Actually, it’s worse than that.
That would be an allegation by Armstrong Williams that Anita Hill said it.
This is, in fact, an allegation by David Brock that Amrstrong Williams alleged that Anita Hill said it.
Which is not just in a different zip code to Shodan’s Anita Hill said it, it’s on a different fucking continent.
I know. Which goes further to prove how useless your existence is, because all of the worthwhile people on this forum like me quite a bit.
As soon as you’d like to give me some evidence for it in this thread.
olololo wut do them big wurds mean? ur funny ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
What a shock. I am completely stunned and taken aback. Oh Shodan. How could you do this to us. We trusted you to debate honestly. And give legitimate cites for sources. Oh my. The horror. The horror.
Gini Thomas is tone deaf for sure. I also think Anita Hill’s testimony was factual. I still feel there is an issue with Ms. Hill: She failed to report Thomas’ conduct when it happened.
She didn’t report it because either reporting would have had adverse consequences for her career, or tolerating it would have proverse consequences for her career. Either way, she decided that her career was more important to her than trying to put an end to Thomas’ harassment of herself and other women. She didn’t write the terms, but she accepted the deal.
This is not blaming the victim. This is why you don’t negotiate with terrorists. Sucks to be the hostage that gets decapitated, but it makes the taking hostages less likely and saves lives in the long view. It takes more than just boys to sustain a “good ol’ boys” system. It takes clients, bosses, and support staff willing to tolerate it. If you aren’t willing to stand up for what’s right, don’t bitch that things aren’t right.
Point 2 is that laws and customs were changing rapidly in regards this sort of conduct between the time it happened and the time Hill testified, and even more so to reach today. The goalposts had/have been moved a fair bit in the interim. Hill herself clearly didn’t think it was worth losing her job/career over at the time, yet a few years later, it was worth trying to derail Thomas’ career, and exposing herself to adverse publicity. By today’s standards, Thomas’ conduct is inexcusable. A few years before it happened, it would have just been “boys being boys.” When it happened, it was somewhere between, and while Thomas was running a bit behind the times it probably could have been dealt with via a reprimand. In the mid-80’s I saw a couple co-workers disciplined for racist comments, and while their thinking probably remained unchanged, the conduct at work stopped immediately and permanently.
“One of these things is not like the other…”
Actually, yes, it does. Hill claimed to be worried about her job (during the hearings. Several other people mentioned that she said she wanted to follow Clarence Thomas.) But, as was explained to her, she had nothing to worry about.
Might be. But she made no mention of this, if it was a concern.
I didn’t ignore it. As I mentioned, your quote is from 1982, and references the 1983 budget. The Department of Education was not eliminated in 1983, nor in any year subsequently. Anita Hill was a Schedule A attorney. So Hill had nothing to worry about.
The interesting thing about this is that Hoerchner, who originally was brought in to back up Hill’s allegations, said that Hill was unhappy about her job, and had complained of sexual harassment at work, and that the conversation happened in the spring of 1981 - during the period when Hill was working for Wald, Harkrader & Ross. Hoerchner then changed her story to say that Hill had mentioned this in September of 1981, and that this was the reason that Hill left the EEOC.
Hill did not work for the EEOC until May 1982, and did not work for Clarence Thomas in the spring of 1981.
Hoerchner had a number of other credibility issues - she complained after the hearings were over that the panel had often addressed Hill as "Anita’, when actually all members consistently addressed her as Professor Hill, or Ms. Hill.
Like I said, if you prefer your tantrum.
Regards,
Shodan
ITT, **Shodan **demonstrates again that he is a disgusting piece of trash not fit to be shat on.
That’s not a tantrum. It’s sadness. I tried to look for the best in this, but you have lied, and lied about your lies when called on them.
You say you withdrew the statement and apologized? Where? You have continued to act as if it is a quote of Hill’s.
This is not a tantrum. It’s a sad recognition that other people are right about you, that you are more than just incorrect, you are wilfully dishonest, and incapable of engaging in any kind of worthwhile discussion.
You’ve shown yourself to be nothing more than a base liar.
That’s a little harsh, isn’t it?
I’d shit on him.
Here, Triumph! Here, boy! Good boy, now run over there and poop on Shodan. Triumph? Triumph, hey come back here! Where you going? …
For all you people who wish to trash Thomas, and yes I can understand why because of his politics you are simply taking the word of one person against the other. No evidence, simply allegations.
When someone makes an allegation, I expect they would have the decency to provide evidence. There is no evidence. If there was a problem for Anita, I would expect that she would have gotten her ducks in a row. He says she says is not enough to determine the truth.
Anita started the controversy. As such, I’ll side with the accused until such time her allegations are proven.
That is not to say she’s incorrect. But I believe in innocence until proven guilty.
Actually, no, it does not. The President of the United States, speaking before Congress and the entire nation, said he wanted to ax her department. We can look back now from the safety of 2010 and know he didn’t succeed, but Hill in 1982-3 would have no way of knowing this.
Please don’t claim hindsight as evidence.
What you wrote after this has nothing to do with my original “this”. Are you drawing your observations about Hoerchner from Brock? I must ask you to specify the sources of your information from now on, to be sure they are not from Brock. In any event, why would complaining (if that’s what it was, and not just noting or observing) that Hill was addressed as “Anita” pose a credibility problem for anyone? In a formal setting like a Senate hearing, I’d think it a touch disrespectful to address someone by their first name unless they invited me to. Did Hill do so? If not, a Senator who called her “Anita” was being just a touch inappropriate and, arguably, condescending.
Apart from the complete inaccuracy here, I think it is telling you refer to ‘Thomas’ and ‘Anita.’
You got me.
Truth is, there is no way I could see myself intimate in a platonic way with Thomas, but that does not hold true for Hill.
Some of us find Hill’s testimony plausible regardless of Thomas’s politics.
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/10/27/anita_hill_clarence_thomas/index.html Here is a slate article decaring the truth is on Anita Hills side. It includes 3 friends of Hills who say that back in 80-83 Hill had told them about Thomas’s advances toward her and what he did. She told them that Thomas said"you would have a perfect case against me ,if you had witnesses’.
Angela Wright, Director of affairs at EEOC, wrote a column describing Thomas’s inappropriate behavior toward her.
In a letter to the Judicial Committee, Thomas’s former aide wrote that many black women at the agency felt they were being audited and inspected as females . Women generally know when they are being seen in a sexual light.
The store that rented Thomas the porn movies is covered too.
Or you’re just an asshole.
You really don’t get it, do you? And being a guy, you think what Bricker’s doing is just LOLworthy. In a topic about sexual harassment, one of the guys who’s arguing that the victim was lying and using various sexist terms, tells a woman he’s going to write a little scene----because she won’t agree with him—in which she’s sexually degraded against her will. With a dog. LOL HAR HAR HAR you so funny, baby. Because that’s the way you win an argument about sexual harassment, by sexualizing one of your opponents.
You’re an asshole. So is everyone else who thinks it’s amusing. I’ve noticed that any mention of sexism on this board—unless it’s against the usual, outside targets----is greeted with the usual male whoops of “Lol you crazy bitch.” That’s you and all the others who think it’s amusing. It’s a perfect example of just how far the SDMB hasn’t come.
Because of course, somebody would mistake the phrase, “I’d like to order more paper” as sexual harassment. That’s bad faith argument right there.
She did not say it. What part of that do you not get? She did not say it. You claimed she did. Instead, you lied about attribution and source, concealing that it came from a Thomas defender who had every reason to lie.