Thank you for this articulate and astute observation Kobi. :rrose:


In my case, it turned out to be two people in my family, two unrelated incidents with two separate pastors, and in most cases, people who sexually assaulted me were thought of as good hearted people, people you'd never expect in a million years of committing such egregious behaviors.

The mask that these "good hearted" people hide behind is the mask of the social standing in communities, which makes it even harder to Speak out about sexual harassment perpetrated upon the victim (myself and/or others).

I also think it's hard for people to really wrap their minds around the fact that "good hearted" people in ANY community or social groups are guilty of sexual harassment....which makes it all the harder for victims to press charges or speak out about such insidious crimes committed against other human beings.

Thanks for your personal commentary on sexual assault.

I appreciate your ability to grasp the scope and nature of this particular crime. :rrose:

I think when you say "people" you should really be saying "the media." Because we are only able to know what is being said and done through what is being reported.

OF COURSE they are going to going to go for gossip and titillation-- you have to assume that the men who run every media organization have closets full of exactly these same type of skeletons. They are not going to present this coverage as anything more than a train wreck to gawk at.

This is why the Kevin Spacey story has been covered so disproportionately (IMHO) to the 9 other non-Weinstein straight men who were also busted this month-- it is extra bad, but the same-sex aspect opens a whole different channel, one step removed from the editors who are desperately hoping we'll look in that direction and not theirs.

I thought we were all on board with the idea of letting women find their own comfort level when and if they decide to share their story.

My gut reaction is, since when did women owe the world their stories?

That is an interesting point. I do believe the media operates in such a way as to skew perceptions which in turn skews our understanding as well as our discussions - personal, private and public ones.

As consumers of the media, it is also our choice as to how we interpret things. It is also our choice to question what is being presented, how it is being presented, and why. The media is a tool. What we do with that tool is up to us as people. That has been my point through all my posts.

It is also up to us - as consumers and individual people to pick what it is we choose to focus on in our day to day interactions and discussions. The choices are endless. Do we choose to discuss the realities of sexual assault? Do we seek to enlighten ourselves as to what sexual harassment really means and what it looks like? Do we focus on individual stories? Do we see the bigger picture these stories represent? Do we see common themes across industries? Or, do we choose to keep something a different level?





I dont understand what this has to do with what I said. I put things in certain contexts to communicate overall ideas. If the specifics are taken out of context, the meaning is lost.

The strength and the greatness of Diana Nyad in written form.


Diana Nyad: My Life After Sexual Assault

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images...5_400x400.jpeg

Here I was, a strong-willed young athlete. There he was, a charismatic pillar of the community. But I'm the one who, all these many years later, at the age of 68, no matter how happy and together I may be, continues to deal with the rage and the shame that comes with being silenced.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/09/o...=fb-share&_r=0

** This article is very graphic, must have been quite cathartic for her to share what happened all those many years ago.

She Didn’t Fight Back: 5 (Misguided) Reasons People Doubt Sexual Misconduct Victims
 

She Didn’t Fight Back: 5 (Misguided) Reasons People Doubt Sexual Misconduct Victims

By SHAILA DEWANNOV. 30, 2017

She took decades to come forward. She can’t remember exactly what happened. She sent friendly text messages to the same man she says assaulted her. She didn’t fight back.

There are all sorts of reasons women who report sexual misconduct, from unwanted advances by their bosses to groping or forced sex acts, are not believed, and with a steady drumbeat of new reports making headlines, the country is hearing a lot of them.

But some of the most commonly raised causes for doubt, like a long delay in reporting or a foggy recall of events, are the very hallmarks that experts say they would expect to see after a sexual assault.

“There’s something really unique about sexual assault in the way we think about it, which is pretty upside down from the way it actually operates,” said Kimberly A. Lonsway, a psychologist who conducts law enforcement training on sexual assault as the research director of End Violence Against Women International. “In so many instances when there’s something that is characteristic of assault, it causes us to doubt it.”

Partly this is because of widespread misconceptions. The public and the police vastly overestimate the incidence of false reports: The most solid, case-by-case examinations say that only 5 to 7 percent of sexual assault reports are false. Responses to trauma that are often viewed as evidence of unreliability, such as paralysis or an inability to recall timelines, have been shown by neurobiological research to be not only legitimate, but common. And when it comes to the most serious assaults, like rape, people imagine that they are committed by strangers who attack in a dark alley, and base their view of how victims should react on that idea — even though the vast majority of assaults occur between people who know one another.

Many of the same credibility issues surround reports of sexual harassment involving advances made by a boss or someone in a position of power over the victim.

Of course, not every allegation is true. The credibility of those who report sexual misconduct, experts say, should be evaluated by looking for corroborating evidence or using relevant parts of accusers’ backgrounds, like whether they have habitually misrepresented the truth in the past.

