The other night I hung out with a feminist friend of mine who I won’t name yet because I haven’t asked her if I can, and it happened to be the day the Paterson story broke. We got to talking about it over wine, and she said, and I think this was completely fair, that of course there was always the chance that Paterson simply made what he would call a “friendly” phone call that she nonetheless received as threatening. Which wouldn’t, my friend pointed out, be any less reprehensible, because the issue here was not so much intent as effect. But the problem then would be slightly different, which is to say, this problem where men don’t quite realize how threateningly they come across, regardless of what they intended to do. And a subsidiary problem would then be: how to explain to men that this sort of behaviour is still wrong?
Alas, no such nuance here, says the NYT this morning:
Gov. David A. Paterson personally directed two state employees to contact the woman who had accused his close aide of assaulting her, according to two people with direct knowledge of the governor’s actions.Mr. Paterson instructed his press secretary, Marissa Shorenstein, to ask the woman to publicly describe the episode as nonviolent, according to a third person, who was briefed on the matter. That description would contradict the woman’s accounts to the police and in court.
Mr. Paterson also enlisted another state employee, Deneane Brown, a friend of both the governor and the accuser, to make contact with the woman before she was due in court to finalize an order of protection against the aide, David W. Johnson, the two people with direct knowledge said. Ms. Brown, an employee of the Division of Housing and Community Renewal, reached out to the woman on more than one occasion over a period of several days and arranged a phone call between the governor and the woman, Mr. Johnson’s companion.
After the calls from Ms. Brown and the conversation with the governor, the woman failed to appear for the court hearing on Feb. 8, and the case was dropped.
I realize these posts regarding this are pretty terse. I’m just not sure what one can possibly goddamn say. Seriously, what kind of person does this? I don’t care how great your buddy is: this is flat-out harassment, plain and simple.
It’s amazing to me that there are apparently people out there who find this completely acceptable behaviour in the name of “politics.”
Paterson, two years ago, I hoped your tenure would be better.
Two months ago I had a long talk with my husband about DV, and he said some disappointing things. But this incident has changed his thinking, so I’m glad for that small (small!) silver lining.
Oh the irony…Last year I was at a fundraiser for the New York Women’s Foundation, which aids women and girls who are the victims of domestic violence. Paterson was one of the speakers.
Go fuck yourself, Gov.
“And a subsidiary problem would then be: how to explain to men that this sort of behaviour is still wrong?”
I think this question deserves its own thread.
Sure, there are men who know how scary they are and, in fact, get off on it.
But I think there are also men who honestly don’t realize how much power they have to intimidate women. Either that or they’re very good liars.
The very brief and overgeneral answer, Melissa, I think, is that the main line of attack is destabilizing their sense of entitlement. And I don’t mean entitlement in the sneering “God the world doesn’t owe you anything” way, I mean trying to develop in them the sense that they do owe something to the rest of the world, and as a result oughtened to be so quick to consider their own intent the only relevant factor.
But you’re right it does deserve its own thread.
There’s a vast difference between when some guy tries to throw his weight around and when a public official does. The intimidation factor is many orders of magnitude greater when it’s even a local cop or a school board member, let alone when it’s a governor who has the state police and the entire apparatus at his disposal. There can be no “friendly” discussion under those circumstances. And if t he governor isn’t aware of that, then he has a bigger problem than we thought.
Well, yes and no, mm. I mean, I understand why this is troubling in terms of Paterson’s political position specifically. But even in a small, non-political space, it’s possible that “some guy” throwing his weight around is just as threatening to the particular woman, no?
@mm – My first impulse was to say that he should never have done this, as governor. (And that’s true, and that’s why he won’t be running again: abuse of power, etc.) But then I thought, what if he did it as the abuser’s non-governor boss? Say Johnson was a heckuva engineer so the pres of his company calls to tell her to drop the charges. Still outrageous. Then I thought, what if he did it as a non-work-related friend? Abuser’s guy friend has his buddies call you up and tell you to drop the charges, then does so himself. Actually, pretty scary in its own right.
