Dear Joe, I’m not sure you understand what’s going on so I want to try to explain. The women who recently wrote articles or gave interviews about how your touches made them uncomfortable have gone out of their ways in their explanations to state, unequivocally, that they do not label you as pervert or predator. Pundits have thrown those labels around but not the women who thoughtfully commented on their experiences. Those women, who included a sexual assault survivor,were careful to spell out that they are not calling your intentions malicious. They went out of their way to make that clear.
I think their hope in speaking was that you might better understand and acknowledge our reality. That reality is that most women have experienced sexual harassment, violation or violence and,because of that, unasked-for touches can sometimes feel bad. Those women did not accuse you of being bad. They simply thought it was important that you understand this dynamic because you are seeking to represent this country.
You dashed those hopes when you went up on stage to speak to theElectrical Workers Union and mocked the women who were trying to make you a better leader. When you briefly hugged a man, then put a friendly arm around the shoulder of a young boy, you quipped that you had asked those men’s permission first. You laughed. The audience laughed as you treated the issue of consent as a joke that only fools would take seriously.
At the Electric Workers Union speech, you scapegoated the women who had a problem with your unasked-for touching as if they were responsible for the messiness of the public discourse that followed.You signaled that their efforts to have a conversation about unasked-for touching was silly, something to snicker about with like-minded fellows.
You also said those things in front of some kids. A young girl stood nearby, onstage, when you mocked the women over their concerns about inappropriate touching. The young girl looked somewhat bewildered as you and the audience laughed at the quip. She laughed along, as you do when a roomful of adults are laughing and you don’t quite get why. I wonder if this little girl was excited to meet you. I wonder too if she later asked her parents what was so funny up there.
What should they have answered? That powerful men are beyond criticism? That if you dare question their actions, you will be ridiculed? That powerful men should never have to apologize or listen when a less powerful person rebukes them? I worry that what seemed like a blip to everyone else, will serve her as one of the many lessons we all received growing up, that it’s better to remain silent and suffer alone when someone violates our autonomy. I want better for all girls.
I want to tell you why I won’t support your candidacy. In 1991,you heard, up close, Anita Hill’s testimony that Clarence Thomas sexually harassed her. In 2019, almost thirty years later, you still can’t admit to your part in botching those hearings. If you can’t now identify those mistakes, learn from them and articulate what you learned, I would be remiss to place faith in your candidacy.
As committee chair, you decided to skip the testimony of the other women who were willing to testify that Thomas harassed them as he hadHill. You allowed sixteen witnesses to speak on Thomas’ behalf and only four witnesses to speak on Hill’s behalf. You sat silently as your Republican colleagues meted out despicable and unsound psychological theories - that Hill was obsessed with and felt spurned by Thomas - to undermine Hill. You did not defend AnitaHill then or in the interim. In the three decades from that time to today, you never bothered to apologize directly toHill until a few weeks before you announced you were running for president.
Those of us who think your refusal to examine your behavior is problematic have been called “rigid” and “too obsessed with purity” by some. But when our leaders pay lip service to the obstacles we face but fail to act when the opportunity arises, why should we stand down silently again and again? This isn’t about purity, Joe. It’s about recognizing facts, refusing to back down from those facts.
The women who spoke know there’s no such thing as purity. They asked you to listen. They hoped you would listen and respond thoughtfully because they believed that, if you did, you could make a difference.
But you bristled at the media hubbub and made those women out to be trifling. It’s been almost thirty years since theClarence Thomas hearing when you trifled with Anita Hill. This was your chance to show us you could evolve. We cannot afford to settle for less. Democrats, take heed. We will not let another generation of women settle for less.