But experts say that because many people are not psychologically prepared to accept how prevalent harassment and assault are, they tend to look for reasons to disbelieve. For example, offenders are more likely to choose victims who have been previously assaulted, statistics show, but a woman who reports more than one assault is less likely to be believed.

Here is a look at some of the misconceptions that come up again and again when assessing whether a victim’s account is true.

The victim doesn’t act like one.

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017...-master675.jpg
(Edward Martins, left, and Richard Hall, center, former New York Police Department detectives, were accused of raping a woman in a police van. Credit Dave Sanders for The New York Times)

A young woman said she was raped in a police van by two New York City officers, Eddie Martins and Richard Hall, in September. Their lawyers have accused the woman, who is 18, of posting “provocative” selfies and bragging about news media attention and the millions of dollars she expects to win in a civil case.

“This behavior is unprecedented for a depressed victim of a vicious rape,” the lawyers wrote, according to The New York Post.

But victims behave in a wide variety of ways.

There is no one response to sexual assault. A trauma victim can as easily appear calm or flat as distraught or overtly angry.

Later, they may react by self-medicating, by engaging in high-risk sexual behavior, by withdrawing from those around them or by attempting to regain control. Some child victims initiate sexual abuse, experts say, just so they can predict when it is coming.

It is no surprise that a teenager conditioned to use “likes” as a measure of self-esteem would turn to social media to deal with post-traumatic stress, said Veronique Valliere, a psychologist who counsels sexual assault perpetrators and victims and consults with the military and law enforcement.

“That’s a pretty normal reaction to helplessness and terror,” she added. “It doesn’t mean that she doesn’t have PTSD, it means she thinks this is the way she’s going to be protected. This is the way she’s going to regain control.”

She stayed friendly with her abuser.

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017...-master675.jpg
(Harvey Weinstein at the Cannes Film Festival in 2015. Credit Bertrand Langlois/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images )

Some of the women who say Harvey Weinstein groped or assaulted them kept in contact with him afterward, saying that good relations with such a powerful player in the entertainment industry were a must for their careers. After the allegations against Mr. Weinstein were published in The New York Times, one of his advisers at the time, Lisa Bloom, sent an email to the directors of the Weinstein Company, outlining a plan that included the release of “photos of several of the accusers in very friendly poses with Harvey after his alleged misconduct.”

Offenders work assiduously to gain trust and appear benevolent, and that relationship does not disappear overnight, even after an abusive episode. Women in particular, experts point out, are conditioned to smooth things over.

“Victims think that it was their fault, so in many cases they want continued contact,” said Roderick MacLeish, a Boston lawyer who has represented hundreds of victims of abuse by Catholic priests and schoolteachers. “And then later they realize that it was for the perpetrator’s sexual gratification, and that’s devastating.”

The victim may have little choice but to stay in contact if the offender is a boss, teacher, coach or relative.

Victims also distinguish between what is safe — taking a photo with Mr. Weinstein in public at an awards ceremony, for example — and what they must avoid, such as going to his hotel room alone.

She did not come forward right away.

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017...-master675.jpg
(Leigh Corfman, who has accused Roy S. Moore, a Senate candidate in Alabama, appeared on NBC’s “Today” show. Credit NBC News TODAY, via Associated Press)

Leigh Corfman recently said that the Republican candidate for Senate in Alabama, Roy S. Moore, sexually assaulted her when she was 14, nearly four decades ago. She said she worried for years that going public would affect her children, and that her history of divorce and financial mistakes would undermine her account. After being approached by a Washington Post reporter, she agreed to tell her story, and later said, “If anything, this has cost me.”

But negative consequences are not the only thing to keep victims from coming forward. Experts point to a more fundamental issue: When the perpetrator is someone they trusted, it can take years for victims even to identify what happened to them as a violation.

Reah Bravo, one of several woman who say that the broadcast journalist Charlie Rose made unwanted sexual advances while they were working for him, told The Washington Post, “It has taken 10 years and a fierce moment of cultural reckoning for me to understand these moments for what they were.”

Scott Berkowitz, the president of RAINN, the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, said confusion and self-blame are common: “A lot of people who call the national hotline, one of the first questions they ask is, ‘Was I raped?’ ”

Offenders encourage confusion and shame and exploit people’s reluctance to identify themselves as victims. Ms. Valliere said the offenders she treats list two main tactics they use to obscure assaults: They camouflage the act as horseplay or humor, or they act as though nothing happened.

“If they do this enough, the victim can get really confused, like they’re really the bad one for thinking badly about the offender,” she said.

Her story does not add up.

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017...-master675.jpg
(Andrea Constand at the Montgomery County Courthouse in Norristown, Pa., during Bill Cosby’s sexual assault trial in June. Credit Pool photo by Matt Rourke)

Andrea Constand, whose complaint that Bill Cosby drugged and raped her resulted in a criminal trial more than a decade later, was questioned on many fronts. One was discrepancies in her statements about when the assaults occurred. Mr. Cosby said the sex was consensual, and the trial ended in a hung jury.

