Help End The Obama Era In 2012
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Actually, thus far, at most one woman (okay, two if you count her lawyer) is lying about unwanted sexual advances. Only Bialek has asserted that Cain made an unwanted sexual advance.
Kraushaar has asserted Cain was a “monster”, but has given no specifics, but we know that she is the sort who regarded a sophomoric e-mail circulated at her next job as “sexual harassment”. Besides that we have the one who’s not talking and remaining anonymous. Again whether Cain’s purported behavior is something a sane person without deBeauvoirian ideological commitments would regard as “harassment” is something neither we nor reporters for the AP know. Nor, given the breadth of the notion of “sexual harassment” feminists have advanced and in some cases codified into law (cf. Kraushaar’s complaint at her next job) is there any basis for inferring that the complaint was based on unwanted sexual advances. And, finally, the “he asked us to arrange a luncheon date” accusation, which involved no assertion that Cain made a sexual advance, unwanted or otherwise.
The fact that both Kraushaar and the still-anonymous complainant settled for a modest severance package, rather than filing an EEOC complaint, actually suggests that their complaints were far weaker than would have been the case were they based on actual unwanted sexual advances.
That's right. There's a difference between a sexual advance, and a woman saying she felt "uncomfortable." A woman can claim she feels "uncomfortable" if she overhears a man tell his wife on the phone, "I can't wait to get home tonight and make mad monkey love with you."
Or she can claim harassment if she sees an email comparing men to women in a computer cartoon. It doesn't mean there was an unwanted sexual advance.