Henrietta Hay's Column

It's not easy being what my grandson calls an LOL (Liberal Old Lady). It suggests having opinions that you are willing to defend, but being old enough to know that stereotypes are almost always false and very few things in the world are simple.

So when a male acquaintance sneered, "How come you believed Anita Hill and you doubt Paula Jones?" I had to concede that he had a point. If you buy into the stereotype, Paula Jones' accusations against President Clinton cause a major dilemma for feminists. But to do that you have to assume that we all think alike. Actually, that's a little like saying that all Democrats think alike.

Feminism, like the civil rights movement, like any social movement, embraces a lot of opinions and beliefs. But sometimes we come together. The Anita Hill case galvanized American women, not so much by what may or may not have happened between her and Clarence Thomas, as by the actions of the Senate Judiciary Committee. At the Thomas hearing they chose to pillory Ms. Hill so viciously that women across the country rose up in wrath.

We will never know what happened between Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas. We only know what the Committee did, and has probably been regretting ever since. They made us mad. To a great extent, we can thank them for the large increase in the number of women in the House and Senate after the 1992 election. We can also thank them for new awareness of sexual harassment in the workplace and efforts that are being made to fight it.

As she often does, Ellen Goodman summarized the situation quite well. She said, "In the post Hill atmosphere, it has finally, belatedly become possible for victims of sexual harassment to speak up and be believed. But taking the charge seriously doesn't mean taking every accuser seriously. Not every woman is a victim and not every pass is a federal offense."

Businesses are working hard to define the line between sexual harassment and acceptable male-female communication in the workplace. The Paula Jones situation is trivializing that effort and may well make other women hesitate to come forward.

We will never know what if anything happened in that hotel room in Little Rock. Paula Jones is entitled to be heard and a judge or jury will make the final decision.

But her motives are highly suspect, and her handlers, whoever they may be, are creating a circus. Her lawsuit shows again the power of a combination of money and politics. It is more a part of the 1996 election than an issue of sexual harassment or women's rights. In fact, it does not come under the current definition of harassment anyway, since her salary from the state of Arkansas rose by approximately $2500 in the year following the incident. And she is looking at big money down the line - TV story rights, books, movies. If we can watch the Menendez Brothers and Tanya, think what we will pay for Paula.

So sure, I can believe one woman and not another one, just as I can believe one man and not another one. Equality means, among other things, that women have the same right as men to make fools of themselves. I just hate to see them do it in public.

My LOL status has taught me that situations generally have to be appraised on their merits--or demerits. If I want to believe Anita and disbelieve Paula that does not damage my status as a feminist or, as Mike Rosen so gallantly calls us, the PMS Brigade.

Paula has a right to be heard, but I don't have to believe her.