Similarly, Mr. Moore’s Senate campaign has questioned details in the story of Beverly Nelson, who said Mr. Moore forcibly groped her in a car in the late 1970s. They said she was wrong about details like what time the restaurant where they met closed and whether there were Dumpsters in back of the restaurant or on the side.

Not only does memory fade with time, but when the brain’s fear circuitry is activated, the prefrontal cortex where details like sequence and locations are recorded tends to recede, while the part of the brain that records sensory memories kicks in. Victims may vividly remember a wallpaper pattern or a scent, but not the order of events.

Rebecca Campbell, a psychologist at Michigan State University who has studied the institutional response to sexual assault victims, compares the memory of a survivor to hundreds of tiny notes that are scattered across a desk. The bits of information are accurate, but disordered and incomplete. Yet the first questions asked of victims are often who, what, when and where.

She didn’t fight back.

When people are mugged or robbed, they are not asked why they did not resist.

But in sexual assault cases, failure to resist can be one of the biggest sticking points for jurors. Often both sides acknowledge that a sex act occurred, and the question is whether it was consensual. Fighting back is viewed as an easy litmus test. But women are conditioned not to use violence.

Men and women both tend to compare a victim’s actions with what they think they themselves would have done in a similar situation, and research shows that their imagined response usually involves aggressive resistance — even when the attacker is larger and stronger. “In their heads, suddenly they know kung fu,” Ms. Valliere said.

Neurobiological research has shown that the so-called fight-or-flight response to danger would more accurately be called “fight, flight or freeze.” And even after that initial response, victims can be rendered involuntarily immobile, becoming either paralyzed or limp as a result of the brain and body’s protective response.

Even so, the victim faces scrutiny of her failure to resist, and of every decision she made before, during and after the ordeal. To contrast sexual assault with other types of crime, Ms. Valliere said, she often shows a photograph of the Boston Marathon bombing. “We never said to the victims, ‘Why were you in that marathon, why did you put yourself in that position, why didn’t you run faster, why didn’t you run slower?’

“But when it comes to a victim of interpersonal violence,” she added, “we think there’s a way they should act.”

Time Person of the Year: The Silence Breakers
 

How useless and even dangerous it is to go to HR

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/12/b...rces.html?_r=0

Professors @ University of Rochester (NY)
 

Today at PT, I finally got to read excerpts from the TIME magazine article about women who were nominated as this year's group of women speaking out about sexual harassment in the workplace or being sexually assaulted.


While Kidd & Cantlon's story was featured in the TIME magazine edition last week, their breaking news story was published in full by The New York Times in the September 15th 2017 publication. See link to full story below :

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/1....html?referer=

Major media players start commission for sexual misconduct
 

The biggest figures and institutions in entertainment have established a commission to be chaired by Anita Hill that intends to combat sexual misconduct and inequality in the industry in the wake of the huge wave of revelations spurred by allegations against Harvey Weinstein.

A statement Friday announced the founding of the Commission on Sexual Harassment and Advancing Equality in the Workplace, a group that grew out of a meeting called by "Star Wars" producer Kathleen Kennedy and several other prominent women in the industry.

"The Commission will not seek just one solution, but a comprehensive strategy to address the complex and interrelated causes of the problems of parity and power," Kennedy said in a statement.

The chief executives of nearly every major Hollywood studio, TV network and record label attended the meeting and agreed to found and to fund the group, the statement said. The long list includes Disney CEO Bob Iger, Paramount CEO Karen Stuart, Universal Music Group CEO Sir Lucian Grainge and CBS chief executive Leslie Moonves.

The movie and music academies and many of the major agencies and unions that represent entertainers also signed on.

The group chose as its chair the law professor Hill, who brought the concept of sexual harassment to national consciousness in 1991 when she testified during the Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Clarence Thomas.

"It is time to end the culture of silence," Hill said in a statement. "I've been at this work for 26 years. This moment presents us with an unprecedented opportunity to make real change."

The commission said in its statement that it would reconvene immediately after the first of the year to hone its mission, scope and priorities.

The revelations about Weinstein in The New York Times and the New Yorker in October have brought on two months unlike any the media world has ever seen, with nearly daily allegations of sexual harassment assault and abuse involving some of the most prominent players in entertainment including Kevin Spacey, Louis CK, Dustin Hoffman and Russell Simmons.

Hill has been making appearances in Southern California in recent days before Friday's announcement, speaking to a gathering of entertainers and executives in Beverly Hills last week.

She said there that she knew that despite Thomas' confirmation to the Supreme Court, the issue would one day return.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/major-med...043412498.html

----------------------------

This is what I have been waiting to see.


___

Trump is still president.

Bipartisan Group of Senators Introduce Legislation to Reform Sexual Harassment Investigations in Congress
 

A bipartisan senate group introduced new legislation to reform the processes by which sexual harassment investigations involving members of Congress are conducted.

