Sexual Harassment: it's all a lie!!

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

Or, at least, that's what Dahlia Lithwick says conservatives believe in a Slate piece on the Herman Cain situation. (In case anyone's been living under a rock, you can find multiple sources for the Cain story, including here.)

"Conservatives," the tagline goes, "aren’t just defending Herman Cain. They’re denying the very existence of sexual harassment."

The gist of the article is basically thus: conservatives don't believe that sexual harassment actually exists. Instead, they ascribe what those pesky liberals commonly think is "sexual harassment" to two root causes: stuffy Puritan women who can't take a joke, and unattractive women of mediocre talent who can't advance on their merits and so decide to go all out and bilk the system (read: successful, talented males) for enough money so that they'll never have to work again.

To wit:

[G]reat swaths of [Cain supporters] have opted to assert that there could never be a valid sex discrimination claim because the whole thing is just a racket. And they went even further: The same folks criticizing the National Restaurant Association employees who came forward with claims that they were uncomfortable in their workplace are willing to deploy the most archaic and gender-freighted stereotypes to get there. Sexual harassment can’t be "real" because the women who claim it are money-grubbing, hysterical, attention-seeking tramps.

Now, personally, I think Lithwick is being a bit over the top here. Sure, conservatives believe in sexual harassment...when the alleged harasser is a liberal. The same people who decried Anita Hill's accusations against Clarence Thomas as a last-ditch effort to keep him off the Supreme Court were all too eager a few years later to push the Paula Jones case against Bill Clinton to the limit.

Now, I do think Lithwick has a point with the "can't take a joke" thing. I have heard a lot of grumbling among my, well, shall we say, more vigorous male peers, complaining about not being able to "flirt" or "joke around" at their jobs, because the stuffy/repressed women in the office get offended too easily and don't understand that they're merely being friendly. That, of course, being the core of their argument, the tired old "boys will be boys" logic that serves as an excuse for males to act like Neanderthals around females. The odious idea of "hysterical women," something that should be a relic of the days of bustles and corsets, is also alive and well. Boys will be boys, everyone knows that, and boys flirt and joke around; it's just their way of showing how much they love and appreciate women! But those hysterical women, they take every joke, innocent hand on a thigh, or surprise back-rub in the break room when no one is looking as an unwanted sexual advance. It's not fair!

Among my Cain-supporting friends, multiple Facebook posts have expressed complete support for Cain, and complete disbelief of his accusers. Typical of these is the following, which I saw last night:



Now, of course, there were liberals who played the same stupid game when Bill Clinton was accused (although I think even his most ardent supporters knew he was a un-zippable lecher). And I think Lithwick is right when she says that denial of sexual harassment is just one part of a larger war on plaintiffs, piled generally like a group of steaming turds under the umbrella of "tort reform." Conservative hysteria over a rash of "frivolous" sexual harassment lawsuits costing hard-working males millions is a ludicrous idea. Lithwick rightly points out, and I can back up with case law, the fact that sexual harassment lawsuits are notoriously difficult to pursue; proving that a hostile working environment exists is very hard, even when no one really denies that harassment took place (I have read multiple court rulings that held "not all harassment is actionable," for instance) and an overwhelming majority of sexual harassment suits are thrown out at the summary judgement stage.

So, I think Lithwick has a point in saying that conservatives generally look with disfavor on sexual harassment claims (unless, of course, Bill Clinton did it), and that the "can't take a joke" and "hysterical women" arguments are still, to our collective detriment, still around, but I am not prepared to say that all or most conservatives believe it doesn't really exist. I think she's closer to the mark when she ties it in with "tort reform," because the same people who are hostile to Cain's accusers also tend to be hostile towards product liability , personal injury, and other negligence claims.

[SHAMELESS PLUG: The law review article cited by Lithwick, 34 Wake Forest L. Rev. 71 (1999), was written by one of the Constitutional Law professors at my school]

Comments

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

I have just one question. Why now? Why does this surface now, if not for the purposes of character assassination, now that he's leading in the primary polls? I mean, if he's responsible, he should get the consequences. But again, why now? Isn't this the same old election dirty old games and hits under the belt? Even if something is proven to be just allegations, it'd have done the damage on a candidate, just like Strauss-Kahn.

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

I think that's a valid question. My answer would be that sexual harassment claims seem to be commonly kept "in house" whenever possible. I also think plaintiffs realize all too well how futile lawsuits generally are, and so don't see a point in pursuing a legal remedy because no one will listen. A harasser on the national stage, however, may finally present an opportunity to be heard.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think Cain is a madman but I don't care for these sexual harassment accusations. There is enough reason to write him off as a joke without them.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Okay, I'm going to field this one. The short version is that under most situations, there's no upside in a woman bringing these kind of allegations forward, it affects the career options negatively. However, once you see your former boss running for office and someone else has come forward and all of a sudden you see the guy denying that he ever sexually harassed a woman, then there's a motivation to say "Nuh uh, did too!"

Dirty old election games aren't played by random women working somewhere other than politics. And a shitstorm of negativity comes your way once you do report something like this.

Character assassins are smarter than that.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

True character assassins sit back and wait for the right moment to snipe. This is not the best part of the election cycle for sniping because it is too far from the main event. It only bolsters Cain's supports within the "base."

[msretro.livejournal.com]

It's not just now. He was accused of sexual harassment when it occurred, and paid out settlements. It's coming up again now because of his (bizarre) relevance on the national field.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

It's exactly because he's leading in the polls, and that's totally appropriate of the media to do. The guy was a non-public figure, never ran for public office. Digging into his history is totally normal for journalists. They did it to Romney and Huntsman and Palin and Obama and Clinton and everyone else who looked like a candidate for the last, oh, forty years or so, and they finally caught this one. We knew very little about Cain except what he told us. Finding out what he refused to tell us is the job of a responsible media.

[taiki.livejournal.com]

To distract from his even larger and more destructive problem that his campaign has in relation to campaign finance?

[onefatmusicnerd.livejournal.com]

5 Answers to the "why now?" question?

1. If he is not going to win, why would a woman go through the media gauntlet? They come out when he is doing well?

2. The women who were assaulted do not want the lime-light and were dug out by someone else involved in the case... a HR rep or lawyer. That took time.

3. They had been screaming all along and the media never new about it.

4. It is a dirty election game, but welcome to democracy.

5. The Cain campaign may have leaked this themselves... If they are serious, better to deal with it now than next October.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Actually, some of these women filed AT THE TIME. And received settlements for it.

So why didn't this surface earlier -- well, because the likelihood of Cain winning in the primary wasnt there, and it doesnt matter to the public until that point.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I don't really expect anything different from the party of closet gays who advocate reviving sodomy laws as a solution to financial crises. They've pretty much developed the art of hypocritical noise machine politics and made it quite the viable method of political power. Unfortunately the Dems want to do the same thing, they're just not remotely as good at it.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

I think you're onto something here.

Puritans still echo on.

[404.livejournal.com]

If Paula Jones sexual harassment case against Bill Clinton didn't make him unelectable, then it shouldn't be for Herman Cain either. Unless Democrats are more tolerant about sexual harassment when it is one of their guys doing it, which might be the case.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Don't worry - Herman Cain is unelectable for a plethora of other reasons.

As for your accusations about Democrats - notice how John Edwards got turfed?

1/2

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So, I think Lithwick has a point in saying that conservatives generally look with disfavor on sexual harassment claims (unless, of course, Bill Clinton did it), and that the "can't take a joke" and "hysterical women" arguments are still, to our collective detriment, still around, but I am not prepared to say that all or most conservatives believe it doesn't really exist.

I've only heard this "sexual harassment doesn't exist" charge come in the last week, and it's bizarre, to be frank. I believe there's a lot of question about the veracity of some claims, and I think there's definitely a fear/concern about things being taken the wrong way in an overly litigious society. But outright denial of the existence of sexual harassment? Not that I've been able to see, or that I've seen proven in any real way.

Now, this issue with the Cain allegations is related in part to the Clarence Thomas case. One of my favorite pieces of political writing was about Clarence Thomas back in 1992 in Reason, entitled "Native Son (http://reason.com/archives/1992/02/01/native-son/singlepage)." To quote the key point:

Certainly, no one knew better than Thomas what "sexual harassment" had become over the years -- a cultural phenomenon beyond his or, apparently, anyone’s control. Once an objective description of the use of male employers’ power to subjugate and exploit female subordinates, this new and ever-expanding legal offense, first defined in 1986, had turned into pure feminist dementia. Now "sexual harassment" meant anything or everything said or not said, done or not done, to a woman by a male superior, by a male co-worker, by any male in the vicinity, which upset, angered, or offended her -- in the woman’s judgment. Men’s judgments had become legally irrelevant. The subjectivity and dubious First Amendment implications of the New Harassment are well-known. Thomas was charged by Anita Hill with crimes of "verbal conduct" -- "speech crimes," which, of course, implies thought crimes.

...

The charges against him, Thomas saw quickly, were legal junk. One aspect of that junk was dangerous legal junk -- a set of charges that he had boasted of his "sexual prowess," of the "larger than normal" size of his own penis, accompanied by a drumbeat of other references to the mythic dimensions of black men’s genitals.

"Legal junk," of course, means evidentiary junk, and that means something in addition to the fact that the charges were unprovable and there were no witnesses to attest to them. It means that, save for the dangerous allegations, the speech crimes as presented at the hearings had little or no significance to begin with.

...

He immediately saw that he had been hit

by the oldest and most murderous racist stereotype directed at the black male: the black male as sexual beast; the subhuman, predatory ape without sensibilities and without morals; the stereotype amply documented by Franklin Frazier in the l950s (his 10th edition still being read in 1968) and exemplified by the crackling radio jokes about "gorillas in the mist" from the white Los Angeles cops in 1991. That stereotype was hundreds of years old, it was still alive, and Thomas accurately understood that it had been aimed at him.

