FEMINIST LEADERS SHOULD BE ASHAMED

Leaders of what passes for America's feminist movement will probably never recover from this year's disgraceful performance in responding to the allegations swirling around President Clinton. For months they have been studies in amazing hypocrisy. It would take a novelist of the descriptive powers of Tom Wolfe -- author of "Bonfire of the Vanities," "Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers" and "The Right Stuff" -- to do justice to all its satirical possibilities.

This past week brought news that feminist leaders such as Patricia Ireland of the National Organization for Women, Eleanor Smeal, Betty Friedan and others are organizing a drive to save the Clinton presidency from an expected impeachment drive.

These are the folks who three years ago burned former U.S. Sen. Bob Packwood of Oregon at the stake and drove him from the Senate for several sexual approaches toward women subordinates and associates. Packwood's defense -- that he stopped when any of his targets objected to his advances -- availed him nothing with his pitiless inquisitors. Their verdict was unrelenting: Packwood had to go, no ifs, ands or buts. And go he did.

This year, the Clinton crowd cites the identical Packwood defense, and the same feminist "leaders" who crucified Packwood use it to shield this president from his critics. How pathetic.

It was seven years ago this month that these same "leaders" of the "women's movement" bitterly opposed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court. These extremely dubious allegations came late in the game from an accuser who at first demanded anonymity and who offered literally no proof at all. And what did Anita Hill allege with no corroboration? Not that Thomas demanded sex, or even touched her, but that he allegedly talked dirty to her on several occasions. This was enough for the same feminist "leaders" to denounce him as unfit.

Somehow, though, far more serious and far more numerous and far more substantiated allegations from multiple women aren't enough to dent their support for President Clinton. So much for the feminist argument that, in matters sexual with subordinates, there can never be consent, owing to the inherent power differential between a male boss and the women working for him. It applied to Bob Packwood and to Clarence Thomas, but not to this president. Does anyone doubt that if a Republican president stood accused of far less, these folks would be screaming for impeachment?

No male chauvinist could possibly have done so much damage to the law of sexual harassment as have these women. So much for all the points this feminist crowd has tried to make over the years. So much for their credibility. So much for them.