The Congressional Harassment Reform Act — backed by 20 senators both Republican and Democrat — would change the reporting process for victims, end the process’s strict secrecy rules and require lawmakers to pay settlements out of their own pocket rather than taxpayer money.

The bill was supported by U.S. Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John Cornyn (R-TX), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Rob Portman (R-OH), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Cory Gardner (R-CO), Dan Sullivan (R-AK), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Kamala Harris (D-CA), and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV).

“Congress should never be above the law or play by their own set of rules,” Gillibrand said in a statement. “We must ensure that Congress handles complaints to create an environment where staffers can come forward if something happens to them without having to fear that it will ruin their careers. This bipartisan legislation would bring us much closer to that goal.”

The new legislation comes after a number of members of Congress have stepped down or announced plans to resign amid sexual misconduct scandals. Al Franken resigned last week after multiple women accused him of inappropriate contact. John Conyers of Michigan also resigned after sexual harassment allegations, as did Arizona representative Trent Franks, after it was revealed he asked former staffers to serve as a surrogate. Blake Farenthold and Joe Barton, both of Texas, said they would not seek another term.

https://www.thewrap.com/bipartisan-g...s-in-congress/

-----------------------------------


This is a bit of an improvement. The Congressional Page scandal back in the 1980's managed to, as far as we know at the moment, keep teenage pages safe from preying adult congressmen. This might help except I cannot find the specifics that will make reporting easier and safer.

In sex assault laws, definition of consent varies widely
 

JOCELYN NOVECK
,Associated Press•December 16, 2017

For two months now, as accusations of sexual misconduct have piled up against Harvey Weinstein, the disgraced mogul has responded over and over again: "Any allegations of nonconsensual sex are unequivocally denied."

Consent is a concept central to law on sexual assault, and will likely be an issue in potential legal cases against Weinstein, who is under investigation by police in four cities, and others accused in the current so-called "reckoning."

But the definition of consent — namely, how it is expressed — is a matter of intense debate: Is it a definite "yes," or the mere absence of "no"? Can it be revoked? Do power dynamics come into play? Legally, the definition varies widely across the nation.

"Half the states don't even have a definition of consent," says Erin Murphy, a professor at New York University School of Law who's involved in a project to rewrite a model penal code on sex assault. "One person's idea of consent is that no one is screaming or crying. Another person's idea of consent is someone saying, 'Yes, I want to do this.' And in between, of course, is an enormous spectrum of behavior, both verbal and nonverbal, that people engage in to communicate desire or lack of desire."

"It's pretty telling," Murphy adds, "that the critical thing most people look to understand the nature of a sexual encounter — this idea of consent — is one that we don't even have a consensus definition of in our society."

Many victim advocates argue that a power imbalance plays a role. In nearly every instance, the allegations in recent weeks came from accusers who were in far less powerful positions than those they accused — as in, for example, the rape allegations that have surfaced against music mogul Russell Simmons, which he denies.

"You have to look at the power dynamics, the coercion, the manipulation," says Jeanie Kurka Reimer, a longtime advocate in the area of sexual assault. "The threatening and grooming that perpetrators use to create confusion and compliance and fear in the minds of the victims. Just going along with something does not mean consent."

Many Weinstein accusers have spoken about that uneven dynamic. For years Weinstein was one of the most powerful men in Hollywood, and most of his alleged victims were women in their 20s, looking for their first big break. A number have indicated that his power — and fear of his retribution, both professional and physical — blunted their ability to resist his advances. Actress Paz de la Huerta, who has accused Weinstein of rape, said in a TV interview: "I just froze in fear. I guess that would be considered rape, because I didn't want to do it."

One woman who did manage to escape Weinstein's advances in a 2014 hotel-room encounter addressed the power imbalance in a recent essay. The very word "consent," actress and writer Brit Marling wrote in the Atlantic, "cannot fully capture the complexity of the encounter. Because consent is a function of power. You have to have a modicum of power to give it."

The anti-sexual violence organization RAINN tracks the various state definitions of consent. The differences make for a situation that is "confusing as hell," says Rebecca O'Connor, the group's vice president of public policy.

For many years, O'Connor points out, "we had this he said-she said mentality, where you went into court and if you couldn't prove that you didn't consent, the activity was deemed consensual." Also, most states required that the accuser show force was used, to show lack of consent.

"Of course, our thinking and understanding of these cases has evolved tremendously, and so states have acted in response to that," she says. "What we're finding is especially at moments like this — when it's impossible to ignore the conversation — they are ... re-evaluating the factors that play into the definition of consent and how it can be expressed."

For example, O'Connor says, North Carolina is looking at its law that doesn't allow consent to be revoked once it's been given — which means that if an encounter turns violent, as in a recent reported case, the accused cannot be charged with rape because the woman consented at the beginning.