So: Paterson as Governor, not only outrageous behavior but also an abuse of power and misappropriation of state resources. But Paterson as human being, still wrong on all levels.
I’ve often wondered why the recurring meme in just about every superhero movie about the responsibility that comes with power never gets extended in “guy culture” to cover this kind of bullshit. (“Remember Peter – with great power comes great responsibility…”) Somehow men are socialized to “get” the whole “if you’re some sort of really strong mutant then it’s your job to carry helpless women out of burning buildings” thing, but not so much with the “if you’re in a position of political or economic power you ought not to intimidate women into acting against their own best interest” thing. I agree that this is a bit more subtle, but it’s not really that hard to wrap your head around. I guess it’s just that abstaining from intimidating abused women isn’t glamorous or romantic – nobody will think you’re a hero for it – whereas you’ll be presented with the key to the city for pulling off the burning building stunt.
I just quoted a Spiderman movie – unfuckingbelievable.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Why should it come as any shock that Paterson would protect his own, by using his power as Governor? Is this any more unbelievable than what Eliot Spitzer did? Or Mark Sanford? No. Men in positions of power (and I think this goes for women, too) require iron will not to give in to the abuse of their position. When it dawns on you one day that you can make a single phone call and alter the outcome of something, and you gain that sense of unbridled authority, your trip down the slippery slope has begun. Very few people in positions of power can resist the siren call — heck, look at (poor example, I know) Sarah Palin. Governor of Alaska, she used her power to influence the firing of a state police officer. No one can be considered immune.
@Rachel_in_WY: Nothing wrong with quoting Spider-Man; when I read that as a kid, it had a profound influence on me, because I came to realize that power comes in many different forms, including cognitive power. If you have a capacity or capability to do something most others cannot, you have an inherent obligation to use that power responsibly.
And here’s another quote that make come from a movie, but is apt: “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” There’s a mantra that I wish most politicians would chant daily, before they go meddling in affairs that only benefit themselves, and not the people who elected them.
@PSoul and Yvane: Oh, absolutely. Paterson’s behavior includes every layer of intimidation: as one human being to another, as a male over a female, as a boss to an employee and as a figure of political power to someone without it.
@NN: I can’t equate sexual misconduct with what Paterson did. Personally, I don’t care what kind of consensual adult sexual behavior politicians engage in, as long as it doesn’t influence the way they do their jobs. The betrayal was to their wives, not to the voters. Paterson, on the other hand. specifically used his office to frighten an innocent woman. Sanford and Spitzer are stupid; Paterson is evil.
@mischiefmanager: I wouldn’t put Spitzer and Sanford in the same category either. Sanford cheated on his wife with a consenting woman. Spitzer hired prostitutes.
Regardless, the fuss they made on talking to the woman makes it seem like there is something bigger to hide. Or is that just what I’m reading between the lines?
@Ocean_breeze,
I got the impression that the involvement of the state police was a pretty huge issue too. Lord knows, you don’t want to be on the wrong side of a law enforcement agency. Nobody can make your life hell like they can, and I’m sure they were pretty good about masking some serious threats in the “friendly” conversation in which they “offered to help” her.
I want to know how they had “offered to help her”. Seems to me she was well on the way to help herself unless they would somehow go to court for her and represent her.
(Maybe they thought she needed a ride?) I don’t understand.
“Help her avoid humiliating herself” is my guess. Ah, underminery.
@mischiefmanager, @Spark: I would, if only because by doing what they did, they abused the power of their office, and the faith entrusted to them by the electorate. After all, Sanford had his staff cover up his transgressions for him, and no doubt Spitzer, a former Attorney General, used his influence to keep his pecadillos out of the public eye. Any moral issue is separate — in both cases they abused their office.