Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Sauna -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (1054)	7/18/2001 4:19:22 PM
From: Poet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1857

We disagree. I supported Anita Hill because I felt she was brave to step up and offer evidence that Thomas was unfit for the nomination. I hated the way she was treated by his political machine. To me this is not a feminist issue at all, simply a power issue. Yes, she was female and he was male, but envisioning a situation as "feminist" simply because of the genders of the participants is simplistic. I'm a feminist that says that men can be true feminists. I known a bunch of male feminists, some here on SI, and admire them. I wish I'd had a son because I would have done what I could to talk to him about this very elemantary humanistic viewpoint.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (1054)	7/18/2001 4:32:40 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1857

I think it's pretty clear that the Anita Hill support qualified as a feminist movement I'm with Poet on this one. I supported Anita Hill because I found her very credible and he was head of the EEOC when the alleged incidents occurred. If true, he showed enormous disrespect for the law and for his office and here he was nominated for the Supreme Court. Had he been her boss at the Pentagon or the Department of Energy, I wouldn't have thought much about his behavior, which is pretty typical, just like Condit's philandering is pretty typical. Karen