vitriol they reserved for conservatives such as Clarence Thomas?

Whatever feminists decide, support for the president among American women -- and some female politicians -- seems to be waning. With the latest allegations made by former White House employee Kathleen Willey on "60 Minutes" adding insult to injury, groups such as the National Organization for Women finally seem to be making some noise.

Time magazine columnist Barbara Ehrenreich was making noise a long time ago. As one of the only feminists to criticize the president when Paula Jones' accusations first surfaced, Ehrenreich has consistently gone on the record deploring Clinton's behavior toward women and decrying the sexually charged atmosphere at the White House.

Ehrenreich has written several influential feminist books, including "Complaints and Disorders: The Sexual Politics of Sickness" and "Blood Rites: Origins and History of the Passions of War." A longtime radical and labor activist, she is one of the sharpest voices within the left wing of the women's movement, often calling on her sisters to develop a class-conscious view of American society. Salon talked with Ehrenreich about how class issues influence feminism, the gray areas of sexual harassment and Clinton's political hypocrisy.

After Kathleen Willey's appearance on "60 Minutes," NOW President Patricia Ireland explicitly criticized President Clinton's behavior, whereas after Paula Jones came out with her allegations, NOW didn't aggressively speak out. Why?

The least flattering interpretation would be that it is because Kathleen Willey is upper-middle class, she is tastefully made-up and she is a Democrat. Of course, what I'd like to believe is that because I've criticized NOW for so long about not responding to Paula Jones or the [Monica] Lewinsky case, that they are listening to me [laughs].

Seriously -- are feminist groups finally responding because they are being hammered by people like you on the Op-Ed pages for being hypocritical?

Well, besides myself, [New York Times columnist] Maureen Dowd has been pretty tenacious on this, so they might indeed be feeling pressure. Patricia Ireland's statement was very legalistic. It was a good, strong statement, but whether laws are broken or not, [I wish she would have said] "We as feminists find this distasteful."

What separates the Willey case and the Jones case in terms of their "distastefullness"?

I haven't really thought that through. If true, the Paula Jones thing is even more disgusting.

Is there a double standard? Are women more sympathetic to Kathleen Willey because she looks better?

Most of the women who are called upon to opine on these issues, including myself, are upper-middle class and it is easier for them to identify with a professional-looking woman. I don't see a whole lot of women called on to comment who look like they just got off the shift at the factory. In our society we don't hear from working-class people. The whole media world is dominated by upper-middle-class women.

Next Page: What kind of workplace is the White House?

• View blog reactions