And several states have passed laws requiring affirmative consent — going further than the usual "no means no" standard to require an actual "yes," though not necessarily verbal. Among those states: Wisconsin, California and Florida. In Florida, consent is defined as "intelligent, knowing, and voluntary consent and does not include coerced submission."

"We're not there yet," O'Connor says, "but a lot of states are starting to move the wheels on this."

The varying definitions of consent can lead to confusion among the people who most need to understand them.

Reimer, the victims' advocate, recalls a Wisconsin case in which a woman had experienced a violent sexual experience with a boyfriend she was trying to break up with. She had consented to sex at other times in their relationship, but was no longer interested. This time, she said no at first, but then stopped resisting as he became more agitated and her children slept nearby.

"She thought she had consented, because she had consented before," Reimer says. "I told her that just because you consent once, it's not a blanket consent. Then she got it — that this time it was rape — and she got angry."

Murphy, at NYU, says that when the American Law Institute began a project several years ago to rewrite sex assault laws in its 1962 Model Penal Code, consent was the first thing it tried to define. The institute — an elite body of judges, lawyers and academics — issues model laws that are often adopted by state legislatures. The project is aimed at updating the laws and dropping some particularly outdated notions, like the idea that rape cannot occur within a marriage.

"It's been a laborious process," notes Murphy. It took about five years to achieve the current consent definition , which recognizes that the essence of consent is willingness — but that how willingness is expressed depends on context.

Murphy says it remains to be seen whether the huge attention now being paid to sexual misconduct will accelerate the process of rewriting laws, or — as in the recent roiling debate over college campuses — make it more complicated. At RAINN, O'Connor says she is hopeful that state lawmakers will pick up the pace of updating their laws with new understandings of concepts like consent.

"We'll see how all this plays out, because when you train the national spotlight on it, suddenly action is born," O'Connor says.

Most important, she says, is for people to recognize that a lack of consent can be expressed in many different ways.

"Yes, there is a legal definition for each state," she says. "But at the end of the day a survivor knows whether or not they consented. I want the message to go out that the criminal activity of another is never a victim's fault, and that extends to the issue of consent."

----------------------------------


These discussions need to be had. The complexities involved tho are making me twitch.

I'm glad to see so many women are involved in this!

Since posting this, the fact that NBC fired Matt Lauer without batting an eyelash only reinforces what I believe.

Anita Hill: Do You Believe Her Now?
 

An dear butch friend sent me the article from the magazine The New York Magazine , published on February 18th, 2018.

Remember how she testified before an senate committee before Clarence Thomas was appointed to be an Supreme Court Justice? And how back then, we had the first huge public case of sexual harassment and how her life was ruined by politicians making bargains with powerful GOP senators and pundits, to limit the scope of testimony proving the amoral behaviors of Clarence Thomas?

The article is superbly written and it goes deeper into the behind the scenes details of what happened to Anita Hill....I highly recommend reading this article for an inside look at how those in power play GOD for the day and participate in covering up behaviors, such as those of an Supreme Court judge nominee, who went on to be installed in an life long position, with his searing and hardly hidden, conservative right-leaning positions, which has altered the face of law on the books pertaining to women and women's rights.

LINK TO ARTICLE:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ce-thomas.html

From 2010.............
 

I saw that article as well and found this additional info from the NY Times........

In a voice mail message left at 7:31 a.m. on Oct. 9, a Saturday, Virginia Thomas asked her husband’s former aide-turned-adversary to make amends. Ms. Hill played the recording, from her voice mail at Brandeis University, for The New York Times.

“Good morning Anita Hill, it’s Ginni Thomas,” it said. “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.”

Ms. Thomas went on: “So give it some thought. And certainly pray about this and hope that one day you will help us understand why you did what you did. O.K., have a good day.”

From NY Times..........
In a statement conveyed through a publicist, Ms. Thomas confirmed leaving the message, which she portrayed as a peacemaking gesture. She did not explain its timing.

“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,” she said. “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.”

In response to Ms. Thomas’s statement, Ms. Hill said that she had testified truthfully about her experiences with the future Justice Thomas and that she had nothing to apologize for.

“I appreciate that no offense was intended, but she can’t ask for an apology without suggesting that I did something wrong, and that is offensive,” Ms. Hill said.

(CNN)Former Vice President Joe Biden says he owes Anita Hill an apology for not doing more for her during confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Biden chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee when Hill testified there in 1991. Hill said she was sexually harassed by Thomas while he was her supervisor at the Department of Education. Thomas denied the allegations, calling the questioning during the hearing a "high-tech lynching."

"And my one regret is that I wasn't able to tone down the attacks on her by some of my Republican friends," Biden said. "I mean, they really went after her. As much as I tried to intervene, I did not have the power to gavel them out of order."

Biden added that if he could do it again, he would have gone forward with a subpoena for three women, whom he had sign affidavits saying they wouldn't testify.

