In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Mommy Wars: The Video

Linda Hirshman and Leslie Morgan Steiner on the Riz Khan show:

I haven’t watched a whole ton of Al Jazeera, and my views on it are largely colored by conservative American talking about points about it — that it’s a network of terrorist apologists (and promoters), that it’s biased anti-Western journalism, etc etc. And, as it is only a television network and our own television networks are biased against the “East” and the global south, I’m sure there’s a degree of fairness in some of the criticisms. But I found this show to be particularly impressive, and a world away from the shouting-match-style political “debate” that we see on American TV (as Jon Stewart so beautifully put it on Crossfire).

There’s lots of good commentary to be had on about this video, so check it out.

“Men seldom make passes at women who wear glasses”

I’m back! I found an article a few days ago that I felt compelled to write about. Warning: I’m writing this in a state of frenzy as I’ve got about a million disconnected (and connected) thoughts going through my head. So, if I digress…forgive and forget. K? Cool.

So, the LA Times has an article out on the single (and happy!) woman in Egypt. How appropriate. The article is essentially about the burgeoning population of single, career women in Cairo, and their waning desires to get married all young and stuff and start having babies (not that there is anything wrong with that). The article addresses the social pressures (which are present in the States as well, but I think, not as prevalent) of getting married at a young age and foregoing a career in exchange for a stable, dependent husband. As if the two are mutually exclusive.

The whole idea of beauty and intelligence being two mutually exclusive attributes really bothers me. It actually really annoys the hell out of me. I had the unfortunate experience of dating a huge misogynist not too long ago, and he pretty much fit right into Parker’s quote. The reasons he broke up with me? There were a few…let me break them down…(yes, they are that good):

1) I never cooked him dinner. Ever. Whoops. Homeboy wanted me to make him sandwiches and bring them to class for him as well. I’m a bad girlfriend.

2) I “studied more than he did, worked out more than he did, went out more than he did, drank more than he did.” Dating a frat boy probably wasn’t the best idea on my part.

3) when we walked down the street, and I was talking politics or feminism or…anything serious, even for a second…it made him “feel like he was walking down the street with a 45 year old woman” (what?!?)

and

4) he was afraid “I would correct him in front of his friends at the weekly kegger or frat party”

Right. Right. So…homeboy kept on asserting, the entire length of our relationship, that he loved the fact that I was smart and funny and also…”a hottie to boot!” (wow, what a compliment) but that…in social situations, I was never to “one up” him. On anything. Ever. Even if he accidentally mis-used a word. Or made a total ass out of himself. Which he did. Often. Without trying to figure out my deranged mental state while dating this character…the point is…that I always felt like I had to hide my motivation, my intelligence. I had to hide the fact that I was opinionated and…that I was *gasp* a feminist! No! If he only knew I was guest-blogging for a feminist blog RIGHT NOW…I think he might pop a blood vessel.

I’m in no hurry to get married, and while I’m definitely open to the idea of marriage, I don’t feel as inclined towards meeting the man of my dreams and popping out lots of babies. My older sister, on the other hand, is the complete opposite. She’s a 27 year old, Harvard and Johns Hopkins educated pediatrician, and has definitely cried to me on the phone about her plight as the “old maid” who just wants her boyfriend to propose. She’s 27. We’re different, if you couldn’t tell. My parents have pretty much caught on (they are smart!!) that I’m not necessarily jumping up and down about the thought of getting married and I am constantly sending hints to my mother (via emails) trying to telling her that feminism, human rights, women’s rights, all of it…well, it’s not just a hobby.

Read More…Read More…

Working Girl

c-qsilver.jpg

Newsflash: Women can’t win in the workplace.

Don’t get angry. But do take charge. Be nice. But not too nice. Speak up. But don’t seem like you talk too much. Never, ever dress sexy. Make sure to inspire your colleagues — unless you work in Norway, in which case, focus on delegating instead.

Writing about life and work means receiving a steady stream of research on how women in the workplace are viewed differently from men. These are academic and professional studies, not whimsical online polls, and each time I read one I feel deflated. What are women supposed to do with this information? Transform overnight? And if so, into what? How are we supposed to be assertive, but not, at the same time?

