Ginny Thomas - WTF was she thinking?

[Huckleman2000]

So, last weekend Anita Hill received a very strange call on her voicemail at her office:

“Good morning, Anita Hill, it's Ginny Thomas,” said the voice. “I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband. So give it some thought and certainly pray about this and come to understand why you did what you did. OK, have a good day.”

You may recall Anita Hill was subpoenaed to testify at Clarence Thomas' confirmation hearings about incidents of sexual harassment that occurred during her time working for Clarence Thomas at the EEOC. Whether you believe her or not... Wow.

This is what she released in a statement, which makes it seem even more bizarre:

Mark Matthews of our affiliate KGO learned about this and reached out to Virginia Thomas.

Thomas e-mailed him, saying: “I did place a call to Ms. Hill at her office extending an olive branch to her after all these years, in hopes that we could ultimately get past what happened so long ago. That offer still stands, I would be very happy to meet and talk with her if she would be willing to do the same. Certainly no offense was ever intended.”

Okay, imaginative writers of intriguing interpersonal relationships of a sexual nature: What. The. Fuck. was this woman thinking?

 

[sr71plt]

She's probably not the sharpest knife in the drawer to still be married to him anyway. She should have enjoyed the perks of his job and kept her mouth shut (and bought Pepsi for the house rather than Coke).

 

[jomar]

I thought maybe she'd been drinking or something.

 

[MatthewJudeBrown]

Y'know, even if Anita Hill's accusations back then were 100% fabrication -- something I personally don't buy -- I can't see any way in which this might be a good idea. Especially done like that.

Which leaves craziness or doing this as some kind of political stunt. I'm not sure how the latter would benefit anyone, either, but perhaps they think it would.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I did not follow the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, but I did read or hear about Anita Hill while they were going on or immediately after. I understand she had a twenty year or so working relationship with him, including taking a lateral transfer to stay with him.

That being the case, I can't help thinking she was not very traumatized by the remarks he was alleged to have made to her. She also said she made no complaint to him or anybody else at the time. I certainly don't believe a couple of offhand comments, one about Long Dong Silver and a reference to Senor Gardon Hose over a twenty year period would rise or fall to the point of being sexual harrassment.

He was asked about the comments, and said he did not remember them. This seems reasonable; how many people would remember an offhand comment made to a coworker five or ten years ago?

 

[colddiesel]

I did not follow the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, but I did read or hear about Anita Hill while they were going on or immediately after. I understand she had a twenty year or so working relationship with him, including taking a lateral transfer to stay with him.

That being the case, I can't help thinking she was not very traumatized by the remarks he was alleged to have made to her. She also said she made no complaint to him or anybody else at the time. I certainly don't believe a couple of offhand comments, one about Long Dong Silver and a reference to Senor Gardon Hose over a twenty year period would rise or fall to the point of being sexual harrassment.

He was asked about the comments, and said he did not remember them. This seems reasonable; how many people would remember an offhand comment made to a coworker five or ten years ago?

Just a thought Box but it may not be wise to judge a Supreme Court Justice with the same standards applicable to a person of your intellect.

 

[Liar]

I thought maybe she'd been drinking or something.

Yah, me too. it was just a wee bit too weird.

But entertaining. I love it when the high and mighty do crazy things for no apparent reason. it makes me feel all the saner.

 

[3113]

I love it when the high and mighty do crazy things for no apparent reason. it makes me feel all the saner.

Can she be considered high and mighty? I mean, it was her husband that was confirmed for that seat. We don't even accord the spouses of Supreme Court Justices the same respect of official host/hostess that we would a First Lady.

 

[3113]

Okay, imaginative writers of intriguing interpersonal relationships of a sexual nature: What. The. Fuck. was this woman thinking?

This one does take all our writerly understanding of human nature to unravel. First, I don't think either of the Thomases can let anything go, not that this would be easy for any of us to let go. At the moment when Clarence there was supposed to get his due, accolades, laurels, respect, the greatest moment of his life, this woman made him a joke.

She's the eternal fly in the ointment. Ginny there likely feels she and her husband will never get to really enjoy their lives until Anita has come clean and exonerated him.

