More on Monica

Both the conservatives and liberal in my social media circles are supporting Monica Lewinsky. Jon Podhoretz is on my Facebook page saying nice things about Monica. So is Katha Pollitt on Twitter. She links to this CNN article.

I would like to know which companies turned her down for jobs, because of her “history.”

17 Thoughts on “More on Monica

  1. Well, I doubt that they would say that — they’d just turn her down. I guess she could hear through channels that the turn down was exacerbated by her history. But, I get the impression that she was looking for the kind of job that have a lot of applicants to chose from.

  2. Right, it’s like racism. Any particular failure to get a job, that happens. It’s when you don’t get any offers commensurate with your qualifications that you’re pretty sure invidious motives are at least a partial cause, but that still doesn’t tell you who turned you down for that reason, and who would have turned you down anyway.

  3. dave.s. on May 7, 2014 at 8:24 pm said:

    She went to a third rate college and took silly classes. She was like the girls in Paying for the Party who took majors which only work if your parents can set you up for jobs. And they did manage to get her this internship, but afterwards she wasn’t trying to get jobs in the areas where her parents had power. In her case, I think it woulda been smart to find a nice young man named ‘Jones’, and married him, and taken his name. ‘Nicky’ is a plausible nickname for Monica. ‘Nicky Jones’. And, yah, stay away from teaching high school.

  4. What Dave S said, but remember: the Lewinsky parents probably noticed by the time she was 16 that they didn’t have a raging genius, or even a future oncologist (like Lewinsky pere) on their hands, but still hoped that a pretty, extroverted girl with a decent education and some family money could have a happy life. Work at a girl job as a pr munchkin or party planner for a while, find a nice young man, buy a house in the ‘burbs (with some help from the parents), raise some children, and be happy. It’s too bad that none of that has happened.

  5. Which are the third rate colleges, LSE, or Lewis and Clark? Does seem like she started at a community college, from which we can impute something. Do we have some reason to question her intelligence? And her fitness for any work other than that of wife?

    Not having interacted with her, I wouldn’t presume her to be any dumber than anyone else I know who doesn’t have a doctorate (no, JDs don’t count, at least in our house)

    • Jay on May 8, 2014 at 3:53 am said:

      Which are the third rate colleges, LSE, or Lewis and Clark

      That would be Lewinsky and Clark, a third rate private party school for the undistinguished upper middle class suburbanites who couldn’t get into a real liberal arts school. Lewinsky is arguably their most “accomplished” graduate, which says as much about the school as it does about her.

  6. I read the Slate piece on Dowd that you retweeted and it’s bizarro to see it all pulled together in one article.

    What an insane time – I’m surprised that Lewinsky survived at all.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/05/monica_lewinsky_returns_how_maureen_dowd_caricatured_bill_clinton_s_mistress.html

  7. In the Pacific Northwest, so, actually know people who went to Lewis and Clark. Pretty campus, too. I think we might divide our tiers differently. I have a first tier (10 schools, HYPS, and maybe some of the other Ivy’s, MIT & Caltech — no LACs make my list) and a second tier (Amherst, NYU, . . . ) and then a lot in the 3rd tier. There’s probably a fourth tier of schools, which are for second chances, and a fifth tier that one shouldn’t go to. Hey, that’s probably an A-F scale, from the old days. Lots of biases, of course — I am biased against LACs, and, as a scientist, it’s kind of justifiable, ’cause LACs don’t, in general, offer the scientific opportunities you can get at a good state public.

    But, beyond the digression I really turned off by the evaluation of intelligence and life trajectory others are projecting, without, I presume, knowing anything about ML, except that she made a bad decision about a sexual relationship, and, it blew up in her face. I haven’t heard her interviewed, or read her writing, or have any other information on which to base an evaluation of her intelligence (and, having attended L&C doesn’t qualify; I know people who went there, and they do not need to be relegated to the pool of the incompetent) I wouldn’t presume to predict her intelligence from the one bad decision.

    • AmyP on May 8, 2014 at 10:10 am said:

      bj said:

      “But, beyond the digression I really turned off by the evaluation of intelligence and life trajectory others are projecting, without, I presume, knowing anything about ML, except that she made a bad decision about a sexual relationship, and, it blew up in her face.”