Good question.

Read More…Read More…

FYI

Since I have been laid off, this is my last day at my current job. I’m leaving on good terms, despite having a psycho bully as one boss; the other, a much nicer fellow, just took me out for a last lunch and will give me a reference.

I’ve got two tentative gigs lined up, starting next week; they both involve hours and internet-access situations that will be incompatible with blogging for the time being. So, if I do get one of those, expect to see more guest-bloggers in this space.

Or, they could *both* fall through, and I’ll just be unemployed. Stay tuned!

Those gossipy female prison guards

Give me a moment to pick my jaw up off the floor.

Okay, ready now. The State of New York’s Department of Correctional Services has, as the result of a lawsuit, stopped distributing a handbook to its female employees that made it very, very clear that the powers that be weren’t very happy about women working their turf:

The state Department of Correctional Services is no longer distributing or using a handbook that told its female officers to not gossip at work, be too bossy at home or swear to “be one of the boys.”

That handbook, which had been given to officers who graduated from the training academy for more than 20 years, was featured recently in an article in The Post-Standard.

Women were encouraged to play tennis or eat ice cream on their days off to relieve stress and to not dress for work as if they were going to a nightclub or beach.

Department officials had been reviewing policies, as well as the handbook, in recent months. In light of publicity about the handbook, “Whatever speed it was being done at before is being sped up,” said Erik Kriss, public information director for the department.

“We decided to update or possibly discontinue it, but in the meantime decided the best thing to do is not use it for the moment,” Kriss said of the handbook.

No such handbook exists for male officers, who outnumber female officers by about 10 to 1.

The book had sections on catcalls and wolf whistles, discouraged women from being flirtatious on the job and encouraged them to seek out other women’s advice in child-rearing.

The best thing to do is not to use it “for the moment”?

How about, it was a stupid thing to distribute in the first place!

The department claims that it received only one complaint about the handbook, and that only recently (a claim disputed by the plaintiff in a sex-discrimination suit, who submitted the handbook as evidence of disparate treatment). Corrections departments are not the most forward-thinking of places, but you’d think that someone, somehow, in 20 years, might have cottoned to the idea that telling your female employees — and only your female employees — that they’re untrustworthy, gossipy airheads who can’t be trusted to put on a standard uniform and need to be told to eat ice cream and ask other women for child-rearing advice just might be a wee bit sexist.

Via.

A Worker’s Memorial

People, I’ll be driving up I-55 again (the story of my life) to attend a family wedding (and a birthday party for two family members after the reception!), so I’ll be MIA for the rest of today. I trust that our fabulous moderators will continue to monitor my posts in my absence. Since I don’t have time to concoct an original post for today, I’m going to post a speech I gave for the April 2006 Workers ‘ Memorial in Illinois. Hope you like it. It’s the only formal speech I have ever written/given.

*****

First, it is an honor to come before my brothers and sisters in the Labor movement and speak a few words; I was asked to represent the area Building and Construction Trades Council this year, and I hope the words I give you today are worthy of that request. (*Bunch of personal identifying information omitted). You will hear the name of (my local) several times during our solemn ceremony in honor of our brothers and sisters who were killed on the job; I hope that the words I speak today do justice to their memory, also.

I stand here today to represent the Building Trades. We like to think of ourselves as the people who build America! You can see the products of our work daily; our work changes your landscapes, your lives. But we are not often seen—not directly. We are the folks you drive by, past the construction sites, past the orange cones and the reminders to slow down; we are the people working in the bitter cold, sweltering heat, high winds and bad weather. In the mud, slop, snow, various on-the-job dusts free for the breathing. We are the people you drive by and think, “Damn! I’m sure glad I’m not doing that!” Strangely enough, for the visibility of our projects, we remain invisible. And that invisibility is not limited to the building trades; it permeates our labor movement as a whole.

