About the issue of Sexual Harassment...

[Raine1967]

I wrote this today. I am sharing it here:

Hey Sugar, Park it here...
As the drama of the Cain campaign unfolds, I am reminded once again of how women seem to always be caught in the middle of having to defend themselves from unwanted advances. Cliches that were supposed to be long dead have reared their ugly heads again.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/lighten-up-sweetheart-cain-scandal-brings-back-old-stereotypes-on-the-right.php?ref=fpblg ">TPM TPM has a wonderful article about this.

Herman Cain’s allies seem intent on tying his sexual harassment scandal to the most famous case of inappropriate workplace behavior in American history, the saga of Clarence Thomas.

And in one unexpected way, they’ve already succeeded: much of the right wing is now pulling the dust cloths off the same old criticisms of the very concept of sexual harassment that they’ve kept in storage since the ’90s. Namely, that the behavior is often harmless fun and women really need to lighten up already.

Advocates of women’s rights are noticing.

NOW Vice President for Action Erin Matson said what she’s heard coming from the right in the two days since the Cain story broke has been “disheartening.”

"(There’s a) strain of blaming and shaming women and calling them crazy," she said.

It's disheartening to say the very least, that some of the people defending whatever it is that Herman Cain did as something that is in the eye of the beholder, are female conservative commentators.

There is a real problem with this. The problem is that harassment, be it sexual or otherwise, is NOT a consensual act. It is a form of bullying and humiliation.

You will recall during the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas_Supreme_Court_nomination">Clarence Thomas hearings there was a coordinated effort to make Ms. Hill the harasser instead of the harassed. As Clarence Thomas put it: "It was a high tech lynching" -- This was what he said:

This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.

In other words, his actions weren't the real problem -- politics were. Ms. Hill was just collateral damage. The goal was to get a seat on the Supreme Court -- in his line of thinking, his actions previously should never have been an issue to him and his supporters. When the issue was brought up, Anita Hill had to relive the entire harassment situation again -- only this time in public at a Senate hearing. She experienced it firsthand, and then had to verbally experience it again. I'm sure the women who were paid off are experiencing there own memories again. I can't imagine it is pleasant.

Mr. Cain appears to be using the Clarence Thomas line of defense as well. He has stated that these allegations are being used to silence him. He is now blaming people for the leak. He, like Clarence Thomas, are more upset they got caught. There appears to be little remorse for what they did to women. Cain's allies and supporters are doing the very same thing; They are using the victim again, only this time it's the reason for Mr. Cain's political problems.

And that is why I have a problem with this situation called sexual harassment. No one is silencing Mr. Cain. Mr. Cain is not a victim of a political smear. There is no conspiracy. He did something bad enough to make sure at least 2 women were paid to go away, with possibly a third who chooses to remain anonymous out of fear of retaliation. As of the writing of this blog, there are more details being revealed. Simply put: He got caught. In Mr. Cain's situation, there were no legal charges, and no judicial trial. Someone cut a check to make the problem go away. It was after all only a little sexual harassment, it wasn't rape or anything, right? However, what if it was? What if there was evidence under our legal system that may constitute charges being brought up? Wouldn't we want him brought in for questioning? Wouldn't we want to know the truth? I would venture to guess you would agree with me in saying yes.

Please remember that when you see people claiming that Julian Assange is the victim of a political smear or a conspiracy to silence him. If he is innocent or guilty -- he should face the people who want to question him. I do not take rape charges lightly. It's sexual harassment. While we don't have the same judicial system or laws as Sweden, Mr. Assange should answer questions in accordance to the laws of the country in which this allegedly happened. I know that many people support Wikileaks, and I'm ok with that. I do have a problem with the people that want Cain to face the music and don't seem to want to hold Mr. Assange to those same standards.

Sadly, some sound very similar to the conservatives who are defending Herman Cain's actions towards women.



