"If she was really being harassed, why did she follow him from job to job?"

[Empowerer]

Remember how often that question was used to discredit Anita Hill?

Well, in this instance, it is clear that these women DIDN'T follow Herman Cain to his next job. In fact, they were put in the position of leaving the jobs they had while he stayed on. Yet, despite this, it looks like THAT is being used to discredit them - as if their departures are somehow proof that their job performances were not "up to par."

And the beat goes on and on . . .

[jwirr]

1. They are using that fact to defend him but the truth of the matter is

that it is not all that long ago when it would have always have been the woman to blame and to be let go. I do not know when this took place but that type of discrimination against women was real.

[EffieBlack]

2. Indeed

This apparently took place in the 1990s - an eon ago when it comes to sexual harassment.

Given when it took place and the relatively low salaries of the women involved - meaning they were not high-level executives - the fact that they were let go with a full year's salary and an agreement not to speak about it suggests that the claims were very serious and very credible.

[LiberalFighter]

3. Yes. The era that it happens needs to be considered.

But media moguls are clueless.

[Major Hogwash]

4. Cain said this happened 12 years ago, if you can believe him about that fact.

Because everything else about these allegations he said he "couldn't recall" when he was on Faux Snooze on Monday. He said that more than a dozen times. Way more.

[golfguru]

5. How could they follow Cain?

The NRA CEO was Cain's last job, where the alleged sexual harassment took lace. He had thousands of people working under him. After that I believe he had a radio talk show where he did not need many underlings.

[Elsewheres Grandson]

6. Damned if they do, damned if they don't

Good post, E.