There are no current representations of us in the mainstream media. We have long since fallen out of favor as subjects of photographs or other works of art. There are no interviews, roundtables or summits disseminated in the news media featuring the knowledge and opinions of our leaders, let alone that of the rank and file. Newspapers have long since eliminated their “labor beats.” There are no holidays in honor of our national heroes of labor; no day off for Mary Harris “Mother” Jones, Asa Philip Randolph, Cesar Chavez. No chapters in our children’s schoolbooks that give recognition to our history, our struggles, our triumphs, or our defeats.

Making us faceless, makes us disposable.

Without our presence, media imagery of unions and union workers is distorted. This distortion serves to make our interests—and those of our unorganized brothers and sisters, unimportant. Whining, even. Aren’t we glad to just have a job?

Last year, 5,524 workers were killed on the job; almost all of them in easily preventable accidents. No doubt we will be reminded by pundits that workplace deaths were down this year. That is true. As our jobs have been outsourced, so have on-the-job deaths. But not all of them. Last year in Texas, an explosion at BP Amoco killed fifteen workers and injured 170. This particular accident gave me pause for the cause; many of those killed were tradespeople working for outside contractors—and I’ve been one of them, at a different refinery here in Illinois. Surprisingly, OSHA fined BP Amoco $21.3 million, the highest fine in OSHA history. Unsurprisingly, that fine represents two hours of BP profits. Just the cost of doing business. Not to pick on OSHA too much—since its inception in 1971, OSHA has bee responsible for cutting workplace fatalities by 60% and occupational illness and injuries by 40%. For that, OSHA itself has been subject to cuts.

During the Reagan administration—when else?—the OSHA staff was slashed from 3,015 in 1980, to 2,355 in 1984 (today, that staff is slightly over 2,200). One third of its field offices were closed, and inspection staff was reduced by 25%. There was a new sheriff in town, and his name was Thorne Auchter. He doggedly went about his master’s business, dismantling the work done during the Carter administration, when OSHA was an agency serious about its assigned task of protecting our nation’s workers. Auchter was known for unilaterally dismissing citations against employers, if he thought the inspectors had been too aggressive, too diligent in their work. He did his work well. So well, in fact, that in February of 2000, Auchter’s own son, Kevin, a culinary student working his way through school as a demolition laborer, was killed on the job when a 40- to 70-ton chunk of concrete fell several stories from a silo and crushed him to death. OSHA gave the contractor two citations, and fined them $14,000 for the lives of the two workers killed in that accident. Auchter sued the contractor and subcontractor on that job; the trial was scheduled to begin tomorrow. The case was settled out of court on Friday for $2.3 million.

When we think of workplace deaths, we tend to immediately flash on the well-known, large stories—like BP Amoco and the Sago mine tragedies. Perhaps we also think of the ones a little closer to our own home, like that of IBEW Brother Tyler Gardner, a young apprentice from Local 34 in Peoria, who was electrocuted, leaving behind his wife and baby. But seldom do we consider the cost of our jobs to our lifespan—what I like to call “death on the installment plan.” Building Trades workers are routinely resented for our high hourly wage. Yet it is not generally acknowledged that we trade that wage for the years of our lives. The average man in the Unted States lives to be 76; the average electrician can statistically shave off over a decade of those years. Exposure to hazardous substances on the job takes its toll in the form of cancers, lung disease, and other life-shortening chronic illness. The EPA require testing for fewer than 200 of the 62,000 chemicals in commercial use. Yet in a case involving a chemical accident or injury, the EPA can be your bst friend—laws regulating the environment are much stronger than laws ostensibly protecting workers on the job. In 2001, the Motiva Corporation was fined $175,000 when a tank of sulphuric acid exploded, killing worker Jeffery Davis. Last year, the Justice Department fined the company an additional $10 million—a penalty that could be imposed under existing enironmental laws. It seems that the resulting acid spill killed fish in a nearby stream. The moral of this story? If you’re a worker who’s going to die on the job, take some fish with you.**

