I believe that the United States has gone overboard in terms of protecting the abuser at the expense of the abused.

—Cat Saunders

Incest and Politics

By Cat Saunders

Editor's Note: This article was published in December 1991, two months after the October 1991 hearings concerning sexual harassment allegations by Anita Hill in regard to Clarence Thomas, who was a nominee for the Supreme Court (and was later ratified).

Usually I don't write about politics per se, but the recent Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas hearings have struck a chord of mutual concern for me as a helping professional, namely, sexual rights and responsibilities.

After the hearings were over, I realized that the scenario in Congress reminded me of the scenario in a family when a woman—or a man—comes forward to tell about past sexual abuse. Frequently, the survivor of the abuse is not believed and the perpetrator typically responds with anger, indignation, or outright denial.

Other family members—even the ones who think they are being supportive—may give the survivor the third degree: "Why bring this up now? Why not forgive and forget? He didn't know any better. He was abused as a child, too. Think of the family! How can you do this to us?"

It's often the norm for the survivor—whether or not she tells her family—to feel guilty, bad, dirty, wrong, or responsible for the abuse. She may even doubt her own memories if they surface later in life, because the pain of the trauma may trigger denial, because many victims are threatened by the abuser to keep quiet, and/or because children in general are taught not to question authority (and abusers are often in positions of authority).

The admonition never to question authority contributes significantly to the continuation of sexual abuse, for obvious reasons. For those who question the veracity of their sexual abuse memories, I offer this question: "Can you honestly tell me that you would actually want to have experienced sexual abuse if you'd had a choice?" That question always silences their doubts about having "made up" the memories.

I doubt that Anita Hill would have put herself on the line if her past experience with Thomas were not true. The Senate is 98 percent white males now in 1991. Can you imagine how much courage it took for Anita Hill to talk about penises and pubic hair and pornography in front of all those guys?

When you look at what happened in Congress, it's not hard to see why women are still so afraid to speak out. After all, if Anita Hill—with all her professional credentials and personal integrity—was not believed, how would the average woman fare?

In terms of relating the Congressional hearings to incest in a family, imagine Anita Hill as a woman trying to tell her family—the Senate—about sexual abuse by her "brother," Clarence Thomas. Imagine President Bush and his wife as "Dad" and "Mom," and imagine the country—you and me and everyone—as extended family. In this context, notice that the alleged abuser is protected by law when it comes to "one person's word against another's."

Notice that the victim—but not the alleged abuser—was required to submit to a lie detector test. Notice that Dad (Bush) did not withdraw his support of Thomas.  That is, Thomas' word that "he didn't do it" was good enough for Dad. Notice also that Mom (Mrs. Bush) was conspicuously absent—as many mothers of survivors are—when it came to defending or protecting the survivor. Mothers of survivors often side with the perpetrator in an effort to maintain the status quo and avoid facing their own part in the system.

Another interesting corollary between the hearings and incestuous families is this: There were repeated objections to Hill's testimony because it took place more that ten years ago. So what? Does the passage of time mean that the harassment didn't take place, or that Thomas can be trusted to have cleaned up his act?  In addition, people who question Hill's long silence have their heads in the sand if they think women are not regularly disregarded, disbelieved, and discriminated against simply because of their gender.

Yet another objection to Hill's testimony was that she and Thomas had been friends, so how dare she question the behavior of someone who helped her get where she is professionally?  That objection sounds suspiciously like society's habit of protecting an incestuous parent while discounting the rights of his or her child victim, because after all, the parent fed and clothed and sheltered the child, too. This kind of thinking is sick beyond compare, and it is, unfortunately, pervasive. 

In my own life, I've been harassed by so many men in personal, familial, educational, and professional settings that I lost count ages ago. Yet it's only recently that I myself have started speaking up. Why? For exactly the same reasons Anita Hill experienced recently in Congress: The woman is not believed or she is told that she is "making a big deal out nothing" or "that's how men are" or "put up and shut up."

What's worse, it's apparent that many people—both men and women—can't even perceive sexual harassment. In other words, they're either ignorant or in such denial that they don't even know what kind of behavior constitutes sexual harassment. Does this mean it's not happening anywhere? Hardly. The fact that incest has been and is still so often hidden and denied does not mean that it isn't happening, either.

There's one other thing that bothers me about the Hill/Thomas hearings. That is, I've long noticed that indignant anger is usually a dead giveaway for guilt. In families where a survivor steps forward, perpetrators and their supporters often react with indignant anger toward the survivor: "How dare you say that about me! How dare you bring this up! How dare you question my behavior!" Sounds just like Thomas.

For me personally, when I get really mad about another person's accusation, it's sometimes an indication that the accusation is hitting too close to home. On the other hand, when someone's accusation doesn't ring true for me, my response is either flat or I may feel sad about not being seen for who I am. What's your experience?

Although the general public—or "extended family" in this analogy—appeared to side with Thomas, it's encouraging to me that nearly half of the all-male Senate voted against Thomas. It's also encouraging to me that among Thomas' own colleagues (from a survey of state and federal judges), only one in five believed Thomas.

It's especially encouraging that many women's organizations—the League of Women Voters, the National Abortion Rights Action League, the National Organization for Women, and others—have been overwhelmed with callers since the hearings, callers who are irate about the insensitive way Anita Hill was treated. As Jean Godden wrote in The Seattle Times (10/27/91): "Vengeful treatment of Hill and failure to take sexual harassment charges seriously apparently have served to wake a sleeping giant." Let's hope so.

If Anita Hill has opened the door to greater awareness of sexual harassment, the trauma of her Congressional experience will not have been in vain. If a "sleeping giant" has been awakened, then I say let each of us—women and men—keep that giant awake. This means speaking up about sexual behavior or words that hurt or offend you, whether it's from family, friends, lovers, or co-workers.

Tell the person involved to stop. If you're afraid to confront the person alone and/or you are not taken seriously, get support. That may mean contacting a local human rights agency or mental health clinic, consulting a counselor or lawyer, or rallying personal support from trusted friends, family members, or co-workers in order to confront the perpetrator.

Last of all, support other women—and men—who have the guts to speak out against inappropriate sexual conduct. Of course, a person is innocent until proven guilty. However, I believe that the United States has gone overboard in terms of protecting the abuser at the expense of the abused. This imbalance must be corrected at personal, familial, and societal levels.  

Ultimately, I think the hearings were a success despite the fact that Clarence Thomas was confirmed to the Supreme Court. No matter what is true about his past, I doubt if he could get away with any future acts of sexual harassment. Big Sister will be watching. Hopefully, we will all be watching. The Giantess of Sexual Respect is awake. And she is mad as hell.

    This article was originally published by The New Times (December 1991).

    To read more about the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas hearings, please visit http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/122/hill/hillframe.htm.

    To learn more about protecting the rights of children, please visit the Web site of Andrew Vachss at www.vachss.com.