[ad_1]
The act of Anita Hill is aging. The actual victims of rape and sexual assault should reject his attempts to recover from their pain.
In an editorial for the New York Times, Hill said his 1991 Senate testimony against Clarence Thomas, a Supreme Court candidate at the time, could have been the beginning of the #MeToo movement. If only, she said, the Judicial Committee of the Senate, chaired at the time by Joe Biden, D-Del., "Had done its job and held a hearing showing that its members understood the seriousness of the sexual harassment and other forms of sexual violence. "
This is where the disc is scratched. If Hill wants to proclaim herself the true founder of #MeToo, it's between her and the movement. But she should never try to redefine the term "violence" to include unwanted conversations, something she has always blamed on Thomas for doing.
#MeToo began with the shocking rejection of Harvey Weinstein, the hoggish film mogul who was heard on the tape, confessing to sexually assaulting a model by grabbing her breasts. Other claims against Weinstein were that he would invite unsuspecting women into his hotel room to watch him take a shower or give him a massage, and that he would hang film opportunities over their head for that they accept his sexual advances.
Hill, on the other hand, alleged that Thomas had described to him a pornographic film that he had seen and she stated that he had already made a comment on pubic hair. She never testified that he put her finger on it.
[[[[Read also: Jill Biden: "Look at the good" that resulted from the controversy of Anita Hill]
Hill's testimony also contained many problems – inconsistencies, contradictions and friendly phone calls she had initiated with Thomas. But even if you assume that everything she said is correct, nothing that Thomas is accused of could have been rationally described as "violence."
Hill has also become a revisionist. In her editorial, she wrote, "The world really began to understand the prevalence of sexual abuse until 2017 when millions of survivors who became the #MeToo movement demolished the myth that sexual violence was insignificant." .
The power of the # MeToo movement was not such that no one had previously considered "sexual violence" as unimportant. Thus powerful men, including great Democratic donors like Weinstein, could finally be exposed and held responsible for their reprehensible conduct.
Hill wrote that the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, accused of sexual assault dating back to the time when he was in high school, meant that "a new generation was forced to conclude that the policy took precedence over the abuse would be taken seriously. "
The Kavanaugh hearing was a bit of a setback for victims of sexual abuse only because of the ridiculous nature of his claims, which included allegations that he was involved in a gang rape and – sit down for this one – got drunk in the teens. The fact that these unsubstantiated claims were taken into account reflects the seriousness with which sexual abuse claims are considered.
The real lesson from the Kavanaugh episode is that the accused are entitled to due process and a presumption of innocence, which Hill certainly understands, at least in theory, as a law professor.
"Survivors and their supporters need recognition and justice," Hill wrote. But she does not speak of "justice". The idea that "sexual violence" means everything you want to say, and that no accuser should be scrutinized, is not true justice. It is social justice, a fraudulent justice that requires reorganizing the traditions of fairness and the right to a fair trial, so that whoever claims to have been wronged has the absolute power to dismantle his supposed oppressor.
Hill appropriates #MeToo and the anxiety of the victims of rape and sexual assault for political purposes. For some reason, she is still angry with Biden, and her campaign to get hit on a kneecap is a way to promote social justice. She should not escape, and the real victims of sexual violence should stop her.
[ad_2]
Source link