OSHA has been increasingly reliant on “voluntary alliances” with corporations, in response to their own understaffing. Yet the General Accounting Office recommended against such “alliances”, as their own audit revealed that there was no evidence of these alliances reducing occupational health and safety problems. Last year, OSHA made a ruling on protecting workers from exposure to hexavalent chromium, a chemical known to produce lung disease, liver and kidney disease, disorders of th central nervous system, skin disorders and tumors—yet left hexachrome’s use in concrete out of that ruling when manufacturers balked at the cost of protective measures. Many of us here are familiar with the Formosa chemical explosion that took the lives of several area workers in 2004. That same year, the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazards Investigation Board recommended to OSHA that they add reactive chemicals to their Process Safety Standard in response to the 108 workplace deaths from reactive chemicals in preceding years. OSHA has yet to do this, preferring instead to form yet another “industry alliance” and post information on their website—information many workers never see.

But it is not just government agencies entrusted with protecting the lives and health of our workers that have abandoned their posts; last year, our very own AFL-CIO eliminated the Safety and Health division in a response to the “Change to Win” coalition,*** a group most noted for their mutinies with the AFL-CIO and Building Trades’ councils. This move is supposed to redirect more money and staff towards the task of organizing; to which many folks of my background, the ones most at risk (electrical workers have the seventh-highest rate of occupational deaths, ironworkers the fifth, roofers the sixth, and construction laborers in general the ninth) to respond, “What?! Organize and die?” This has not been our history. At the turn of the 20th century and beyond, workplace deaths and injuries were a strong galvanizing force for the union movement. They always have been. The forming of the IBEW itself in 1891 was largely a response to the high rate of on-the-job deaths for linemen—in some places, one out of every two. I would be remiss in my duties as a representative of Building Trades f I did not mention the incredible short-sightedness of this move. Many smaller unions were reliant on the research and database of the national AFL-CIO when it came to health and safety. Their own short budgets couldn’t support a department of that nature on their own. This is an important tool in our struggle that should not be abandoned. Workers are still eager to organize; many of them on this very issue.

Today, unions account for only 12.5% of workers in the United States, and only 7.9% of private sector workers. This is significantly down from the 1950s, when one third of U.S. workers were organized. I mentioned the lack of media imagery of union workers earlier. Yet, there are times when we are mentioned—when we’re portrayed as corrupt, as on the Sopranos, or as lazy, shiftless, perennial coffee-break takers. when labor issues are at stake, and we can’t bbe ignored, our leaders are shown as large, scowling, cigar-chomping brutes and called “labor bosses.” I highly recommend a book by William J. Puette, a teacher from Hawaii and himself a union member, entitled Through Jaundiced Eyes: How the Media View Organized Labor.**** I heard Brother Puette speak on this subject at an IBEW conference I attended, and one of the stories he told involved his own Local’s negotiations with their school board. The President of his Local was often referred to in area newspapers as the “union boss” and her tough-talking, hard-nosed attitude revealed in the most creative writing the paper had to offer. The problem was, her five-foot, ninety-pound physique and soft-spoken voice did not easily lend itself to the image being created for her. No problem—the papers didn’t print her picture, and the television showed images of her larger, more “tough” looking membership, neglecting to run clips of her actual speech. Brother Puette also mentioned how these “labor bosses” are presented in the newspaper—with their ages following their names, as if in Police Beat instead of the Marketplace section. Rank and file union workers are almost never represented in the mainstream media, except in the funny papers, as the butt of jokes in comic strips. This has been going on for so long, it no longer registers as a calculated move; bias against union workers is largely unconscious. Sometimes it even affects ourselves. White workers would do well to pay attention to the critiques raised by people of color concerning media bias and lack of representation in the media, and how this affects the public consciousness. This is every worker’s issue. It affects the creation and administration of public policy. It impacts our lives and our health.

