Nineteen years ago, the Thomas Clarence Supreme Court confirmation hearings put the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace on the national scene in a way nothing before or since has done. When Anita Hill testified about Thomas’ alleged actions, which included forcing her to look at porn, describing his sexual escapades, and of course the pubic hair on the coke can.
Thomas’ alleged actions repulsed many Americans. While there may have been doubt in some people’s mind in the classic he said/she said battle, it seemed (or at least to my young mind) rather universal that no one should have to put up with these behaviors in the workplace. This was actually a sea change. Not under the microscope, and not put together in a collective pattern of behavior, these behaviors were previously just seen as part of the workplace and if women want to join the workplace, they just need to put up with it, or get back in the domestic kitchen.
The case of Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas was particularly interesting because of the race component (this is said of course recognizing that race always exists, so specifically that this was a case between two black individuals). Thomas claimed that Hill’s actions were an attempt to put an uppity black man in his place. Ignoring the fact that Hill is also black. He literally referred to it as a lynching. This is perhaps one of the most public displays of the conflict of multiple identities. Many theorists discuss the problem of multiple identities. That women of color are somehow not real women, and not real [insert racial identity here]. This means Thomas can make claims of lynching against a black woman, because in this moment he is making allegations against a woman. The imagery this brings to mind, the number of black men who were unfairly, through legal or extra-legal means, punished for perceived slights, advances, etc., against white women, are adequately evoked.
Black men were lynched and black women were often the subject of sexual subjugation, and in the case of the Thomas confirmation hearings, these issues were hitting the stage in a whole new way.
Recently this issue has resurfaced as a topic of interest as Thomas’ wife called and Left Hill a voicemail asking her to apologize. This was probably a brilliant strategy on her part, as she is getting incredible recognition and she has recently joined the Tea Party movement as a leader. The Tea Party moving, being an radical organization, like a vast majority of radical organizations, seems to view women as inferior to men, so bringing up this issue, asking her to apologize, sends a broad message that the Tea Party movement thinks that women should just accept this behavior if they choose to enter the workplace. What is sad, is that groups with these kind of extremist views get traction, more traction than they otherwise would get, when the economy is down. We romanticize the past, looking at it from the viewpoint of the most advantaged and seem to think that that experience was universal, and when we do this, too many conservatives and radicals come to the conclusion that what is wrong with the world/U.S. isn’t the incredible inequality, the shrinking of the middle class, poverty, sexism, violence, etc., no the problem with society is feminism and women need to stay home (unless of course your poor or a woman of color, and then you can keep on being engaged in the workforce, because that history doesn’t count).
Here’s to hoping that maybe we can also have a discussion on the persistence of sexual harassment. To have more discussions on the national stage about what kind of behavior is appropriate at the workplace, and again send a message that when people don’t feel safe at work, it’s not just all in good fun. It’s only a fun workplace everyone is safe.