Perhaps NOW one of these three could open their mouth and speak their truth?

Anita Hill Will Lead a Commission to Check Sexual Abuse in Hollywood
 

Tinged with a whiff of still-faraway justice, a new Hollywood commission on sexual harassment has appointed attorney and law professor Anita Hill as its chair. Hill’s story has been a symbol of cultural reevaluation lately, as her famed egregiously-run 1991 Senate Judiciary hearings beg for atonement now more than ever. (Her sexual harassment claims against then-Supreme Court Justice nominee Clarence Thomas–which were unwittingly leaked to the press–resulted in humiliating interrogation involving porn, breast and penis size, by 14 white men questioning whether she had a “zealoting civil rights” agenda in blocking Thomas’s appointment). As head of the Commission on Sexual Harassment and Advancing Equality in the Workplace, Hill be leading a “comprehensive strategy” to address workplace harassment in the entertainment industry.

I can't tell you how disgusted this makes me feel.

I always believed her, from her first word of testimony to the very last.

I listened to both of them. Thomas was never believable.

When is Trump going to be held accountable for his "pussy-grabbing"?

Anita Hill: How to Get the Kavanaugh Hearings Right
 

Anita Hill: How to Get the Kavanaugh Hearings Right

The Senate Judiciary Committee has a chance to do better by the country than it did nearly three decades ago.

By Anita Hill
Ms. Hill is a professor at Brandeis University.

https://i.postimg.cc/tR5yy6b1/18_Hill1-super_Jumbo.jpg
Anita F. Hill, right, is sworn in to testify before the United States Senate Judiciary Committee on the confirmation of Judge Clarence Thomas by Chairman Joseph Biden in October 1991. Credit: Arnie Sachs/picture-alliance -- dpa, via Associated Press

There is no way to redo 1991, but there are ways to do better.

The facts underlying Christine Blasey Ford’s claim of being sexually assaulted by a young Brett Kavanaugh will continue to be revealed as confirmation proceedings unfold. Yet it’s impossible to miss the parallels between the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing of 2018 and the 1991 confirmation hearing for Justice Clarence Thomas. In 1991, the Senate Judiciary Committee had an opportunity to demonstrate its appreciation for both the seriousness of sexual harassment claims and the need for public confidence in the character of a nominee to the Supreme Court. It failed on both counts.

https://i.postimg.cc/Dw1xkrVH/18_Hill2-jumbo.jpg
Ms. Hill testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in 1991. Credit: Greg Gibson/Associated Press

As that same committee, on which sit some of the same members as nearly three decades ago, now moves forward with the Kavanaugh confirmation proceedings, the integrity of the court, the country’s commitment to addressing sexual violence as a matter of public interest, and the lives of the two principal witnesses who will be testifying hang in the balance. Today, the public expects better from our government than we got in 1991, when our representatives performed in ways that gave employers permission to mishandle workplace harassment complaints throughout the following decades. That the Senate Judiciary Committee still lacks a protocol for vetting sexual harassment and assault claims that surface during a confirmation hearing suggests that the committee has learned little from the Thomas hearing, much less the more recent #MeToo movement.

With the current heightened awareness of sexual violence comes heightened accountability for our representatives. To do better, the 2018 Senate Judiciary Committee must demonstrate a clear understanding that sexual violence is a social reality to which elected representatives must respond. A fair, neutral and well-thought-out course is the only way to approach Dr. Blasey and Judge Kavanaugh’s upcoming testimony. The details of what that process would look like should be guided by experts who have devoted their careers to understanding sexual violence. The job of the Senate Judiciary Committee is to serve as fact-finders, to better serve the American public, and the weight of the government should not be used to destroy the lives of witnesses who are called to testify.

Here are some basic ground rules the committee should follow:

Refrain from pitting the public interest in confronting sexual harassment against the need for a fair confirmation hearing. Our interest in the integrity of the Supreme Court and in eliminating sexual misconduct, especially in our public institutions, are entirely compatible. Both are aimed at making sure that our judicial system operates with legitimacy.

https://i.postimg.cc/3NJw7CbB/merlin...uper_Jumbo.jpg
The Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill last week. Credit: Doug Mills/The New York Times

Select a neutral investigative body with experience in sexual misconduct cases that will investigate the incident in question and present its findings to the committee. Outcomes in such investigations are more reliable and less likely to be perceived as tainted by partisanship. Senators must then rely on the investigators’ conclusions, along with advice from experts, to frame the questions they ask Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Blasey. Again, the senators’ fact-finding roles must guide their behavior. The investigators’ report should frame the hearing, not politics or myths about sexual assault.

Do not rush these hearings. Doing so would not only signal that sexual assault accusations are not important — hastily appraising this situation would very likely lead to facts being overlooked that are necessary for the Senate and the public to evaluate. That the committee plans to hold a hearing this coming Monday is discouraging. Simply put, a week’s preparation is not enough time for meaningful inquiry into very serious charges.