It is especially impacting the lives and health of Latin@ workers. While workplace deaths have decreased slightly in recent years for workers in general, they have dramatically increased for Latin@s. A recent newspaper article quoted a Denver, Colorado nonunion contractor who boldly told a reporter that he only has to pay his undocumented workers $10-$12 an hour, whereas he would have to pay $35 an hour (which he stated included worker’s compensation to U.S. workers. and he felt quite comfortable having this in print!***** He appealed to the economic interests of U.S. homeowners, by asking if they’d like to pay another $20,000 on a $200,000 house. Back in the day, we had songs in the labor movement like “Which Side Are You On”, sayings like “An Injury to One is an Injury to All”, and various exhortations to remember who we were and where we came from. It would be good to remember those traditional responses to divide-and-conquer strategies in the face of race-baiting, anti-immigrant diatribes. Border crossings have increased—and not only in the U.S.—as a result of global anti-labor policies formulated behind the closed doors of the WTO. If blame is to be placed, let’s place it where it belongs—at the feet of those who thought NAFTA, GATT and other trade agreements unhealthy to the lives of working people on a global level, were a fine idea. An Injury to One, is an Injury to All.

Back in the day, workers had our own forms of media. We published our own newspapers (in several languages), held rallies and night classes for our memberships. We did not rely on others to tell our truths. As corporate control of the media tightens, as our publically-owned analog airwaves are scheduled to be auctioned off to the highest bidder, I can’t help but wonder why we are not more active in pursuing our own interests in this realm. We need to do a better job of supporting the pro-labor media that exists, and create new forms of our own. Our survival, individually and collectively, depends on it. We will not hear from the mass media how the erosion of the eight-hour day contributes to rising injury and death rates at work. We will not hear how understaffing and doing more work with fewer people results in more illness, injury and repetitive-use injuries. We will not hear critiques of the repeal of the Illinois Scaffolding Act; we will not get answers to our question on why Illinois still does not have an Electrical Licensing Act. We may be informed that we have a new OSHA director and a new MSHA director, yet we won’t hear about their backgrounds or why they were chosen to lead these critical agencies. New OSHA director Edwin G. Foulke made his bones being the OSHA expert at Jackson Lewis, a huge law firm specializing in union busting. Richard Stickler, our new MSHA director, was the head of mine safety in Pennsylvania during the time of the Quecreek mine near-disaster, where fortunately nine trapped miners were rescued. He was notable for presiding over mines wih an injury rate double the national average. Every year, we celebrate the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a giant who lived among us—and every year, during the retelling of the story of his assassination, the mass media neglects to mention that the sanitation workers’ strike that Dr. King went to Memphis to support, was in response to the deaths of two workers. Even here in Springfield, with the plethora of historical information offered to tourists, there is no mention of John L. Lewis, or that his house still stands near Washington Park. There is no plaque to identify it; it remains an unacknowleged part of our past.

We, in this room, are the working class. We did build America. We have given our blood, our sweat, our tears. Our bodies, our shortened lives. Yet,

There are no parades, no ticker tape, no magazine covers celebrating the working class Man or Woman of the Year, no commemorative stamps, no moment of silence, no medals, no gold stars, no flag-lowering, not even the dignity of having our history taught in the schools.

We don’t ask for much. For today, we ask to be remembered. That we also not die in vain.

__________

*It won’t be the end of the world if I’m outed, but I do like a certain level of personal privacy.

**Those last two lines were blatantly stolen from the blog Confined Space, a phenomenal blog about workplace safety that is now defunct. The goodbye post is here. Confined Space had a roundup every Friday of all the workers killed on the job the previous week.

***My opinion on “Change to Win” can be found here.

****Check my post here

*****I ain’t makin’ this shit up. I originally saw it in print in the Parade magazine in the Sunday paper. You can find it online here and elsewhere.

NYT Wedding Announcements, Wealth, and the Frosts

One of the weapons that the Malkinites have deployed against the Frost family is that they must have been really rich, but slumming and choosing to be poor, because their wedding announcement ran in the New York Times.

O RLY?

Funny thing about the Times wedding announcements: they’re often given out not because you’re wealthy*, but because you or someone in your family is notable in some way, that some way often having to do with New York City.

Here’s their wedding announcement.

Let’s take a look:

Mrs. Frost, 26 years old, is a receptionist at the Cat Hospital at Towson, in Baltimore. She graduated from Towson State University. Her father is an electrical engineer at Tracor Inc., a defense electronics manufacturer in Crystal City, Va.

