26 years ago today, Anita Hill testified about sexual harassment she received from Clarence Thomas (support, senator)

[Travel Crazy]

salmonburgher - you are an exception to most I have met in the legal profession, at the lawyer level anyway. I have found them to be, largely, very accurate at listening, reading and comprehending. They are trained for exactly that.

Normally, like intelligent and intentful people do, they will pose clarifying questions to make sure they understand what is being put forth before spouting declarations. I guess you missed those classes. Or are actually a wannabe lawyer. Your prickly attitude gives it away.

So, to wind-up: a guy....in Asia...who hasn't witnessed or experienced sexual harassment...or worked in corporate America..... feels entitled to lecture about what went on, who understood what and when they did and to declare that legality is the only way of dealing with an ugly behavioral issue. Got it, salmon. Best move on to topic you can speak to from experience.

[Natural510]

Even though Hill lost the battle, she won the war. She spoke truth to power, and brought sexual harassment into the national conversation, which instituted workplace policies all over the country. The behavior still occurs, but it's not nearly as accepted and ignored as normal as it was at the time.

[vacoder]

And where was Trump 26 years ago. That is what I want to know.

[Salmonburgher]

Originally Posted by Travel Crazy

salmonburgher - you are an exception to most I have met in the legal profession, at the lawyer level anyway. I have found them to be, largely, very accurate at listening, reading and comprehending. They are trained for exactly that.

Normally, like intelligent and intentful people do, they will pose clarifying questions to make sure they understand what is being put forth before spouting declarations. I guess you missed those classes. Or are actually a wannabe lawyer. Your prickly attitude gives it away.

Again, stating facts and correcting your errors is not indicative of a prickly attitude.

OK, I'm a wannabe lawyer...

Originally Posted by Travel Crazy

So, to wind-up: a guy....in Asia...who hasn't witnessed or experienced sexual harassment...or worked in corporate America.....

You know that you make an arse of yourself when you assume...

Originally Posted by Travel Crazy

feels entitled to lecture...

Well, sweetheart, this is a discussion forum. We are all entitled to post our comments.

Correcting your errors of fact is not lecturing. Its too bad you cannot accept correction gracefully.

Originally Posted by Travel Crazy

Got it, salmon. Best move on to topic you can speak to from experience.

No thank you. I've experience dealing with cases of sexual harassment in the US and in Asia, both in and outside of the office. So, I'll comment here as I please, and I will correct your errors as I please.

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by Travel Crazy

Seems obvious, salmonburgher is in the legal profession. He is accusatory, inclined to split hairs and clearly has no experience dealing with sexual harassment so, he holds only an academic understanding of it.

Were you even alive in the 1980's? How about the 90's....maybe in grade school?

I stand by everything I said. In some tiny academic or legal spheres, sexual harassment may have been identified and labeled prior to the Clarence Thomas hearings. But, in the wider world and in business-life -- not at all.

My statement about men not doing much about sexual harassment they know is happening had nothing to do with legal remedies. That should have been obvious. There is huge opportunity for male co-workers to speak directly to an offender or report what they've seen to management or inquire of the harassed whether that is what they are experiencing and ask if they need help. Legal aspects are further down the road and should be viewed by everyone as a last resort.




More typical lip service. Please describe for us how many times you, or any male colleagues, have done something....anything....about it? What exactly did you or they do?

First it was men in the financial industry, and now it's salmonburger!


Maybe those men in the financial industry were also just trying to point out your errors.


What "seems obvious" is that you do a lot of finger pointing when things don't go your way.

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by Salmonburgher

Not true.

Anita Hill brought completely unsubstantiated accusations of sexual harassment against Thomas in 1991.

However, the term “sexual harassment” was coined in 1975, by women at Cornell University.



Also not true.

By 1977, there had already been three cases litigated and which held that a woman could sue her employer for harassment under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

SCOTUS upheld these early cases in 1986 with Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, which was brought on complaints filed by a female bank employee whose boss had allegedly intimidated her into having sex with him on multiple occasions.



