Hello Downriver,
I was raised by my single mom after the age of 13. I have a wife. We have four daughters, four granddaughters and a great-granddaughter.
I also have three grandsons and a great, but my female-centric background has particular relevance today, with me asking:
What in the pluperfect hell is wrong with too many men when it comes to believing women?
Why is there a societal bent toward the word of men over the word of women?
Why has an American history of relegating women to second-class status still found footing today?
I have more questions, but you get the idea: as a result of history, so-called “tradition” and misogynistic legalities, women in our society simply must meet a higher standard when it comes to being believed.
(Not to mention rights, but that’s for another column.)
My outrage with the behavior of too many of my literal fellow “man” has no particular starting point, but I can certainly think of moments in which men — and politicians in particular — have decidedly taken the wrong side.
Two of those moments involve the credible testimony of women during confirmation hearings for two now-sitting Supreme Court justices.
Starting with Clarence Thomas.
For those who don’t remember, on Oct. 11, 1991, law professor Anita Hill credibly accused Thomas of sexual harassment while he was her supervisor at the Department of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Everything — and I mean EVERYTHING — Hill said at the hearings had the ring of truth that only someone who has suffered such sexual harassment can convey.
But, aside from graphic descriptions of a pop can with “hair” on it, what I also remember was Thomas’ incredulous, despicable response; that legitimate questions of his character were part of a “high-tech lynching” — somehow equating the horrors of the distant South with the valid accusations of a Black woman.
Lest you also forget: 12 members of the American Bar Association’s vetting committee said Thomas might be “qualified,” but not well-qualified; and two deemed him “not qualified” at all, and one member abstained.
That’s right: Not one member of the ABA committee said Thomas was “well-qualified.” It stands as the lowest rating the committee had ever given a U.S. Supreme Court nominee.
Still, a Democratic-controlled Senate — of which 98 of its 100 members were men — eventually confirmed Thomas by a vote of 52-48, the closest vote ever for a successful Supreme Court nominee at the time.
Of that vote, 51 men approved of Thomas, while 47 didn’t.
The interesting thing is that of those two women serving in the Senate that day, they split their vote: Democrat Barbara Mikulski of Maryland voted no and Republican Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas voted yes. Even today, Kassebaum’s vote raises eyebrows.
The closest Senate vote?
Well, that honor falls to Brett Kavanaugh (50-48), who faced his own accusations of sexual assault and misconduct in 2018 — including, coincidentally, by another professor, Christine Blasey Ford, a research psychologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine.
Interestingly, the ABA did give Kavanaugh a unanimous “well-qualified” at first, but once the accusations of sexual misconduct emerged, the ABA said it would reevaluate his “temperament.”
That never happened, though, because the ABA has no process for evaluating sitting judges. As a result, the misplaced “well-qualified” rating stands.
By the time of Kavanaugh’s nomination, the Senate had evolved dramatically — from two women in 1991 to 23 women in 2018 (17 Democrats and six Republicans).
Of those women, five Republicans approved Kavanaugh’s confirmation (one voted “present”), and all 17 Democrats voted to reject his nomination.
Of course, that makes any blanket statement about women more complicated, but it probably says more about the change in politics by 2018 — Trump’s first term — than a change in gender believability.
Nevertheless, today’s Supreme Court has two justices with questionable ethical (and potentially criminal) histories sitting in judgment on our society.
Can we imagine what life would be like today if other, more completely well-qualified, less “problematic” people were sitting on the bench today?
Maybe two women?
I suggest … better.
Of course, all of this is relevant now because of what we’re dealing with — again — in our national discourse: the believability of women (one of whom died by suicide) who are at the center of accusations of child sex abuse and trafficking being made as part of the ongoing Jeffrey Epstein criminal probe.
Again, what in the pluperfect hell is going on with Trumplicans in the House and potentially in the Senate when it comes to releasing the Epstein files, which Trump historically demanded be released?
Of course, that is, until his name became ever more prominent within their pages.
Well, of course, we know what’s going on: it’s the penultimate CYA moment for Trumplicans who see this moment as one of protecting their liege against ghastly accusations from … women.
Well, I don’t know about you, but I long ago tired of the MAGAnations of useful idiots who cower in fear of the fatman’s shadow.
I long ago tired of the excuses and lame defenses put up as tissue-paper walls against legitimate criticism of this presidency.
But this isn’t about that.
“This” is about the lives of young women — some literally “children” — who were trafficked by Epstein and his convicted accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, who now enjoys unprecedented privileges of prison life that no other criminal of her ilk would have access to.
And is now angling for a Trump commutation of her 20-year sentence.
That this is outrageous — on so many levels — is literally incomprehensible.
It’s certainly reprehensible.
But we’re here because the historical misogyny of our country remains alive and well, and even protected within the halls of our own Congress; certainly protected (if not encouraged) within the walls of the White House.
So I write this today not to just tear down the already tattered and problematic legacies of two justices, but rather to say “enough.”
Enough of not taking women at their word when they say “no.”
When they say they were attacked by a man.
When they claim — en masse — that men in positions of power abused that power to abuse them.
What’s laughable, of course, is the hollow claim by Trump and his Trumplicans that they’re being “transparent” when it comes to the release of the Epstein files — or any other documents that illustrate the near-criminal excesses of this administration.
“Transparent” only means you can see what’s on the other side, not that you’re getting the full story.
America — and the women sexually trafficked by Epstein and Maxwell and abused by men in positions of power — deserve more than transparency.
We — and they — deserve the truth, the whole truth and nothing but.
And those who appear in those files deserve to stand before all of us and reap what they sowed.
To read other of my essays, check out Substack.com and look for me at “Farrandipity.” It’s free. (And please share with like-minded individuals — and even those who aren’t.)
Craig Farrand is a former managing editor of The News-Herald. I can be reached at craig.substack@gmail.com.