Finally, refer to Christine Blasey Ford by her name. She was once anonymous, but no longer is. Dr. Blasey is not simply “Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser.” Dr. Blasey is a human being with a life of her own. She deserves the respect of being addressed and treated as a whole person.

https://i.postimg.cc/MTBLThgZ/18_Hill4-super_Jumbo.jpg
Brett Kavanaugh appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee's confirmation hearing. Credit: Tasos Katopodis/EPA, via Shutterstock

Process is important, but it cannot erase the difficulty of testifying on national television about the sexual assault that Dr. Blasey says occurred when she was 15 years old. Nor will it negate the fact that as she sits before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Dr. Blasey will be outresourced. Encouraging letters from friends and strangers may help, but she cannot match the organized support that Judge Kavanaugh has. Since Dr. Blasey and Judge Kavanaugh have the same obligation to present the truth, this imbalance may not seem fair.

But, as Judge Kavanaugh stands to gain the lifetime privilege of serving on the country’s highest court, he has the burden of persuasion. And that is only fair.

In 1991, the phrase “they just don’t get it” became a popular way of describing senators’ reaction to sexual violence. With years of hindsight, mounds of evidence of the prevalence and harm that sexual violence causes individuals and our institutions, as well as a Senate with more women than ever, “not getting it” isn’t an option for our elected representatives. In 2018, our senators must get it right.

Anita Hill is university professor of Social Policy, Law, and Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Brandeis University in Waltham, Mass.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/18/o...gtype=Homepage

Harvey Weinstein sentenced to 23 years in prison
 

Harvey Weinstein sentenced to 23 years in prison
By Eric Levenson, Lauren del Valle and Sonia Moghe, CNN

New York (CNN)Harvey Weinstein was sentenced to 23 years in prison Wednesday in a New York courtroom.

"I really feel remorse for this situation," Weinstein said, his voice barely audible, as he addressed the court before the sentence was handed down. "I feel it deeply in my heart. I will spend my time really caring and really trying to be a better person."

"I'm not going to say that these aren't great people," he also said of his accusers. "I've had wonderful times with these people."

Weinstein wore a blank face as he was taken out of the courtroom. His accusers cried together in the front row.

Weinstein, 67, arrived to his sentencing hearing in a wheelchair and handcuffs. The former movie producer faced between five and 29 years for last month's convictions on first-degree criminal sexual act and third-degree rape.

Judge James Burke sentenced Weinstein to 20 years in prison for first-degree criminal sex act and 3 years in prison for third-degree rape. The sentences will run consecutively and both come with 5 years of supervision after release.

The charges were based on testimony by Miriam Haley and Jessica Mann, who both spoke at Wednesday's sentencing.

"If Harvey Weinstein had not been convicted by this jury, it would have happened again and again and again," Haley told the court. "I'm relieved he will now know he's not above the law. I'm relieved there are women out there who are safer because he's not out there."

Weinstein's statement came as a surprise

Weinstein's comments in court Wednesday were unexpected. In general, defendants planning to appeal a guilty verdict or who face other charges do not speak at sentencing because what they say can be used against them, according to Michelle Simpson Tuegel, an attorney who has worked in criminal defense.

Weinstein also said he believed the relationships with women who spoke out against him were consensual, specifically mentioning Mann. "I really, really was under that impression that I had that kind of relationship, five years with Jessica," he said.

Haley, Mann and the four other women who testified against Weinstein at his trial -- Mann, actress Annabella Sciorra and three "prior bad acts" witnesses -- arrived to court with prosecutors and sat in the front row. Actress Rosie Perez, who testified in support of Sciorra's claims, walked in with them and sat in the second row.

Weinstein was acquitted of two more serious charges of predatory sexual assault, which could have come with a life sentence.
Assistant District Attorney Joan Illuzzi-Orbon on Wednesday asked Burke to sentence Weinstein to the maximum or near the maximum sentence, with the sentences served concurrently.

Defense attorneys have asked that he get the minimum possible sentence: five years. Anything more than that is "basically the death penalty," defense attorney Arthur Aidala said, citing Weinstein's health and age. He called him a "broken down man."

Weinstein has been in state custody since the verdict and has had several health issues. He had a heart procedure last week during which doctors inserted a stent, and on Sunday he fell while at Rikers Island jail, his publicist Juda Engelmayer told CNN.

Victims describe how Weinstein changed their lives

In court before the sentence was handed down, Haley broke down crying Wednesday during her victim impact statement as she described being assaulted by Weinstein.

"I believe that when he attacked me that evening with physical force, with no regard for my cries and protests, it scarred me deeply -- mentally and emotionally," Haley said.

Haley said the past two years have been excruciating, filled with paranoia and fear of retaliation daily. And while testifying against Weinstein was difficult, it did help Haley process what happened to her, she said.

