Posted on 01/25/2006 4:41:40 PM PST by mdittmar
You're rationalizing. Today, the courts have given awards based on the understanding that talking about sex in unwanted ways creates a "hostile environment." Guys aren't allowed to hang titty calendars over their desks, or make unwelcome sexual remarks to a woman and then claim they were "just joking."
What you don't see here in black and white is how it feels to a subordinate; what the accompanying body language is, whether the sub feels "yucky". We tell our children about "good touch" and "bad touch", but millions of them still get abused. Part of the problem is denial - it's hard to believe a man you admire for other reasons could behave badly in private. Look at that wealthy bank VP in Atlanta who stabbed his kids the other day. Smart people can do bad things.
I haven't seen ANY indication that Justice Thomas was suffering from depression or was mentally ill. And I hope that wasn't what you were trying to imply.
Meyers-Briggs have shown that people process information and communications differently in distinct ways; not all witnesses think like lawyers and testify accordingly. Incidents with strong undercurrents of deep violation and shame are not easy for a private citizen to remain crisply accurate, logical and detached about when she is being televised across the nation and is in the hot seat across from a vicious panel of partisans. These factors don't automatically make a person a liar.
This is what you can expect, politicians like Salazar, when you let Californians take over your state...they screwed up California, moved to Colorado because they screwed up California and now are screwing up Colorado.
That's true in today's climate with today's rules. Were today's rules in effect at the time of the alleged incidents?
"Meanwhile Salazar isn't fit to wipe the abomination from the bottom of Justice Thomas's shoe."
Or Justice Thomas' bottom, for that matter.
It may well be; wasn't it also true that she was contacted by the committee and was not the initiator? Her testimony was cossetted and coerced by the enemies of the president. I saw her as a basically passive personality who had no background in the male Anglo-Saxon conventions of the recently-opened world of work.
(and you haven't really considered the fact that she has continued to get into trouble in her subsequent jobs, including ANOTHER accusation regarding pubic hairs . . . how likely do you think that is?)
Certainly not. But haven't you ever been shocked and disillusioned when some man you admired and/or respected at work for his skills in his field then has an affair with a co-worker or makes a pass?
No, they weren't, and that's just the point! The hostile environment was "normal" in the same way that slavery was once "normal." But it didn't make it right, and it demeaned the women subjected to it.
Psycho-babble. My GRANDMOTHER was in the "recently-opened world of work" in 1918. She was a bacteriologist at the Medical College of Georgia. My mother recently retired from a university professorship; she was a professional dancer for 50 years. It has a lot more to do with Ms. Hill, than with the "world of work". And passive-aggressive might be more like it.
She was not the initiator . . . but the way it went was that she had blabbed a lot to friends and word got back to the committee, and they demanded that she testify. Then she was too embarassed to admit that she had embroidered her story beyond all recognition (or switched the principal actor, which seems more likely given her previous job). The Democrats were too eager to trash Justice Thomas and didn't check her dates or corroborating witnesses (which didn't match up). But by that time the snowball had gained too much momentum and too many people were invested in it. So she "had" to perjure herself, and so did her witness.
She should have done what the witness did in the old lawyers' story -- he changed his story in court. The lawyer, embarassed, asked, "Well, Mr. Witness, didn't you meet with me in my office and tell me X, Y, and Z?"
"Well, yeah, I did," replied the witness. "But then, I was just talkin', and now I'm swearin'."
I don't know the history of her successive jobs, but when an obviously vulnerable and culturally frail person has been publicly trashed, it's no stretch to learn that she would have further difficulties. As for "what are the chances", since the pubic hair thing was so well known, someone who wished to upset her subsequently would know just what to do - "Hey, let's put a pubic hair on Anita Hill's Coke can and watch her freak out!"
It's my fondest hope that these maroons on the Left continue to be so arrogant that they ignore the plain facts, namely, they lose elections because of their loutmouth hateful mannerisms.
But I don't extrapolate from that bad behavior that ALL female managers are insecure and abusive . . . or believe any accusation against a female manager just because I've seen a bad one.
What actually happened was that several of her students said they found pubic hairs in their examinations. One said that either she put them there, or she graded their exams on the toilet.
If she actually did that, she isn't "culturally frail," she's nuts.
And if you think black women are "culturally frail," I just don't know what to say to you. The black women I know are tough as nails, the litigators and the trial judges, but also just the ordinary folks -- especially the dreaded Church Ladies (don't ever cross a Church Lady, if you know what's good for you!) As a group, I'd put them up against just about anybody for tenacity and drive. But maybe that's just a southern thing, I don't know.
BTW, I don't have much use for law professors either . . . 'them as can't do, teach'. And I went to an Ivy, too.
In fact, this scumbag Salazar isn't fit to wipe the abomination from Thomas's bottom.
Like the Frankie Pentangeli scene in The Godfather -
Senator: "Mr Pentangeli, didn't you tell this committee that Michael Corleone murdered several of his associates?!"
Pentangeli: "Ehhhhh, I lied!" (Smiles.)
Look, we are not going to solve this, any more than we are going to solve who shot Kennedy. I'm not passionately defending her now or then; I'm just saying I'm not convinced she was totally lying, I don't think she went there with a deep understanding of the situation, and I don't think the affirmative action era necessarily produced competent female scholars or law professors in many cases, certainly including hers. Your latest post is as close to an explanation as I've read here tonight. We'll never really know, and I'm going to give it a rest now. It's past bedtime on the east coast.
But thank you for the spirited debate and your excellent insights, AAM!
You're right, the only people who know the truth are Justice Thomas and Ms. Hill. I'm pretty sure which one I believe (mostly on the strength of my former roommate's testimony) but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed.
Yeah, I think you are. A little research might help you out. (Hint: Arlen Specter exposed not only Hill, but that scumbag woman judge from California who was supposed to corroborate Hill's story, as brazen liars. The embarrassed silence that overtook the Senate chamber at that time was jaw-dropping - - it was a beautiful thing.
Also, you apparently disagree with Joe Biden, who said about Anita Hill, "I didn't believe her", following Thomas's confirmation.
Must discount the students' version of events. Her own head hair may have been confused with pubic hairs, since both are curly - what was their proof? And they must have known about her previous allegations, so what was to stop them from making wild accusations with dramatic overtones?
Amd yes, black women as a group, particularly church ladies, are spiritually and socially powerful, and I count myself blessed to be in prayer group with only one white person, who is learning from the other prayer warriors. But the comparison between that kind of power and the inherently white Anglo Saxon male way things were done in Washington at that time, among lawyers and persons of international influence, cannot be underestimated. As you point out, once the ball got rolling, the system crushed any spine she might have had, and the Dem players were out for blood. We agree on that.
And now, good night! Hope to FReep with you again soon!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.