Second, Ginny there is now a big wig in the Tea Party movement. When we join movements we usually feel empowered by them and often act like we're drunk (which she may also have been). Kinda like when someone joins a self-help movement and, after graduating from the first stage of the program, goes around telling everyone--friends, strangers, relatives--how they ought to change their lives whether they ask for advice or not. It's also possible that she bitched about this old wound to new friends and got urged or egged on to do this.

There was a recent, interesting (if not surprising) article on revenge that I think applies here. We humans can dream for years about revenge but we rarely get the opportunity to enact it. I think Ginny has been dreaming for years of doing this, was finally given the opportunity by her new status, and took it.

However she tried to excuse it, this is hardly an "olive branch." It's a church lady saying that she will graciously absolve the sinner if the sinner confesses. Which is all fine and good...if she's right in her assumption and can prove it. If she can't then she just brings back the whole controversy and joke. You make such a phone call if you think you need to, but you'd better consider what the consequences before you do it. As Ginny didn't, I'd say she's not too bright, and is riding a wave of empowerment that, likely, isn't going to buoy her for long.

Or she was drunk.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Yeah, this could be the worst drunk-dial ever. (One of the worst, anyway...) But 7:30 on a Saturday morning? She couldn't have just gotten up and had a few morning bumps - this must've been an all-nighter. Which raises a whole lot of other questions, like, did she find lipstick on Clarence's collar? Or porn on his browser?

Could be another drug - Ambien makes people do weird things besides going to sleep.

You're right, though. This is an olive branch poke in the eye - really passive-aggressive. But it fits with her victim-fantasy Tea Party views. She rails against "Washington elites" when her husband has a lifetime appointment to a position where he wields enormous power, answerable to no one.

This "happy marriage" may be happy, but it also seems like it could be sort of a mutually enabling fantasy where grudges are lifelong and fueled by bitter resentment.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Ginni Hill was a powerful conservative lobbyist before she married Clarence in 1987 (he was nominated to the SCOTUS in '91) and she now runs a pro-Tea party conservative advocacy group called Liberty Council. Runs it, not just belongs to it.

No wife of a SCOTUS Justice has ever been so deeply involved in a partisan political group, and Liberty Council has accepted private donations that range form $50,000 to $500,000. Having a wife who accepts donations in this amount for a political organization she controls should raise red flags about her husband's impartiality wherever it occurs, let alone the Supreme Court.

 

[MatthewJudeBrown]

I'm increasingly thinking this must have been a political play, then -- probably aimed at the Tea Party kind of people, and not at the public at large. They want to rekindle the Conservative ire at what happened to Thomas back then, I guess, and bring up kind of a feeling of "long-term oppression and unfairness".

 

[Boxlicker101]

I'm increasingly thinking this must have been a political play, then -- probably aimed at the Tea Party kind of people, and not at the public at large. They want to rekindle the Conservative ire at what happened to Thomas back then, I guess, and bring up kind of a feeling of "long-term oppression and unfairness".

It could be something like that, or it could be that Virginia Thomas has been stewing for 19 years over "That neurotic bitch who tried to derail my husband's appointment and almost succeeded," and decided one day to get Anita Hill to fess up and admit she made the whole thing up.

I don't know if she did or not, but I can't help but think she can not have been too distressed about the alleged comments. She continued to work with Thomas and made no official complaint and followed him to a new assignment. Any comment she might have found offensive probably would have been in casual banter among coworkers, and would probabably not have been remembered ten years after it happened. Yes, CD, unless Thomas has an photographic or phonographic memory, he would not have remembered a casual conversation ten years after it happened.

 

[Huckleman2000]

It could be something like that, or it could be that Virginia Thomas has been stewing for 19 years over "That neurotic bitch who tried to derail my husband's appointment and almost succeeded," and decided one day to get Anita Hill to fess up and admit she made the whole thing up.

Yeah, that could be it. But, wouldn't that be sort of, I don't know... childishly vindictive? Did she really think that Hill would suddenly say, "Oops. My bad. Sorry."?