I have been "chewing" on this issue for decades and I think there is an alternative reason for men not coming to defend every women who raises an allegation. And of course, many women are happy to defend men accused of sexual harassment, if the politics are aligned.

Sexual harassment is extremely difficult to prove. Anita Hill, as a Yale law school graduate who worked at the EEOC, the very agency through which sexual harassment claims were handled, knew as much about the nuts and bolts of the procedures for filing claims and the substantive law, as well as anyone in the nation. Yet, she failed to either document her claims or to bring them in the proper procedure.

We have a sacred principle in US jurisprudence that is the presumption of innocence. It is by design difficult for the State to successfully convict a citizen of an alleged crime, as we force the Government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the crime alleged by the State, and until the Government does so, the accused is presumed innocent.

Yes, that means certainly that some people who are guilty of the crimes alleged will go free and unpunished (at least by the State). But, what is the alternative? Lowering the standards of evidence would be manifestly unfair.

Nobody (essentially nobody) likes sexual harassment of anyone. Men who see and are convinced that sexual harassment has taken place are appalled by such conduct and condemn it as fiercely as women (well, OK, if politics align, some men and women are happy to let accusations slide and to defend the accused)...

Meh... I hate sexual harassment. I also fear a Government that is not forced to conduct trials where the accused is presumed innocent until the State's criminal allegations are proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

There was even a class action sexual harassment suit in Minnesota versus the Eveleth Taconite Corporation by some female miners back in 1988

[prospectheightsresident]

Originally Posted by Natural510

Even though Hill lost the battle, she won the war. She spoke truth to power, and brought sexual harassment into the national conversation, which instituted workplace policies all over the country. The behavior still occurs, but it's not nearly as accepted and ignored as normal as it was at the time.

What "war" did Hill win? Creating a culture where women who cry sexual harassment or rape are automatically supposed to be believed, and where those whom they accused instantly be damned, due process and the presumption of innocence be damned? Sounds like a war for hell.

Note, when I bring up Bill Clinton and others, I do so not because I think that we should really ostracize them, but to highlight hypocrisy among those on the left who are glad to go after right wingers accused of sexual harassment (of course, Bill is accused of far worse), but who have given Bill and Roman Polanski (who is actually a convicted child sexual predator) a pass for decades. I actually don't want to see Bill destroyed over what are mere allegations as I still believe in due process and in the presumption of innocence. No rational person should want that, IMO. But, then again, this leftist ideology is neither rational nor consistent.

[crone]

Part of the problem with the hearing and the credibility of Anita Hill was that a woman who shared her story was holed up in a DC hotel, subpoenaed, but not permitted to testify. Thanks to Hatch and Spector and a lazy ass democratic chair.

Part of the problem is no sane man would behave that way in front of witnesses. It is always a he said, she said. And we all know enough women who would sleep there way into a raise or promotion to cast doubt on all.

IMO, women should leave their cell phones on while around creepy guys.

There was a time when women who worked in the senate office building would not get on an elevator if a well know Texas senator was on it.

It is time for those creeps just just stop it. Having their advances recorded will help.

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by sockruhtese

That was 26 years ago. Clarence Thomas is still on the Supreme Court. Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly were able to stay at Fox News through their many settlements for sexual harrassment. And after an October surprise of tapes and claims of sexual harrassment, Donald Trump was 'elected' president.

What's changed in 26 years?

" 26 years ago today, Anita Hill testified about sexual harassment she received from Clarence Thomas"

Correction, 26 years ago today, Anita Hill testified about ALLEDGED sexual harassment she received from Clarence Thomas.

Details, details, details!

[tamajane]

Originally Posted by kevinm

Women will not be considered equal until they accept partial responsibility for allowing harassment to persist. My wife was harassed last year by a male peer. He showed her a naked picture that he found on on a computer that was being repaired for viruses. She went immediately to her boss and the guy was FIRED the same day.

Is that really harassment though? This is why men hate working with women. He probably though it was no big deal because your wife was an adult and it's just a picture.