Mr. Frost, also 26, is known as Halsey. He owns Frostworks, a woodworking and furniture-design studio in Baltimore. His mother, Randy Frost, is a quilt artist. His father is the deputy director of design and construction for the City University of New York in Manhattan. The bridegroom’s late grandfather Frederick G. Frost Jr. was an architect responsible for several public buildings in New York, including Martin Luther King High School in Manhattan.

So, Mom’s a quilt artist, Dad’s a civil servant, and Grandpa was an architect who designed some notable public buildings, probably during the Robert Moses era. Woohoo! Oh, he must be rich!

Except, not so much. Architects who design public buildings rarely make all that much, and in any event, even if Halsey Frost took possession of some vast fortune upon his grandfather’s death (unlikely, since it would normally go to his parents’ generation), it would probably have been wiped out paying for the five months that his kids spent in the hospital after the accident, not to mention the ongoing care.

I know someone who had a severely premature baby, whose care in the first few months of her life exceeded the million-dollar lifetime limit on the family’s insurance policy. They laugh at bill collectors and tell them to get in line. Because what else can they do?

In any event, what your parent or grandparent did to get your wedding announcement in the Times often has little bearing on your current financial status. From time to time, I see people I know on the wedding page, and often, their parents were mayors of whatever town they lived in, or state legislators, or in some high level of city or state government, or some kind of nonprofit with outsize contribution relative to the amount of remuneration. Which, again, doesn’t necessarily translate to dollars, and certainly not the kind of money that could pay cash for the kind of catastrophic care that Graeme and Gemma Frost needed.

Mind you, the “He’s got three names, so he MUST be rich” argument really is a keeper.

______________

* They don’t always run your wedding announcement if you’re wealthy, either. My cousin Kevin, much to the shock of the rest of the family, married into one of the wealthiest/most prestigious families in the country (we only found out the bride’s identity long after the wedding, since the wedding invitation had contained no last names. Since Kevin’s branch of the family had been estranged for a while and the wedding was in Florida and the rest of the family in the Northeast or scattered elsewhere, nobody went. It was only after our grandmother died and Kevin’s mom, who’d been divorced from Uncle Jackie, my mother’s brother, called up Uncle Brendan’s ex-wife Aunt Susie, to say that Kevin and his sister Kimmie felt that their last link to the rest of the family was severed with Grandma’s death, oh and by the way, here’s who Kevin married, that we found out. Which, hello, we were stunned, but it kind of meant that re-establishing links with Kimmie and Kevin (which were only severed because Jackie was kind of a controlling asshole) became problematic. Because there’d always be the question of whether we were trying to reconnect with the cousins we really hadn’t seen in 20 years or trying to get at the Xs’ money. Though it might have been useful to have that contact when a friend of mine was caught near their house during a hurricane and could have used a better shelter). Anyway, even though the name of the family would be instantly recognizable to just about anyone in the country, the Times never ran his wedding announcement, despite the fact that he was marrying a big-name heiress.

Former Knicks executive awarded $11.6 million in sexual-harassment suit

A jury in federal district court in Manhattan awarded Anucha Browne Sanders $11.6 million in punitive damages in her claim against Knicks coach Isiah Thomas for harassing her, and against Madison Square Garden, L.P. and the chairman of Cablevision, the parent company of the Knicks and MSG, for allowing a hostile work environment and firing her when she complained. The jury, which was unable to agree on whether Thomas should have to pay damages individually, will decide on compensatory damages (for things like back pay and benefits and other economic loss) later.

The jury, in federal district court in Manhattan, also ruled that the former executive, Anucha Browne Sanders, is entitled to $11.6 million in punitive damages from the Garden and James L. Dolan, the chairman of Cablevision, the parent company of the Garden and the Knicks.

Of that figure, $6 million was awarded because of the hostile work environment Mr. Thomas was found to have created, and $5.6 million because Ms. Browne Sanders was fired for complaining about it. Mr. Dolan’s share is $3 million; the Garden is liable for the rest.