I don't know if she did or not, but I can't help but think she can not have been too distressed about the alleged comments. She continued to work with Thomas and made no official complaint and followed him to a new assignment. Any comment she might have found offensive probably would have been in casual banter among coworkers, and would probabably not have been remembered ten years after it happened. Yes, CD, unless Thomas has an photographic or phonographic memory, he would not have remembered a casual conversation ten years after it happened.

No-one else in the thread has taken the opportunity to re-hash Anita Hill's testimony, Box, and I have to surmise that most of us who care have long ago settled ourselves with having Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court. No one was talking about this at all, even when Ginni Thomas started raising lots of money for her Tea Party group. That's what makes it so strange.

Although, this should have been a predictable, if unintended, consequence of dredging the whole thing up.

Lillian McEwen was that woman. [...]
To McEwen, Hill's allegations that Thomas had pressed her for dates and made lurid sexual references rang familiar.

"He was always actively watching the women he worked with to see if they could be potential partners," McEwen said matter-of-factly. "It was a hobby of his." [...]
Given that history, she said Hill's long-ago description of Thomas's behavior resonated with her.

"He was obsessed with porn," she said of Thomas, who is now 63. "He would talk about what he had seen in magazines and films, if there was something worth noting."

McEwen added that she had no problem with Thomas's interests, although she found pornography to be "boring."

According to McEwen, Thomas would also tell her about women he encountered at work. He was partial to women with large breasts, she said. In an instance at work, Thomas was so impressed that he asked one woman her bra size, McEwen recalled him telling her.

 

[Huckleman2000]

So, this is getting pretty juicy.

Where would this story belong? Interracial Love? Loving Wives? Celebrities? Mind-Control? Non-Erotic? (hehe.)

 

[Boxlicker101]

So, this is getting pretty juicy.

Where would this story belong? Interracial Love? Loving Wives? Celebrities? Mind-Control? Non-Erotic? (hehe.)

It would have to go into Celebrities, so the disclaimer could be added. Otherwise, Non Consent/Reluctance.

 

[Pure]

i think the mystery is dissolving rapidly. mcewen's stuff was already in the pipeline.

gini thomas hoped that with an apology from Hill, they could discredit the new accuser.

now the effect will be opposite!

 

[SlickTony]

I understand she had a twenty year or so working relationship with him, including taking a lateral transfer to stay with him.

Yeah, so? Lots of people stick with a boss, even if he acts weird, for the sake of the career opportunities and stuff like that...but in most cases, they don't find themselves looking around and saying, "Whoa! This guy might end up on the Supreme Court, and turning out decisions that will have an impact on me and other women for decades to come!"

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Well, whatever Ginni was thinking, her behavior was classic Christian Right: anything is allowed as long as the offender apologizes and recognizes the wrongness of his or her behavior. The important thing is to endorse the Values, not necessarily live up to them.

 

[Dragonlipz]

It could be something like that, or it could be that Virginia Thomas has been stewing for 19 years over "That neurotic bitch who tried to derail my husband's appointment and almost succeeded," and decided one day to get Anita Hill to fess up and admit she made the whole thing up.

I don't know if she did or not, but I can't help but think she can not have been too distressed about the alleged comments. She continued to work with Thomas and made no official complaint and followed him to a new assignment. Any comment she might have found offensive probably would have been in casual banter among coworkers, and would probabably not have been remembered ten years after it happened. Yes, CD, unless Thomas has an photographic or phonographic memory, he would not have remembered a casual conversation ten years after it happened.

BX101 - you sound rather vexed that you didn't get the same opportunity to suck his black dick.....are ya feelin' it now? Are ya wantin' to get jiggy wit it? Does the musky scent of his cock make you crazy?.........Do ya? Are ya? WouldJa?

 

[MatthewJudeBrown]

That seems a little unnecessary, Dragonlipz.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker 101
I understand she had a twenty year or so working relationship with him, including taking a lateral transfer to stay with him.

