This essay defends against the wholesale castigation of women who support the President. It reveals that such criticism is wrong and unfair. Specifically, it demonstrates that the critics have unreasonably characterized women's responses to Clinton as hypocritical or extremely naive, rather than as examples of astute political decision-making. The essay further exposes the sexism underlying the critics' arguments, revealing that stereotypes regarding (1) women's role as the keeper of morals and (2) women as non-political or non-rational beings are at the heart of much of the criticism. By reinforcing these stereotypes, the critics pose a greater danger to women than the original scandal itself.
Christina E. Wells, Hypocrites and Barking Harlots: The Clinton-Lewinsky Affair and the Attack on Women, 5 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L. 151 (1998)