Sexual advances are deemed harassment when they are reasonably shown to cause distress and harm to the recipient. If Anita Hill felt that his statements were harassment, then she had every right to express that view. Whether what he did falls under EEOC guidelines would have been up to the commission set up to interpret the law. Neither Hill nor Thomas can determine the outcome if her allegations had been tried by either a commission, such as the one set up in Massachusetts, or by a civil court as established in other states.
I think all that nonsense establishes is that Clarence Thomas is a human male. I dislike his politics, I think his penchant for pursuing women is...ordinary.
Do women really not believe the statistics with regards to how many times a day guys think about sex?
Or is it that they still think we need to be punished and humiliated for it?
If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!
Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.
impeachement is the nuclear weapon of government, so no, i would be "complacent". I have never called for the impeachement of another official, for i have yet to see a politician worth impeaching.I wonder if you'd be so complacent if this were Sotomayor instead of Thomas...