My speculation is that the jury had trouble with assessing damages for Thomas because he may not have been in any kind of supervisory relationship with Browne Sanders. However, if your employer knows you’re being a douchebag to the other employees, they’re supposed to step in. Not that it sounds like they had much interest in stepping in, given the kind of atmosphere they encouraged among the players:

Today’s verdicts are the latest embarrassment for the Knicks, who have floundered in recent years. The team has had six head coaches since 2001, has only made the playoffs once in that time, and has signed numerous expensive players who have flopped.

During the trial, testimony by witnesses made the inner workings of the Garden appear dysfunctional, hostile and lewd. The Knick’s star guard, Stephon Marbury, testified that he had sex with a team intern in his truck after a group outing to a strip club in 2005.

Here’s the basic allegation Browne Sanders made:

Ms. Browne Sanders, 44, was fired in February 2006 from her position as the Knicks’ vice president for marketing and business operations. She contended that the firing was in retaliation for her sexual harassment complaint.

She testified that Mr. Thomas, 46, subjected her to hostility and sexual advances starting in 2004, after he arrived as team president. She was fired from her $260,000-a-year job by Mr. Dolan, the chairman of the Garden as well as of Cablevision, in 2006.

And doesn’t this sound familiar?

The Garden countered that Ms. Browne Sanders was fired for incompetence and for interfering with the investigation of her sexual harassment complaint.

The Garden and Dolan and Thomas will, of course, appeal this ruling, so it’s not over yet. But I do like what Browne Sanders had to say:

After the punitive damages were announced, Ms. Browne Sanders appeared outside the courtroom and said the decision was important not just for herself, but also for “the women who don’t have the means and couldn’t possibly have done what I was able to do” and for “everybody that cares about working in a civil work environment.”

Exactly. Good for her.

H/T: Norbizness.
________________
Unintentional hilarity of the day, from a correction at the bottom of the Times article: An earlier version of this article misstated the location of a 2005 sexual encounter between Stephon Marbury of the Knicks and a team intern. Mr. Marbury testified that it took place in his truck, not in the trunk of his car.

I was gonna say: must have been a big trunk.

Anita Hill speaks out

Clarence Thomas has written a memoir in which he angrily recounts his rather contentious confirmation hearings. Anita Hill sets the record straight with regard to his claims about her:

I stand by my testimony.

Justice Thomas has every right to present himself as he wishes in his new memoir, “My Grandfather’s Son.” He may even be entitled to feel abused by the confirmation process that led to his appointment to the Supreme Court.

But I will not stand by silently and allow him, in his anger, to reinvent me.

In the portion of his book that addresses my role in the Senate hearings into his nomination, Justice Thomas offers a litany of unsubstantiated representations and outright smears that Republican senators made about me when I testified before the Judiciary Committee — that I was a “combative left-winger” who was “touchy” and prone to overreacting to “slights.” A number of independent authors have shown those attacks to be baseless. What’s more, their reports draw on the experiences of others who were familiar with Mr. Thomas’s behavior, and who came forward after the hearings. It’s no longer my word against his.

Justice Thomas’s characterization of me is also hobbled by blatant inconsistencies. He claims, for instance, that I was a mediocre employee who had a job in the federal government only because he had “given it” to me. He ignores the reality: I was fully qualified to work in the government, having graduated from Yale Law School (his alma mater, which he calls one of the finest in the country), and passed the District of Columbia Bar exam, one of the toughest in the nation.

In 1981, when Mr. Thomas approached me about working for him, I was an associate in good standing at a Washington law firm. In 1991, the partner in charge of associate development informed Mr. Thomas’s mentor, Senator John Danforth of Missouri, that any assertions to the contrary were untrue. Yet, Mr. Thomas insists that I was “asked to leave” the firm.

It’s worth noting, too, that Mr. Thomas hired me not once, but twice while he was in the Reagan administration — first at the Department of Education and then at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. After two years of working directly for him, I left Washington and returned home to Oklahoma to begin my teaching career.

