• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Sexual Harassment - Why Now?

oldmandeac said:
But, guys like Weinsten could have been outed at any time over the past 30 years, but wasn't and Clinton was outed but defended. If women came forward in at the same time against some of these guys that Anita Hill went public it would be the same scenario as today only 25 years ago.

But they didn't.
Click to expand...

Another woman did come forward with claims about Clarence Thomas after Anita Hill. The Senate Judiciary Committee made her come to DC, but then buried the story. (I didn't know that until I watched Confirmation.)

Why would women want to come forward after watching the treatment of Hill, the second accuser, and watching Thomas be confirmed for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court? What message do you think that sent?
 
avalon said:
Another woman did come forward with claims about Clarence Thomas after Anita Hill. The Senate Judiciary Committee made her come to DC, but then buried the story. (I didn't know that until I watched Confirmation.)

Why would women want to come forward after watching the treatment of Hill, the second accuser, and watching Thomas be confirmed for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court? What message do you think that sent?
Click to expand...

IIRC the Thomas hearing was a classic he said, she said. In such a situation most people will turn to other factors to confirm the accuser's story about the accused. Does it appear to be credible? In Thomas' case it did not. We'll never know what went on between them.
 
To tens of millions of Americans and many Senators, Anita Hill did seem credible.
 
sailordeac said:
IIRC the Thomas hearing was a classic he said, she said. In such a situation most people will turn to other factors to confirm the accuser's story about the accused. Does it appear to be credible? In Thomas' case it did not. We'll never know what went on between them.
Click to expand...

What did not appear credible to you?
 
In a he said, she said case, the testimony of the accuser, which is denied by the accused, without external circumstances or evidence to confirm the accuser's testimony, is not sufficient to prove guilt. Like I said, we will never know for sure but Anita Hill's testimony alone was insufficient to prove that he was guilty of sexual harassment. For all we know, he might have been guilty. For all we know, she might have fantasized it or exaggerated what happened. We'll never know.
 
Sure, but that's different than saying Hill's story didn't seem credible.
 
not credible enough to be reasonably certain that Thomas was guilty of what he was charged with

if you ask me, and I watched it live, they both seemed credible
 
sailordeac said:
not credible enough to be reasonably certain that Thomas was guilty of what he was charged with

if you ask me, and I watched it live, they both seemed credible
Click to expand...

Agreed. And I watched it live too. I'm not that young.
 
A major issue right now is conflation of legal guilt and decision making related to employment.

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law but that’s not the standard that is used by employers in most instances. You can argue that it should be the standard if you’d like, but people get fired all the the time for whisperings or allegations of untoward behavior.

The Roy Moore case is a great example. I keep seeing arguments from those defending him that “he’s innocent until proven guilty!” Sure - from a legal vantage point. That isn’t the end all be all determination for whether he should be elected to the Senate or not. Is the end result of that line of logic that those allegations outside the statute of limitations, which cannot be heard in a court of law, indicate that there is simply no problem (innocent since not proven guilty). And following that to its logical conclusion where does that leave us with cases like the Catholic priest scandal?

Most priests weren’t tried (for a variety of reasons) but many had a variety of accusers and were removed from their positions. If you believe that “innocent until proven guilty” SHOULD be the standard for employment, should the Catholic Church simply have said “oh well, those allegations are ancient. Nothing we can do?”

If not, how do you distinguish those types of cases from others?
 
the GOP “he’s innocent until proven guilty!” is partisan BS. Bill Clinton would be innocent as all of his is accusations, same with anything Hillary related. They seem to think these things are truth, but not for any GOP. they don't lie (unless they open their mouth).
 
warak said:
the GOP “he’s innocent until proven guilty!” is partisan BS. Bill Clinton would be innocent as all of his is accusations, same with anything Hillary related. They seem to think these things are truth, but not for any GOP. they don't lie (unless they open their mouth).
Click to expand...

bill? what about Hillary being innocent until proven guilty
 
The Anita Hill hearings had some pretty decent entertainment value. If nothing else, it was worth it just to hear Orrin Hatch talk about Long Dong Silver and pubic hair on coke cans.

As for the original post, societies and people evolve. Back then, women like Willy and Hill weren't necessarily believed in he said/she said situations, and even if the unprovable assertion were true, it wasn't quite the disqualifying event that it is in today's society. It has been like a slowly building tidal wave over the past few years beginning with Cosby. Why now? That's like asking why a video on youtube went viral. We're in a different place and time and more receptive than we were 25 years ago, and after Cosby, Trump and Weinstein, it has just snowballed.

And let's differentiate 2 separate things - sleeping around v. unwanted sexual assault or harassment. Everyone has always known that in Hollywood and Washington, a lot of folks have always had affairs or was sleeping their way to the top. And I've admitted here that I didn't believe the Willy and Jones groping accusations at the time, knowing that Bubba was getting himself a lot of free tail and reasoning why would he take stupid and unnecessary chances by groping women when he had most any woman he wanted anyway. And back then I can remember friends and old girlfriends sharing molestation stories when they were kids, but I don't remember any sexual assault or harassment in past workplaces or hearing such stories from friends. However, I've had several friends share sexual harassment stories over the past year or so. I really hadn't realized how rampant sexual harassment has been over the years in all kinds of workplaces, but with the recent spate of stories about pols and Hollywood folks engaging in it has at least anecdotally with me brought out a lot more discussion at the water cooler or over drinks or dinners.
 
I'm still waiting for my checks from Soros for anti-Donald and pro-women's rights marches and protests I've been to. This is why liberal politics fail, can't even properly track something simple like paying out checks.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I'm still waiting for my checks from Soros for anti-Donald and pro-women's rights marches and protests I've been to. This is why liberal politics fail, can't even properly track something simple like paying out checks.
Click to expand...

gotta use PayPal or Venmo to pay checks
 
Seeing the Kobe tribute, I wondered that if Me Too started in the 90s would Jimmy Kimmel have such a great career as his fame was jump-started by The Man Show. Much of that show wouldn't be allowed today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top