Loading...

"I keep seeing articles mentioning that Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of 'sexual harassment,' and lumping him in with Harvey Weinstein et al." - Hallo friend WELCOME TO AMERICA, In the article you read this time with the title "I keep seeing articles mentioning that Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of 'sexual harassment,' and lumping him in with Harvey Weinstein et al.", we have prepared well for this article you read and download the information therein. hopefully fill posts Article AMERICA, Article CULTURAL, Article ECONOMIC, Article POLITICAL, Article SECURITY, Article SOCCER, Article SOCIAL, we write this you can understand. Well, happy reading.

Title : "I keep seeing articles mentioning that Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of 'sexual harassment,' and lumping him in with Harvey Weinstein et al."
link : "I keep seeing articles mentioning that Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of 'sexual harassment,' and lumping him in with Harvey Weinstein et al."

"I keep seeing articles mentioning that Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of 'sexual harassment,' and lumping him in with Harvey Weinstein et al."

Writes David Bernstein (at Instapundit).

Hill accused Thomas of asking her out insistently, and making several lewd comments about porn movies, pubic hairs, and his own sexual prowess. Hill herself acknowledged that her allegations didn’t amount to “sexual harassment” as defined by law, just that they made her uncomfortable and she thought them inappropriate. I don’t want to relitigate the Thomas-Hill he said-she said, but even accepting Hill’s allegations at face value, they were nothing approaching what Weinstein or some of the others who have been in the spotlight lately, have been accused of–no assault, no battery, no exposing himself, no quid pro quo, no drugging victims, no shenanigans with minors. Surely we want to distinguish between those allegations and alleged rude and obnoxious behavior.

Bernstein only links to one article, "Anita Hill on Weinstein, Trump, and a Watershed Moment for Sexual-Harassment Accusations" by Jane Mayer at The New Yorker. It's a short article, but it mentions Trump 10 times. My first question was: Does it mention Bill Clinton? Because the Clarence Thomas hearings raised the national consciousness of sexual harassment, but it happened for political reasons at the time, and for equally political reasons the issue got suppressed again when it seemed more important — to the kind of people you'd think would want to forefront the issue* — to protect Bill Clinton. Even during the 2016 presidential campaign — the one Trump won — it was necessary to keep protecting that president from the 90s, because his wife, who'd vigorously defended him back in the day, was, for some insane reason, the Democratic Party's candidate for President.

The answer to my question — does the New Yorker article mention Bill Clinton? — is no. I did my search of the page yesterday when I first noticed the article, and because of the Trump-but-not-Clinton focus, I declined to read it. I have been angry about the politicization of sexual harassment for 20 years. I'm trying to force myself to read Mayer's article now (because Bernstein linked to it), but it's almost impossible for me. Okay. Focus....

In a phone interview, [Anita] Hill emphasized that sexual-harassment cases live and die on the basis of “believability,” and that, in order for the accusers to prevail, “they have to fit a narrative” that the public will buy....

So... essentially: politics. Hill was believed by the people who wanted to keep Clarence Thomas off the Supreme Court and not by those who wanted him on. Paula Jones was disbelieved by those who wanted to keep Bill Clinton in the White House, but believed by those who wanted him out.

Hill knows this:

Her case, like those of the women who accused Trump, she says, “was cast as a political story.” In such situations, “everything gets interpreted through a political lens, and it makes it almost impossible” for people to seriously consider whether the accused harasser “is the right person to represent you. It just becomes ‘This is our guy’ and ‘people are trying to bring him down.’ ”

_____________________

* Gloria Steinem in 1998: "We would not be doing our job if we didn't take into account that this president and his policies are crucial to the lives and welfare of the majority of women in this country. That's not bending over backwards: that's being sensible. Having said that, if Clinton had raped women, beaten up Hillary - real private sins would not be forgiven, no matter what the value of the public behaviour." Real sins? Real sins? What the hell?

Loading...

Writes David Bernstein (at Instapundit).

Hill accused Thomas of asking her out insistently, and making several lewd comments about porn movies, pubic hairs, and his own sexual prowess. Hill herself acknowledged that her allegations didn’t amount to “sexual harassment” as defined by law, just that they made her uncomfortable and she thought them inappropriate. I don’t want to relitigate the Thomas-Hill he said-she said, but even accepting Hill’s allegations at face value, they were nothing approaching what Weinstein or some of the others who have been in the spotlight lately, have been accused of–no assault, no battery, no exposing himself, no quid pro quo, no drugging victims, no shenanigans with minors. Surely we want to distinguish between those allegations and alleged rude and obnoxious behavior.

Bernstein only links to one article, "Anita Hill on Weinstein, Trump, and a Watershed Moment for Sexual-Harassment Accusations" by Jane Mayer at The New Yorker. It's a short article, but it mentions Trump 10 times. My first question was: Does it mention Bill Clinton? Because the Clarence Thomas hearings raised the national consciousness of sexual harassment, but it happened for political reasons at the time, and for equally political reasons the issue got suppressed again when it seemed more important — to the kind of people you'd think would want to forefront the issue* — to protect Bill Clinton. Even during the 2016 presidential campaign — the one Trump won — it was necessary to keep protecting that president from the 90s, because his wife, who'd vigorously defended him back in the day, was, for some insane reason, the Democratic Party's candidate for President.

The answer to my question — does the New Yorker article mention Bill Clinton? — is no. I did my search of the page yesterday when I first noticed the article, and because of the Trump-but-not-Clinton focus, I declined to read it. I have been angry about the politicization of sexual harassment for 20 years. I'm trying to force myself to read Mayer's article now (because Bernstein linked to it), but it's almost impossible for me. Okay. Focus....

In a phone interview, [Anita] Hill emphasized that sexual-harassment cases live and die on the basis of “believability,” and that, in order for the accusers to prevail, “they have to fit a narrative” that the public will buy....

So... essentially: politics. Hill was believed by the people who wanted to keep Clarence Thomas off the Supreme Court and not by those who wanted him on. Paula Jones was disbelieved by those who wanted to keep Bill Clinton in the White House, but believed by those who wanted him out.

Hill knows this:

Her case, like those of the women who accused Trump, she says, “was cast as a political story.” In such situations, “everything gets interpreted through a political lens, and it makes it almost impossible” for people to seriously consider whether the accused harasser “is the right person to represent you. It just becomes ‘This is our guy’ and ‘people are trying to bring him down.’ ”

_____________________

* Gloria Steinem in 1998: "We would not be doing our job if we didn't take into account that this president and his policies are crucial to the lives and welfare of the majority of women in this country. That's not bending over backwards: that's being sensible. Having said that, if Clinton had raped women, beaten up Hillary - real private sins would not be forgiven, no matter what the value of the public behaviour." Real sins? Real sins? What the hell?

Thus articles "I keep seeing articles mentioning that Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of 'sexual harassment,' and lumping him in with Harvey Weinstein et al."

that is all articles "I keep seeing articles mentioning that Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of 'sexual harassment,' and lumping him in with Harvey Weinstein et al." This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.

You now read the article "I keep seeing articles mentioning that Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of 'sexual harassment,' and lumping him in with Harvey Weinstein et al." with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2017/11/i-keep-seeing-articles-mentioning-that.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: