#MeToo is Viewed Favorably

[Mister D]

I have tried lots of rape cases. I know how complicated these issues are. And I have a good feel for real v fake allegations.

Some people, presumably many feminists, are naive enough to believe such accusations are genuine. Because why would a woman make a false claim? How do you even respond to that?

[Peter1469]

Some people, presumably many feminists, are naive enough to believe such accusations are genuine. Because why would a woman make a false claim? How do you even respond to that?

As I said above, in these high level cases I think it is a political hit job.

I had a case where an Army female wanted to join a racist gang and to do so she had to get a black guy in trouble. She was not the brightest bulb- she decided to sleep with a black Soldier and then reported it as a rape. The story is much longer but you get the point.

[Mister D]

As I said above, in these high level cases I think it is a political hit job.

I had a case where an Army female wanted to join a racist gang and to do so she had to get a black guy in trouble. She was not the brightest bulb- she decided to sleep with a black Soldier and then reported it as a rape. The story is much longer but you get the point.

One would at least have to consider the possibility that it's a hit job but this isn't only about high profile men. People lie for all sorts of reasons. Only a complete fool would believe an accusation simply out of principle.

[IMPress Polly]

Peter wrote:
Her allegations were ridiculous. Forget everything else- what she said he did was simply unbelievable.

The subsequent election results, which won for the year 1992 the label Year of the Woman, strongly suggest that most Americans disagreed with your assessment of that case.

I have tried lots of rape cases. I know how complicated these issues are. And I have a good feel for real v fake allegations.

I can do you two better: 1) I am female, and 2) I've been on the receiving end of rape a considerable number of times before. If any of us contributing to this thread can offer a credible "smell test" of these cases, I believe one would logically think it me. In any event though, I hardly think that "the smell test" is a worthy answer to the statistics highlighted in the OP anyway.

Standing Wolf wrote:
Moral monsters like Weinstein appear on the same lists, and are spoken of in the same breath, as guys who told a couple of dirty jokes in the wrong company and touched a woman's back once...

Really? Name one example of someone losing their job to this movement over "dirty jokes".

Me Too is about addressing real exploitation and abuse, not coarse language. Every allegation of sexual harassment that I have seen emerge in attachment to this hashtag has involved things like the boss commanding a woman to get on the desk and spread her legs or masturbating in front of a group of female employees or demanding sex on pain of unemployment or jumping in the shower behind a subordinate without their consent or actual groping...or yes, rape, either competed or attempted. This sort of thing. The MRA myth that men are being fired over tasteless jokes made around the water cooler or for complimenting a co-worker's dress is exactly that: a myth. A paranoid superstition fabricated on the Internet. It is not happening.

Let me relay a personal experience in this connection. There is a young Jamaican-American cashier who works at a local grocery store that I go to whom I've noticed compliments every single woman who goes through his line on their appearance. He uses the exact same line every time, for every woman: "I just want to say that you look very beautiful today, ma'am", as though none of the rest of us in line noticed the pattern when he got to us. He's been doing that for a good two years now. You know how many women have complained about it so far? None that I'm aware of. Most of us chuckle, finding it kind of cute and charming. You make it sound like the women of America feel thereby demeaned and are thus after his job. Get real. That's NOT what Me Too is about and you know it.

One wonders: Is the type of behavior that I've just described...okay with you or something?

[Peter1469]

The subsequent election results, which won for the year 1992 the label Year of the Woman, strongly suggest that most Americans disagreed with your assessment of that case.

I don't think the Thomas matter had anything to do the results of the elections. The election turned in the perceived negative economy and Bush the Elder's read my lips gaff.

[IMPress Polly]

Peter wrote:
I don't think the Thomas matter had anything to do the results of the elections. The election turned in the perceived negative economy and Bush the Elder's read my lips gaff.

The number of women elected to the U.S. Senate multiplied from 2 to 10 in the year 1992, marking an epic breakthrough year for women in the area of representation in government. No other single election cycle in this country has witnessed an even remotely comparable increase in female representation either before or since (although I think we may be headed for another such year here in 2018 actually, to judge by the fact that there are several times as many female candidates on the ballot as there have ever been before in American history this year). That is why 1992 earned for itself the label Year of the Woman. There is no question that that gender dynamic was the direct result, at least in part, of Anita Hill's show trial and the resultant public perception that things like that outrageous public humiliation might be less likely to happen if there were more women in the government.

That show trial is among the various reasons why I will never vote to make Joe Biden president, incidentally.

[Peter1469]

The number of women elected to the U.S. Senate multiplied from 2 to 10 in the year 1992, marking an epic breakthrough year for women in the area of representation in government. No other single election cycle in this country has witnessed an even remotely comparable increase in female representation either before or since (although I think we may be headed for another such year here in 2018 actually, to judge by the fact that there are several times as many female candidates on the ballot as there have ever been before in American history this year). That is why 1992 earned for itself the label Year of the Woman. There is no question that that gender dynamic was the direct result, at least in part, of Anita Hill's show trial and the resultant public perception that things like that outrageous public humiliation might be less likely to happen if there were more women in the government.

That show trial is among the various reasons why I will never vote to make Joe Biden president, incidentally.

I don't know, I think it is a stretch.

[IMPress Polly]

Peter wrote:
I don't know, I think it is a stretch.

It's widely regarded as having been a major factor; in fact, the instigating one.

[Peter1469]

It's widely regarded as having been a major factor; in fact, the instigating one.

I wonder when this conclusion was made? Immediately? Or later by academics studying the election cycle. I paid pretty close attention to the elections, and I didn't get that vibe. I had the feeling it was just a sweep for democrats - and the democrats who ran where groomed and chosen by the party bosses likely long before the Hill issue.

[IMPress Polly]

Peter wrote:
I wonder when this conclusion was made? Immediately? Or later by academics studying the election cycle. I paid pretty close attention to the elections, and I didn't get that vibe. I had the feeling it was just a sweep for democrats - and the democrats who ran where groomed and chosen by the party bosses likely long before the Hill issue.

Having been 7 and 8 years old during that time frame myself and obviously not very politically literate or attentive to current events at that age, I couldn't tell you one way or the other on that from first-hand experience. The first time I heard about that particular trial was in 2005 via a women's studies class that I was taking in college, and it was portrayed as I've described therein. However, I did watch family entertainment back in those days and still have my copies of such shows from that time frame and, knowing what I know now about that case, I can, in retrospect, see that certain episodes of popular family shows in circulation back then (like Dinosaurs, for example) were definitely referencing the Anita Hill show trial specifically in what for adult viewers would have been very unsubtle and disparaging ways. I have to suspect that there may have been some significant relationship between those portrayals and public opinion, as indicated by the subsequent election results.

In the women's movement, the Anita Hill trial is regarded as having marked the beginning of the "third wave" of feminist activism. (I don't consider myself personally to be a subscriber to so-called third wave philosophy, but my point is that it was an important moment in the history of the movement that brought about, among other things, a certain uptick in support for the movement.)