Archive

Posts Tagged ‘sexual harassment’

Brouhaha over Kavanaugh as an Accidental Genius Move by Democrats

October 8, 2018 17 comments

Over previous 2-3 days, CONservative media outlets have been masturbating with the pretense of joy over the Kavanaugh confirmation. Even usually non-mainstream CONservative alt-right losers are trying to portray it as some great “victory” for Trump. It is amusing to watch their hilarious Gollum death dance, largely because my understanding of history is large enough to know how this will all end. To understand what I am talking about, let me ask a simple question.. Why are there many policies and regulations, especially in USA, about sexual harassment?

Have you ever wondered if this was always the case? Surely, there must have been a time after women entered the workplace in large numbers when policies and regulations about sexual harassment were largely non-existent. Also, why is the issue of sexual harassment a much bigger deal in North America (especially USA) compared to West-Europe, to say nothing about parts of the world. And what does any of this have to do with moribund establishment Democrats making, what I consider to be, an accidentally genius move by opposing Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

A couple of weeks before Y2K, I was an unusually young M.Sc student at one of those pre-Xmas departmental parties. After mixing among the crowd for a while, I ended up sitting down with two professors. After talking about a variety of topics, we came to the issue of sexual harassment because some well-known professor had been recently disciplined by the university for that infraction. Both told me that things used to be quite different even a decade ago, and one was happily married to a woman he started dating when she was his summer student.

When I asked them about their theories as to why things had changed so much and so fast, they were almost unanimous in blaming it on fallout from the ‘Anita Hill controversy’. At this time, I was vaguely aware that a woman named Anita Hill had accused a nominee to the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas, of sexual harassment. I was also aware that her attempt to stop his nomination was not successful and republicans had tried to get her fired from a university.

I could not however, at that time, make a connection between the fallout of that controversy and the slew of policies and regulations concerning sexual harassment which were rolled out by large corporations as well as governmental institutions in the 1990s. Almost a couple of years passed. Then one Saturday night, I came across an administrative assistant (and her girlfriends?) whose office used to be along the route to my lab as a student. We briefly exchanged pleasantries and I introduced her to my companion as the secretary whose office was two doors away from the office that dealt with sexual harassment claims etc.

We had a quick laugh about it and then I asked her if that office was always there. She replied that they only came into being around 1993 or 1994 and something about Anita Hill. She also said that prior to this, women either did not complain or went through internal departmental channels if the harassment was especially persistent and severe. After a couple of more minutes during which I told her about my new job in a different part of that building complex, we went our own way. Though a bit drunk, something in my mind immediately made the connection between this incident and the one mentioned a couple of paragraphs above.

But I still could not understand how an incident which had occurred a decade ago and on other end of the continent had such a profound and widespread impact. And let us not forget that this was before everybody and their dog was on the internet and social media. Anyway.. the next morning after a cup of tea and with nothing else to do, I decided to spend some time on Google to find out when policies and regulations surrounding sexual harassment (as we know them today) came into being.This was in an era (1999-2011) when Google search was at it peak.

After searching for about an hour, I noticed a few persistent patterns. Firstly, most modern policies and offices to deal with sexual harassment in universities seem to have started in the early to mid 1990s. There were, of course, some outliers which had something like that as early as late 1980s. But the bulk of them came into existence with four to five years of the Anita Hill controversy. The same held true for large corporations. I briefly considered the possibility that this might be an artifact of the modern internet becoming public in 1994, but the clustering of dates was just too tight (and just before 1994).

After that, I decided to go out and get something to eat and walk around the more fashionable parts of that city. By the time I returned, this topic was nowhere in my conscious mind. Without much to do a Sunday night, I ordered a pizza and went about finishing the remaining two beers in my fridge. Because this was in the pre- YouTube era, I decided to watch some documentary on the Vietnam war on TLC\A&E\ History Channel (back when they broadcast stuff other than fake “reality shows” about pawn shops, truck drivers, naked survivalists and similar crap). Anyway.. this one was part of a series about why USA lost the Vietnam war.

One of the talking heads in that documentary was saying something about how USA never paid attention to how the Vietnamese perceived their presence in their country and then he said something to the effect of “we won every battle, but lost the war”. And this when I had my epiphany about how the Anita Hill controversy unintentionally gave rise to the policies and regulations surrounding sexual harassment as we know them today- at least in North America. Republican CONServatives (with the help of Democrats like Joe Biden) did win one battle by confirming that ugly toad, aka Clarence Thomas, to the Supreme Court- but they lost the war.

The attempts by Republicans and some Democrats to publicly humiliate Anita Hill to push through the nomination of that uncle Tom.. I mean Clarence Thomas, made her into an unintentional martyr for the cause of a certain ascendant brand of feminism. It also helped that the guy accused of sexual harassment was seriously lacking in the looks and personality department. Subsequent Googling revealed that women (especially white educated women) saw those hearings very differently from men. It did not help that her subsequent harassment by republicans and attempts to kick her out a university job made Anita Hill into a bonafide martyr for white educated professional women- the same ones who came to populate administrative positions in universities and large corporations.

It then occurred to me that the course of the movement against sexual harassment in North America might have been different if those myopic idiots had spiked the nomination of Clarence Thomas in favor of a less revolting corporate cock-sucker. But no.. those idiots had to “win” that battle. And this is how they lost the war and that is why we now have so many policies, regulations and all the other stuff surrounding sexual harassment. I cannot resist pointing out that “victory” of putting that Uncle Tom on the Supreme Court ended up costing many hundreds of thousands men their jobs, careers and promotions- not to mention social status.

Clarence Thomas was only accused of sexual harassment and most of this occurred before the internet and social media age (at least in their full-blown form). Kavanaugh has been credibly accused of sexual assault and worse. His looks, history, personality and demeanor have not helped sell his case to most women. FYI- most women do not constantly post on social media about supporting CONservative causes with their styled bleached hair or tits hanging half-out. Mark my words, this is going to get much uglier and far more consequential than what happened after Clarence Thomas was pushed through to the Court. And yes, this has very serious potential of helping Democrats in future elections- because face it, women universally and viscerally hate mediocre men trying to force them to into uncompensated sex.

What do you think? Comments?