Emphasis mine. The left has traditionally had problems with black conservatives in general, and given the Thomas hearings, I'm not surprised we've gone back to this well. The somewhat hazy details and credibility of the accusations doesn't exactly help matters, and it does add to people's skepticism of the truth of these charges. There's also the issue that the media has jumped on this while they couldn't be bothered with John Edwards and his extra-curricular activities, or the general lack of seriousness the left/media took with Clinton's indiscretions.

Re: 1/2

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

There's also the issue that the media has jumped on this while they couldn't be bothered with John Edwards and his extra-curricular activities, or the general lack of seriousness the left/media took with Clinton's indiscretions. -- Yep. Even when it came out that Edwards had used campaign funds to cover up his affair and his love child (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/us/26edwards.html), people barely batted an eye and chalked it up to 'politics as usual'. Now with Herman Cain, there's unsubstantiated allegations and they immediately cry 'pervert'. Really?

I question why none of these women went to the police. When I was sexually harassed at work (groped multiple times even after telling the person to stop), not only did I report it to my boss, I went to the police, reported the incident (and that I'd already filed a complaint through work) and filed a restraining order. There was no pay-out; the person was fired and could never work for the company again.

I'm not saying any of these women are liars. Attitudes toward sexual harassment and reporting it have changed in the last 15-20 years. Cain says he didn't do it. If he didn't, great. If some unquestionable proof comes out that he did, he needs to fuck off and face the consequences of his actions.

2/2

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

In short, it's not an issue of conservatives looking "with disfavor on sexual harassment claims" as much as conservatives seeing the same playbook being placed on the table when it comes to black conservatives, and a lack of fair gamesmanship when it comes to those who accuse Democrats/left wingers. Heck, Politico's been hammering home these allegations with limited substantiation, but refused to touch allegations of sex and drugs levied by a crank toward Obama (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11164.html). To pretend there's no double standard being exercised doesn't pass the smell test, IMO.

For the record: I think the allegations about Cain probably have some merit. How much merit, how credible the claims, I don't know. I don't think it will matter, though, because I don't see how his campaign can counter it at this point.

Re: 2/2

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

I think the smell test works both ways. Republicans don't believe allegations against Republicans (sexual, financial, criminal, whatever) and Democrats don't believe allegations against Democrats, but each eagerly runs headlong into believing allegations against their opponent. The nature of politics, I guess.

[thies.livejournal.com]

Now, of course, there were liberals who played the same stupid game when Bill Clinton was accused

did you just compare sexual harassment to a consensual sexual relationship or did I read that wrong?

(frozen) (no subject)

[thies.livejournal.com]

So, I think Lithwick has a point in saying that conservatives generally look with disfavor on sexual harassment claims (unless, of course, Bill Clinton did it)

I guess you did. I think you went full retard there, son.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

From the Keep it Classy files of his PAC: Herman Cain Accuser Karen Kraushaar works for Obama and she’s ugly (http://hermancainpac.com/2011/11/herman-cain-accuser-karen-kraushaar-works-for-obama-and-she’s-ugly/)

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Ha, no more Hagen Daas Black Walnut.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

1. A consensual relationship (Bill Clinton) is not harassment.

2. Chris Wilson isn't a democrat.

"Republican political consultant Chris Wilson tells KTOK, an Oklahoma City radio station, that he personally witnessed Cain sexually harassing one of the two women who received settlements"

[404.livejournal.com]

A Paula Jones about that...

Republican strategist Mary Matalin

[essentialsaltes.livejournal.com]

"I’m not condoning harassment, and I don’t want to get these ridiculous emails – but we did go thru this period of this grievance industry (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/herman-cains-denial-was-powerful-but-scandal-not-over-gop-strategist-says/) for feminists who want to be offended find a way to be offended."

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Cain is a horrible candidate, so I don't really care how he loses.

As for the topic of sexual harassment, it's always tricky and pretty much subjective, which is a large part of the problem. Legal measures won't fix it really, people (both men and women) have to be raised to be respectful to others, and to understand context. A joke that's fine telling your friends while playing poker at your house might not be fine telling to a coworker at the office. Also, people should understand that work is not a pick-up joint.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

it is not ALWAYS tricky and subjective- for instance this case. If the allegations are true, it's fairly cut and dry.

[prog-expat.livejournal.com]

To be fair, a large part of the backlash and victim-blaming and denial that sexual harassment and assault even exist has nothing to do with IOKIYAR, it has to do with male entitlement syndrome (http://scans-daily.dreamwidth.org/2497573.html). Cain's apologists and the larger Republican community are just milking it for all it's worth.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

BTW, your icon is harassing me.

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

:( Why don't you like my truck? It's such a big, friendly truck. Do you hate the American motor industry!?