Yeah, so? Lots of people stick with a boss, even if he acts weird, for the sake of the career opportunities and stuff like that...but in most cases, they don't find themselves looking around and saying, "Whoa! This guy might end up on the Supreme Court, and turning out decisions that will have an impact on me and other women for decades to come!"

First, I was mistaken in the length of their relationship. It was only about ten years, and only a couple of them were working together.

Second, if she was seriously discomfitted by the alleged sexual harassment, she would have transferred and made a formal complaint. She didn't do any of these things, even though it would have been easy for her. As a black female attorney, she could have worked for any federal agency she wanted to at that time.

To constitute sexual harassment, an action has to harass. If it doesn't harrass, it isn't harassment. If Thomas said and did the things Hill claimed he said and did, which are still unproven, it couldn't have harassed her very much.

From time to time, somebody on this forum points out that an accused is innocent until proven guilty. I agree with that attitude, and I think everybody does, or did. Why, then, are some people commenting contrary to the concept?

 

[Boxlicker101]

BX101 - you sound rather vexed that you didn't get the same opportunity to suck his black dick.....are ya feelin' it now? Are ya wantin' to get jiggy wit it? Does the musky scent of his cock make you crazy?.........Do ya? Are ya? WouldJa?

Oh, wow, nothing like getting gratuitiously personal, is there?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker 101
I understand she had a twenty year or so working relationship with him, including taking a lateral transfer to stay with him.




First, I was mistaken in the length of their relationship. It was only about ten years, and only a couple of them were working together.

Second, if she was seriously discomfitted by the alleged sexual harassment, she would have transferred and made a formal complaint. She didn't do any of these things, even though it would have been easy for her. As a black female attorney, she could have worked for any federal agency she wanted to at that time.

To constitute sexual harassment, an action has to harass. If it doesn't harrass, it isn't harassment. If Thomas said and did the things Hill claimed he said and did, which are still unproven, it couldn't have harassed her very much.

From time to time, somebody on this forum points out that an accused is innocent until proven guilty. I agree with that attitude, and I think everybody does, or did. Why, then, are some people commenting contrary to the concept?

She passed a lie detector test. basically, her claims were proven correct, but Thomas was appointed anyway.

So yeah, he was proven guilty, but of nothing, in the eyes of the old white men who made the decision, that was very important.
Women, back in those times, were not encouraged to talk about being harrassed. We were expected to just suck it up because" that's what men are like. " That she eventually decided to speak up was an act of great courage.

Posted by Devona Walker at 3:32 pm
October 20, 2010

What Anita Hill means to professional women

The Anita Hill case was a turning point for American women, who have endured sexual harassment and gender bias on the job. Even though they dragged her name through the mud, she was unflappable on the stand and gave women everywhere in the U.S. courage to stand up and say “enough is enough.” Subsequent to her testimony the U.S. Supreme Court made employers more liable for sexual harassment in 1998. The Society for Human Resource Management has reported that 62 percent of companies now offer sexual harassment prevention training programs, and 97 percent have a written sexual harassment policy.

For those of us who knew Anita Hill told the truth, the appointment of Clarence Thomas was a defeat, a slap in the face.

But because she had the courage to speak out there were long-term consequences. There soon was national awareness about sexual harassment in the workplace. Between 1991 and 1996, awards to victims of sexual harassment under federal laws nearly quadrupled, from $7.7 million to $27.8 million.

Another repercussion was that women started getting involved in politics. The following year, in fact, the media heralded the 1992 election as the “Year of the Woman.” A record number of women ran for public office and won. In the U.S. Senate, eleven women ran and five won seats. In the House of Representatives, twenty-four women won new seats. Why? Because women across the country realized that the only reason her grievances were not taken seriously is because she was being judged by a Congress, not an electorate, who was 98 percent male at the time.

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy...minds-women-we-should-be-thanking-anita-hill/

 

[MatthewJudeBrown]

Lie detectors are not foolproof, which is why they are not admissible as evidence in court. All that they measure is how much stress answering the question gives the subject.

Still, there are plenty of reasons people don't report harassment. And plenty of reason to not report a boss but to feel that such a person would be unfit to serve on the Supreme Court.