That’s a common tactic of harassers — casting the complainant as someone who was in trouble at work, who had performance or attitude problems, who’s making the accusations to get back at her supervisor or to prevent being fired (in fact, I just did a trial in which a high-level supervisor, who had been fired after being accused by not one but two of his direct reports of sexually harassing them, claimed he was wrongfully terminated because the two employees were lying, that he had all this evidence (that somehow was mysteriously never put before the court or, for that matter, anyone else in the company that would have to approve termination) that they were both about to get fired, they just wanted to get back at him, etc. Utterly classic). It’s a way of impugning credibility. And, as Hill notes, in the past, it was difficult to fight against your supervisor because courts and higher-ups had a tendency to believe the person with the greater authority (now, employers pretty much have a duty to at least investigate complaints).

But Thomas didn’t just repeat long-discredited lies about Hill’s competence. He also smeared her character:

In a particularly nasty blow, Justice Thomas attacked my religious conviction, telling “60 Minutes” this weekend, “She was not the demure, religious, conservative person that they portrayed.” Perhaps he conveniently forgot that he wrote a letter of recommendation for me to work at the law school at Oral Roberts University, in Tulsa. I remained at that evangelical Christian university for three years, until the law school was sold to Liberty University, in Lynchburg, Va., another Christian college. Along with other faculty members, I was asked to consider a position there, but I decided to remain near my family in Oklahoma.

Back when David Brock was still a tool of the Right Wing Noise Machine, he wrote an infamous 1992 piece for the American Spectator called “The Real Anita Hill,” in which he characterized her, memorably but falsely, as “a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty.” In Blinded By The Right, he explained how he smeared her:

While these two sections were skewed, they were plausible interpretations of the written record. As is always the case with sexual harassment, there were weak spots in the story told by Hill and her witnesses, and I portrayed them as intentional lies. But I still had a problem that caused me to overreach. If Thomas was completely innocent, Anita Hill would have had to be insane to go on national television and tell a lie under oath. Grasping for an explanation of the inexplicable, doing everything I could to ruin Hill’s credibility, I took a scattershot approach, dumping virtually every derogatory—and often contradictory—allegation I had collected on Hill from the Thomas camp into the mix. Hill was an ambitious incompetent passed over by Thomas for a promotion. She was “kooky.” She was a man-hater. She had a “perverse desire for male attention.” She had a “love-hate” complex with Thomas. She made “bizarre” sexual comments to students and coworkers. She sprinkled pubic hairs in her law students’ term papers. She was, in my words, “a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty.”

The fact that this construct of Hill gained traction had a lot to do with how women who complain about sexual harassment are perceived — and the fact that Thomas is repeating these themes even today, even after 15 years on the Supreme Court because Hill’s testimony failed to stop his nomination, even after Brock admitted that he made up a whole lot of shit that just sounded right — is not only disheartening, but worrisome given Thomas’s position on the Supreme Court. (Okay, not that anyone expects him to find in favor of plaintiffs in sexual-harassment cases, but still.)

Despite the attacks on her, though, Hill’s bravery and dignity in testifying and withstanding the smear machine were something to see. I worked at a newspaper at the time of the hearings, which occurred the year after I left college, and we were all glued to the TV in the conference room — as we made our deadlines, we’d head into the conference room. More than once, I was glad that Hill was a professor, and thus was addressed as “Professor Hill,” since I’d seen and heard the contempt some of those Senators could put into a multisyllabic “Ms.” And despite all the aspersions cast on her competence and her character and the speculation about what she wanted from all of this, she went back to her work and her life in Oklahoma and quietly succeeded in her field. She doesn’t speak out about Thomas often, but when she does, it’s worth paying attention to.

Maybe just throw holy water on them

[Italian Interior Minister Giulio Amato] told a Senate committee he was examining efforts to keep prostitutes off the streets where they were near children or places of worship.

And not to, say, end trafficking or battle human rights violations or ensure that sex workers aren’t abused. Nah. Just keep them away from kids and church.

(To his credit, he is also suggesting on-the-spot fines for men who hire sex workers, but that doesn’t exactly solve the problem).