      It wasn’t just the one affair with a married guy (Clinton). She had previously had a multi-year affair (starting in her teens) with a married former teacher of hers. Her parents divorced in her teens, so major daddy issues?

      It’s pretty terrible for the mistakes of ones late teens and early 20s to follow one around like this, but she botched her post-scandal life pretty bad. Look at her Wikipedia page and the activities of 1999-2005–minor TV, handbag selling, a dating show, a biography, and a diet endorsement. And then the London School of Economics for a year or two and attempts to get into totally inappropriate fields for somebody with her history. Her Wikipedia entry from 2006 on is a ghost town.

      If I were a friendly auntie, I’d give the following advice: 1) name change (Nicky Strauss is nice–Strauss is her step-dad’s name–mom’s last name sounds too much like old name) 2) new hair cut (either pixie cut or up-do–the big sexy hair really defines “Monica Lewinsky” 3) good deeds abroad–far, far abroad. She should have started that program in 1999, but there’s no time like the present.

    • Jay on May 9, 2014 at 2:26 am said:

      In the Pacific Northwest, so, actually know people who went to Lewis and Clark.

      I’m not currently, but lived there for many years, so I know Lewinsky and Clark quite well. In Oregon, the smart kids go to Reed or out of state if they have the money, or Oregon or Oregon State (depending on whether they want to do liberal arts or engineering) if they don’t. The parochial school kids go to University of Portland or places like that. And the spoiled brats from Lake Oswego who want to go have fairly undemanding fun for four years before pursuing some remunerative career that doesn’t demand much in the way of talent or skill, like branding, go to L&C.

      This is an overgeneralization, of course, but not all that much of one.

      I know people who went there, and they do not need to be relegated to the pool of the incompetent

      I agree that there are some L&C grads you wouldn’t write off, but that is in spite of going there, not because of it. When interviewing people for jobs, as I do from time to time, it takes an *exceptional* candidate from there not to be immediately relegated to the circular file. I’d rather take a chance on a promising U of O grad than your average L&C refugee.

  8. I’m vaguely curious to know how big a dress would have to be before Ruth Marcus doesn’t think it is tight.

  9. I’m thinking there are still too many people out there who think that breast size is inversely correlated with intelligence. It’s not. It might be vaguely correlated with an increased likelihood to have inappropriate relationships with older men, but I’m pretty sure that’s never been studied.

    ML has really pretty hair. And she does not look 40, beautiful skin, and, all without any obvious looking plastic surgery. Though, I guess, 40 is the new 20 these days. Interesting, really, looking at pictures of her. With a different narrative, I think everyone would interpret her look (at least her face) as classy, dark shiny hair, clear skin, bright eyes.

    I find the narrative of how in the days of Google and social media (Petri, in Wash Post, others) private lives have become very public an interesting point of discussion. I’ve been thinking for a while that in the days when 30 year old pictures of, say a prominent politician wearing a dress and playing air guitar or a kindergarten teacher doing jello shots, can reappear, that we have to reassess how we react to the knowledge of past behavior. We’re seeing a lot of sexual scandals play out very publicly. Some of them might actually be made more likely by social media and other access (Wiener & Spitzer both seem possibilities). But some of them are probably just becoming more public because of access (NC governor, . . . .). Are we going to learn to cope with knowledge of transgressions? Are people going to become less likely to commit them (seems unlikely to me)? Are we going to reward people because their transgressions weren’t caught on tape with the presumption that they didn’t exist?

    • It might be vaguely correlated with an increased likelihood to have inappropriate relationships with older men, but I’m pretty sure that’s never been studied.

      Stupid funding agencies.

  10. Louisa on May 9, 2014 at 6:52 am said:

    Your last paragraph sounds a little like a doctoral dissertation topic — or maybe a book you should write?
    But it’s not just famous people’s scandals that are more visible in the internet age — there’s also this well-known story:
    http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/the_tale_of_dog_poop_girl_is_n.php

Leave a Reply

Post Navigation