Haley felt Weinstein showed a lack of remorse or acknowledgment for his crimes, she said, and she asked the judge to consider a sentence "long enough for Harvey Weinstein to acknowledge what he has done."

Mann minutes later asked Burke to impose the maximum sentence for rape in the third degree, with sentences served concurrently.

Mann wants the "gift" of knowing exactly where Weinstein is at all times, she said, adding she hopes he'll be rehabilitated in prison.

"Twelve people found Harvey unanimously guilty of raping me. That is not an easy task," she said.

Mann also referenced drug charges that she said carry longer sentence recommendations than third-degree rape.

"How am I not worth more than cocaine?" she said.

Weinstein also faces felony charges of forcible rape, forcible oral copulation, sexual penetration by use of force and sexual battery by restraint in Los Angeles. Prosecutors say he raped one woman and sexually assaulted another in separate incidents over a two-day period in February 2013.

Weinstein has not yet turned himself in or been arraigned on the California charges.

He has denied all allegations of "nonconsensual sexual activity" related to the New York case and other claims made against him.

Defense asks for 5 years in prison

Illuzzi-Orbon on Wednesday referenced the submitted sentencing memo that she said detailed additional accounts of victims of Weinstein's abuse and show his lack of human empathy, selfishness, and a life rooted in criminality. One assistant told prosecutors Weinstein threatened to kill her and her entire family, Illuzzi-Orbon said.

The prosecutor also described the glamorous lifestyle Weinstein lived as a giant of the movie industry.

"He got drunk on the power," Illuzzi-Orbon said. "Young struggling dreamers were not real people to him."

Illuzzi-Orbon read a profile of Weinstein given to hotel employees in which they were cautioned, "Do not go near the car. Do not speak at him. Do not look at him. Stay away."

Illuzzi-Orbon thanked the six women who testified against Weinstein and thanked them for attending the sentencing hearing.
She also thanked the news media for its coverage. And she thanked Burke, noting that the trial lasted a week longer than anticipated.

Illuzzi-Orbon also noted Weinstein's significant legal representation, saying she thought his defense team made every reasonable argument it should have and could have made on his behalf.

The Manhattan District Attorney's office argued in an 11-page court filing last week that Weinstein should receive a sentence that "reflects the seriousness of defendant's offenses." He led a "lifetime of abuse towards others, sexual and otherwise," prosecutors argued, and they highlighted three dozen uncharged incidents and accusations.

"Starting in the 1970s, he has trapped women into his exclusive control and assaulted or attempted to assault them," Illuzzi-Orbon wrote in a letter.

However, Weinstein's defense attorneys requested a five-year prison sentence, the minimum for his criminal sexual act conviction, according to a sentencing letter provided by his spokesman.

His attorneys wrote that Weinstein's personal charitable giving, advanced age, medical issues and lack of a criminal history should lead to a lower sentence. They wrote that his life "has been destroyed" since the publication of an article in The New Yorker in October 2017 that alleged systemic abuse of women in the entertainment industry.

"His wife divorced him, he was fired from The Weinstein Company, and in short, he lost everything," the attorneys wrote.
The attorneys also cited the "collateral consequences" he continues to face.

"Mr. Weinstein cannot walk outside without being heckled, he has lost his means to earn a living, simply put, his fall from grace has been historic, perhaps unmatched in the age of social media," according to the letter signed by attorneys Damon Cheronis, Donna Rotunno and Aidala.
________________
Thinking of Kobi ...

Miss you my friend!!

Not only is T——p still trying to be the executive in chief again but Kavanot is still on the Supreme Court.

Weinstein’s conviction might be overturned but the reality, in my mind, is that he will be found guilty as charged again and with even more due diligence this time around.

Sex predators are criminals no matter how they try to change the narrative.

Just this past week, CNN reported that Weinstein was charged again with new sex abuse/assault charges. Link: https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/12/enter...ent/index.html

Out on the west coast in my area of the greater Portland metro area, this past year we’ve learned how a prominent person in the Mormon population was sexually abusing and assaulting women via his family practice of medicine. I’m pissed off for the family of young women who were assaulted by this doctor. Even the Clackamas county DA is in big effing trouble because it looks like he is protecting the doctor from being held accountable. I want to warn readers about reading this news story. What this doctor did was horrific and he hid behind his religion and community standing so others would find it hard to believe that he did this to women. But it’s true, what he did. We’ve seen this in our local news since earlier this year, but now it’s got national attention by being covered on CNN. It’s a heart breaking story. Link: https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/15/us/or...ims/index.html

In global news about sex predators: a woman from France? Her husband drugged her on repeated occasions so his male buddies could rape his wife for his pleasure. Not only horrific but her case is being tried publicly so that others know the cruelty of her situation and to bring justice for herself and others. Link: https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-...ity-rcna171176


In our country, a sex predator who is proud of overturning Roe vs Wade from Texas, is running again for president. Please do your part to protect women from further harm: do not vote for a sex predator.