I would think that Jill Filipovic’s lament in the New York Times:
At home, it seems, Mr. Schneiderman was a sexual sadist and manipulative misogynist. At work, he was a champion of women’s rights, investigating potential charges against Harvey Weinstein, appearing at events supporting reproductive freedom, and even writing a bill specifically to punish the same kind of strangulation he is said to have forced on some of his partners.
How do we reconcile these two versions of a single man? It wasn’t just that Mr. Schneiderman appears to have been a feminist in the brightness of day but a violent misogynist when the lights went down.
The reality may be darker: that the power he derived from his role in progressive politics was intertwined with his abuse. He seems to have used his feminist-minded political work to advance his own career, to ingratiate himself with the women he would go on to harm, and to cover up his cruelties (Mr. Schneiderman denies that he was abusive, instead saying he engaged in consensual sexual role play).
might cause her to reconsider her decision to vote for individuals solely because they verbally support her ideological objectives. Doesn’t that leave one open to being deceived by a cunning manipulator? That question isn’t limited to feminists, by the way.
Why not reserve your support for those of the highest accomplishments and known probity outside politics? One cannot perfectly know another but surely we can do better than by voting for those known to be of low character for ideological reasons as has been done too frequently in the past.
“The one singing loudest in church is usually the biggest sinner.”
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will. enter into the Kingdom of Heaven”