“I wrote down in my notebook: ‘What is the worth of an 80-year-old woman’s reputation?'”
Writer Jessica Bennett made waves with her recent New York Times opinion piece, “The Audacity of E. Jean Carroll,” which explores why it was so controversial for Carroll to file sexual assault charges against Donald Trump. (And why news of the decision in her favor — $65 million in punitive damages and $18.3 million in compensatory damages for defamatory statements — was somewhat shocking, too.) Regardless of your political stance, Bennett’s article addresses an issue that’s on the minds of many women as they age: As she puts it, “…this trial was also about something else: the value of a woman, long past middle age, who dared to claim she indeed still had value.”
I wanted to know more about how and why Bennett came to write this op-ed, so I asked her a few “behind the scenes” questions about its origins. Curious about Bennett’s perspective? Read on. (And if you appreciate her writing as much as I do, you’ll definitely want to subscribe to her newsletter, Wait, Really?)
Why was it so important for you to write this piece?
You know, I was sitting in the courtroom with a cadre of political reporters, legal analysts, and others who were there to watch, and dissect, every little micro-move made by Donald Trump — his gestures, what he was muttering under his breath, what he was posting to social media from inside the courtroom — and rightly so. They wanted to know what it meant for his campaign, his ongoing legal battles, his wallet, his ability to shut up and stop attacking this woman. But I just kept thinking to myself, This is so wild, to see a woman who is 80 years old, a woman who was told again and again that she was a liar and an old hag, that she was past her prime, that she had no more value as a journalist, that she wouldn’t win, that it wouldn’t matter, standing up to this man and demanding that she was still worth something. And not just symbolically worth something, but monetarily. I wrote down in my notebook: “What is the worth of an 80-year-old woman’s reputation?” It just seemed so radical to me. It was only after I got out of court, and started calling around to legal experts, that I learned how radical it really is — and just how rare it is for someone of her age to come forward.
What was the most surprising moment from your original sitdown with E. Jean?
As her former editor at Esquire told me: “She fizzes with energy.” I first met her three days after she came forward with her assault claim, and was prepared for this downtrodden woman who was scared. She’s the opposite. But I think even more surprising was to learn about her wildly successful career before she was ever an advice columnist, before she ever became the “wacky old lady who sued Trump.” She was doing gonzo-style journalism when there were few women doing it at all; The New York Times once called “feminism’s answer to Hunter S. Thompson” — who she once lived with, by the way, for her biography of him. She trekked alone across the mountains Papua New Guinea in search of the “primitive man” for Playboy, somehow convinced Fran Leibovitz to go camping with her for Outside, profiled Lyle Lovett and Dan Rather in Esquire; appeared in Best American Crime Writing, and did it at a time when there were few women — she was the first woman contributing editor at Playboy — and in ways that didn’t neatly jibe with how women of her generation were expected to live their lives. It has always irked me that she has been reduced to “former advice columnist” in so much of the coverage of her. So part of what I wanted to do in my latest piece was draw attention to her wildly decorated career.
Did the latest verdict give you a sense of hope about aging?
I’ve started saying to my friends, “Carry yourself with the confidence of an 80-year-old woman who has the audacity to demand her worth” — so I guess the answer is yes. And it’s been interesting to see the public reaction to this case; it almost feels more pronounced than in her previous trial when Trump was found liable for assaulting her. But I guess, when it comes to Trump anyway, it’s easy for people to see in dollar figures, and it seems like this verdict has hit him where it hurts the most — his ego.
What do you think is the biggest misconception about her case?
That she’s doing it for clout. Can you imagine? You’re in your 70s, going about your life, suddenly you decide you want to endure five years of the President of the United States attacking you, and two jury trials? Please. My colleague wrote a great piece about what E. Jean plans to do with her money — first up: premium dog food for her dogs — but safe to say she is not going to see this money for a very long time. She’s not doing it for the money; as she texted me yesterday: “I just see myself as an invincible old lady when I KNOW I’m doing the right thing.” I will say, though, part of that is a misnomer — E. Jean definitely thinks of herself as 27!
