Counterpunch | I wrote an Op-Ed for The Washington Post[1] about
the Thomas Hill case in which Thomas was accused of accosting Anita
Hill with ugly sexist language. I suggested that it would be a boon for
corporate feminists who had co-opted the feminist movement. Instead of
exposing the hands-on assaults against them by their employers upon whom
they depended for their prosperity, they could blame Black guys for
sexism in the workplace. It was Maureen Dowd who pointed to the
hypocrisy of some of Hill’s White feminist supporters. When Bill
Clinton’s hands-on sexism came to light, she noted that some of those
liberal and progressive feminists who condemned Clarence Thomas defended
Clinton’s offenses against women.
Clarence Thomas has been ridiculed for years for pleading that he was
subjected to a “hi-tech lynching.” But now that powerful corporate
White men, among them predators, who, for decades, have been shielded by
corporate feminists, their defenders are insisting upon due process,
which is what Thomas was demanding. To cross examine his accusers.
Timesman Bret Stephens complains about hi-tech lynchings now that the
shoe is on the other foot and outfits like NPR, The New Republic, MSNBC, The New York Times
and other media outlets, which have competed for revenue from what
could be called “The Black Boogeyman” racket, have uncovered predators
among their personnel. Now that they’re feeling the heat from feminists
they’ve come up with something called “a spectrum of behavior.”
In the Post article, I also pointed out that regardless of
Thomas’s right-wing views, in the Anita Hill vs. Thomas case, Blacks
supported Thomas. White progressives didn’t pay attention to this fact.
For them, Blacks are to be interpreted. Not listened too. Maybe they
agree with Jeffrey Toobin, who has made a fortune from a slipshod
examination of the Simpson case. Toobin says that Blacks can’t deal with
reality and shouldn’t be patted on the head,[4] like the reward that a dog receives after retrieving a ball for his owner.
