Powerline:
Yesterday, in a post called “The Farce of Bill Clinton’s Reckoning,” I discussed the intellectual dishonesty of the many Democrats and feminists who defended Clinton from highly credible (and in at least one case admitted) charges of sexual misconduct. I rejected the defense to this hypocrisy that, when Clinton’s offenses were “litigated” more than 20 years ago, the problem of sexual harassment wasn’t taken nearly as seriously as it is today. The furor caused in 1991 by Anita Hill’s charges against Clarence Thomas demonstrates the falsity of this evasion.
Yet, feminists and Democrats continue to make the argument. For cite one absurd example, last night a “Democratic strategist” who, from the look of it, was a toddler during the Thomas-Hill showdown, informed Tucker Carlson that “the times” were different in the early 1990s.
To overcome feminist amnesia (or in the case of the “strategist,” ignorance), let’s revisit the Thomas controversy. First, let’s compare the allegations against Thomas with those against Bill Clinton.
Was Thomas accused of rape, as Clinton was by Juanita Broaddrick? No. Was he accused of attempted rape? No.
Was he accused of groping Anita Hill? No. Did he try to steal a kiss from her? No.
Was any sex act performed, as with Clinton and Lewinsky? No. Nor was there any cigar play.
Here is how, at the time, Newsweek summarized Hill’s allegations against Thomas, all of which were denied by the nominee and none of which was ever corroborated:
[Hill] described Thomas as a boss who pestered her for dates and spoke graphically about pornography, bestiality, rape and his skills as a lover. “He talked about pornographic materials depicting individuals with large penises or large breasts involved in various sex acts,” she testified.
The “oddest episode,” Hill said, occurred when he was drinking a Coke in his EEOC office. “He got up from the table at which we were working, went over to his desk to get the Coke, looked at the can and asked, ‘Who has put pubic hair on my Coke?”‘
These allegation paint an unsavory picture and, if the alleged comments were made more than sporadically, they would meet the legal definition of sexual harassment (if true). However, they pale in comparison to the allegations that soon emerged against Bill Clinton.
Moreover, the allegations against Thomas were stale. The comments were alleged to have been made nearly a decade earlier. Hill had never complained. To the contrary, she maintained a friendly relationship with Thomas long after he ceased to be her boss.
Yet, Democrats and Republicans treated the allegations against Thomas as disqualifying, if true. And every feminist I heard speak during the ensuing national debate — other than those who knew Clarence Thomas personally — believed they were true.
To be sure, a majority of Americans believed Thomas. This was due mainly to (1) the late and last minute nature of Hill’s allegations (she made them years after “the fact,” just before the Judiciary Committee was set to vote), (2) the powerful and convincing quality of Thomas’ denials, and (3) the lack of testimony from other women that Thomas behaved as Hill claimed he did.
However, feminists uniformly believed Hill, as did most liberals, and considered her allegations disqualifying.
Compare this to the Clinton saga: (1) the allegations regarding Monica Lewinsky were fresh and the allegations made by Kathleen Willey were from earlier in his presidency, (2) Clinton admitted the improper relationship with Lewinsky, and (3) there was no shortage of women who alleged improper sexual behavior on his part.
Yet, feminists disbelieved all allegations against Clinton that he did not admit, and shrugged off his undisputed misconduct with Lewinsky.
For feminists, who are liberals, making these accusations and dictating changes in behavior in the workplace, is power. Now, for liberals, what is the purpose of exerting the power of change over other liberals? None; liberalism is already being spread. However, if they can sink their claws into non-liberal enterprises, then they can inflict liberal change upon how others operate… and not necessarily for the good.
The feminists just realized Ol Slick is a white heterosexual male 3 strikes pal.
The two-parent heterosexual nuclear household may be, for thousands of years, the most stable way in which to raise kids, but get a bunch of liberal sociologists masquerading as scientists together in a room and soon they’ll tell you science says the two-parent heterosexual nuclear household is bigotry, white supremacy and part of the patriarchy. Yup a consensus.
No science, they feel therefore it is. Add a dash of Christian and that guy is a monster to be destroyed at all costs.
Slick is just another casualty of the SJW feminists feelings should have been done long ago based on evidence.
@kitt: Coincidentally, totalitarian regimes also seek to destroy the nuclear family and anything else that distracts from worship of and dedication to the State.
@Bill… Deplorable Me: I fear for the future of men.
How do you let a woman know you think she is attractive and would like to date? The feminists are shutting down all avenues to normal mating. Cant flirt, cant compliment, dont even look at her. How did that work out for you guys in HS when you were too shy to ask that pretty girl you had a crush on to the school dance, ok you couldnt dance anyway.
My son caught his wife by stalking? Depends on if volunteering for the special olympics because her Major was Special Education just so he could be with her is stalking. ( Allred could make the case)
Girls start collecting cats now, as you age you too will become bitter twisted and lonely.
Its all Bill Clintons fault the way he treated Hillary the bastid. She stayed by him giving him so many chances. All white men must be just like him, we will get even for Hillary!
@kitt: Oh, don’t worry. The left will redefine courting, just as they redefine marriage and life. They will tell us the proper and permitted way to approach someone of the opposite (or whatever) sex. Perhaps they will issue licenses, for a fee and a tax.