I don’t know that that’s a fair comparison. Abused married women often have few, if any, choices. Kids may be involved as well as independent means of support. Hill faces none of those considerations.
I’ll ask again. Is it your position that a woman must avoid harrassment, including by rejecting a position she feels beneficial to her career if accepting the position would mean a chance of continued harrassment?
Oh, it’s a hyperbolic comparison, certainly. But someone who “choses” to stay with an abuser because they think it’s the only way they can support themselves *isn’t *legitimizing the abuse, whether that’s someone being sexually harassed who followed a harasser to a new job, or a woman who stays married to a man who rapes her.
She would have to weigh tolerating a boorish shitbag with the advancement of her career. I assume that if she had a boss who wasn’t a boorish shitbag her career would have advanced on a certain arc. Leaving the boorish shitbag would set her career back.
Maybe she thought that as a black woman in the 80s she shouldn’t retard her career for years instead of tolerating his shitty behavior.
Also, if a man tries to rape you, if you haven’t fought so hard that you’re unconscious or dead when he does, it means you really wanted it.
And unless you have four male witnesses, it doesn’t count.
When you asked the first time, you included the “bitch asked for it” comment. I don’t answer such questions when they include comments that don’t fairly represent my argument.
My point was that her following Thomas allows an argument that she didn’t find the behavior threatening or overly offensive at the time. Whether or not we do is not relevant to that point.
Only if a woman not leaving her abusive husband also allows the argument that she enjoys being beaten, raped, and/or belittled.
Wouldn’t that mean that the answer would have been no?
You still haven’t answered the question, by the way.
I can’t find this anywhere in the Congressional Record. Can you please check your cite, and provide to me the situation where Anita Hill used these words?
Thanks in advance,
Villa
A Google of the quote leads to one link only: Brock’s first book, since recanted.
Stubborn git, ain’t he?
“**Shodan **rapes kittens every night, after which he puts the kitten bodies into a blender with the blood of Christian babies, drowning them in the blood, then whips the whole thing up into a fine froth, which he drinks himself and then force-feeds to grandmothers.”
Congressional Record, May 25, 1987, p. S21687.
Hey, this is fun!
It apparently is from the recollection of this guy.
As listed in this book:
So I think the only rational takeback from this is that Shodan is a lying, scumbag piece of shit.
That’s a takeaway. A takeback would be **Shodan **admitting that he’s pulling shit out of his ass and retracting his completely unsupported claims.
It’s more than that. It’s attributing a quote to someone when it’s actually double hearsay - Hill allegedly told Williams who allegedly told Brock.
To enter it as a quote from Hill, with no explanation, is so fundamental contrary to all possible rules of quotation I have difficulty thinking of it as anything but deliberate. And the inclusion of the citation to Congressional Record after it seems to suggest an attempt to bolster its credibility.
Please tell me I am wrong, Shodan. Please tell me my search powers are weak and I just failed to find it. If that’s true, you have my heartfelt apology. If not, what the hell?
“The hell” is that Shodan, like all of his ilk, can only support his illogical and bigoted positions through lies, fear, misrepresentation, and intimidation.
Call me naive, but I actually want this to be a mistake on my part or on his.
The *absolute best-case scenario *here is that a completely and obviously disreputable source told him the same lie and he took it at face value because the lie was a convenient one.
What about tagging a citation from the Congressional Record onto the “quote”? Unless the disreputable source sent him the quote with the cite, then I think we have to conclude that Shodan made up the cite to bolster its credibility.
What’s the word for someone who does that?
Salon has a nice, clean summation of the case against Thomas.