------------------------------------------------------------------------

Original link: http://www.fourfreedomsblog.com/Blog.php?Act=ViewBlogPost&BlogID=1713

I wrote this. This is not directed at anyone who is a member of DU, it is written for the general public. I wanted to share my opinion here.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. Sexual Harassers

Most sexual harassers, be they men or women, and the number of men who are targets of sexual harassment is increasing, are people who can't, for a myriad of reasons, compete in the sexual marketplace, and have to seek sexual favors via manipulation from those in their charge.

[TwilightGardener]

2. They will always turn it back onto women. And yet, I'll bet MOST women

in the workforce probably have been exposed to at least one instance of an inappropriate joke or comment, or an uncomfortable situation (I certainly have) and never said a word about it, shrugged it off. For these women to receive a payout, they must have had a pretty convincing case of Cain's inappropriate behavior. It must have been pretty bad. And it really pisses me off that people are calling the settled cases "allegations"--as Jon Stewart said last night, these are not new allegations to harm Cain, these are FACTS from his employment history.

[Raine1967]

3. YES.

It's ironic that people like Rand Paul suddenly uncomfortable, huh? http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/11/feminazis_ruining_rand_pauls_g.html

“There are people now who hesitate to tell a joke to a woman in the workplace, any kind of joke, because it could be interpreted incorrectly,” he says. “I don’t. I’m very cautious.”


I believe that Women have had to shrug this stuff off for a long time. We are expected to be the PERFECT victim in order to be credible in cases like this. For the NRA to pay at least one woman a years salary -- even in the late 1990's -- means hey were willing to pay a lot of money to make this go away.

It hasn't gone away. It came back.

It doesn't change the fact that Herman cain abused women.

[Sgent]

4. I gotta say

I bet 50% of american's in the workplace don't eve remember clarance thomas from almost 25 years ago.

Ask them about Bill Clinton....

[Raine1967]

5. You understand I was talking about a larger point, right?

This post is more about sexual harassment, not really Justice Thomas.

[marlakay]

6. I take polls for Yougov

and one of the questions today was did I think the womens movement has gone too far? I said no but the fact they asked a ton of questions about size of gov, about what you want it to do for you and I got on their case in my comments
about how a few of the questions were bent to force answer against gov.

[Whisp]

7. fair amount of 'disheartening' here too.

geeze, just because one posts on a 'liberal' site doesn't give you automatic cleansing from being an idiot when it comes to completely misunderstanding what the hell sexual harrassment even is (or is not).

[Raine1967]

8. I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.

could you clarify your statement?

[Whisp]

9. just for one, that sexual harassment is really just a guy trying to get some 'booty'.

that's all there really is to it.

:(

[Raine1967]

10. So, why did you use the word idiotic?

I think you and I have a VERY big difference about sexual harassment.

I made my point quite clearly, I thought. This is NOT about as you stated: " just for one, that sexual harassment is really just a guy trying to get some 'booty'. that's all there really is to it."


Maybe you did not read what I wrote. I don't want to make assumptions here. Sexual harassment is NOT about a guy trying to get booty.

[BobR]

11. Really??

You've GOT to be kidding. I've worked for various companies for almost 30 yrs now, and they've all been very clear about what sexual harassment is. It's unwelcome gestures and/or comments and/or body language that can be construed as sexual in nature. It can be a dirty joke, a leer, standing way too close, dirty comments, etc. It can be a woman doing that to a man as well. It's especially a problem when the harassed is a subordinate of the harasser.

Companies take this very seriously, due to the possibility of lawsuits. They all have procedures in place, and HR would've definitely sat Mr. Cain down in a room and had a long talk with him. He knows exactly what he did, and he knows why it was wrong. For the NRA to pay the women off (a whole year's salary) rather than risk a court case says that whatever Cain did, it was WAY out of line.

Maybe Cain WAS just "trying to get some booty". That is not sexual harassment though - that was just the end goal of his harassment.

[DebJ]

12. No, sometimes they just want to use such tactics to make you

feel uncomfortable and threatened, ie, the harassment itself is the goal.