The “outing” of the Cain complaints smack of a witch hunt, I agree. But I don’t see how the complaints being made way back in 1999 equate to the woman who made them are going after Cain now. It’s Politico, and whomever tipped them off.
As to the sanitized office crack :), I’ve worked in situations that were very bad - and some where a few men were HOUNDED by women. Funny thing (well, maybe not so funny) is that the men often hated that crap as much as most women. They were rarely the target of the lovely women, and usually the target of the strange, creepy, stalking, OWS types. LOL, sometimes the boring can be more conducive to focusing on work.
Do you know how damn creepy it is when a guy waits around outside of the ladies restroom to “escort” you back to your desk? Ewww.
Ah....but that's how witch-hunts work. One person accusses someone because it makes them uncomfortable, another accusses someone else, etc. and the cycle takes on a life of its own. The folks at Massachusetts Bay had to stop for the first witchhunts for that reason.
The 1990s was just an era in many workplaces. The fact that is revived does not mean that it wasn't also true in the 1990s. It was true for thousands of ordinary people.
BTW, don't you think the person bringing the orginal complaint, and then repeating it weeks ago to Politico in veiled form, has some obligation to back up, or at least specify, her claims when a man's career is on the line? Instead, she is not only refusing to do so but then leaving with a couple of veiled parting shots. What are we to make of such a person?
Ah....but that's how witch-hunts work. One person accusses someone because it makes them uncomfortable, another accusses someone else, etc. and the cycle takes on a life of its own. The folks at Massachusetts Bay had to stop for the first witchhunts for that reason.
The 1990s was just such an era in many workplaces. It was true for thousands of ordinary people. The fact that the orginal witch-hunt against Cain can be revived now in another form does not mean that it wasn't also true in the 1990s.
BTW, don't you think the person bringing the orginal complaint, and then repeating it weeks ago to Politico in veiled form, has some obligation to back up, or at least specify, her claims when a man's career is on the line? Instead, she is not only refusing to do so but then leaving with a couple of veiled parting shots. What are we to make of such a person?