"[Men] think themselves superior to women, but they mingle that with the notion of equality between men and women. It's very odd."
[Jean-Paul Sartre]
Hill and Thomas, two black, Yale Law School graduates, appeared before an all-white, male panel of Senators in response to an FBI investigation and Senate subpoena. Hill, a tenured law professor, presented her testimony of alleged sexual harassment before the Senate committee. The question of how to represent a powerful minority that is systematically excluded from government bodies, resulted in public confusion in all aspects of the political process. The fundamental issues were focused around black rights, women's rights, race and gender. The black community believed that the hearings underscored the unresolved business of racial justice in white America.1
As Robert Chrisman and Robert Allen state, the ideology of race first and gender second fosters white male supremacy, underpinning the racial oppression of black women and men, as well as the sexual oppression of women. This ideology empowers white over black and male over female. Race is genderized and gender is racialized, but race is ranked higher than gender, which means that racial equality between white and black men is more important than gender equality. Thus, race and gender are polarized, manipulated and pitted against one another. Chrisman and Allen further stress that because it is impossible to separate gender from race, and since they are sexually and racially oppressed, black women become the primary target of the ideology of race first and gender second.2
Gender is also a question of power, male supremacy and female subordination. The distribution of power is also a question of equality. Consider the contrast between gender as women live it, which is an unequal distribution of power, and gender as it is abstractly theorized as a differentiation. Catharine MacKinnon takes the position that if gender were simply a question of difference, sexual inequality would be mere sexism or the inaccurate classification of individuals. If on the other hand gender is constructed to maintain inequality, then sexual inequality is a question of male supremacy, of systematic dominance. The feminist theory of power is that sexuality is gendered as gender is sexualized. In essence, feminism is a theory of how dominance and submission create gender and man and woman in the social form as we know them. Thus the sex difference and dominance-submission dynamic define one another.3
As Roland Barthes has put it, "...power is present in the most delicate mechanisms of social exchange..." existing in groups, classes, entertainment, public opinion, news, information and even in those who seek to counteract it. Barthes offers the example of "revolutions" which are carried out to destroy power, only to be reborn within the new state of affairs. He goes on to say that "...power is the parasite of a trans-social organism, linked to the whole of man's history and not only to his political, historical history."4
A study of commonalities, Hill and Thomas came from similar political, religious and educational backgrounds, yet they communicated with one another in a world of gender inequalities. The sense that Hill and Thomas were of equal credibility was based on more than image and appearance and the political manipulations of both sides. Both were compelled by moral conviction: his, the outrage of a man falsely accused, in a forum which denied him any means of clearing his name; hers, the confidence of a person with superior moral reasons for doing what she did. When Hill's political and personal disillusionment with Thomas converged with the opportunity to "save" the Supreme Court, her sense of historical mission enabled and justified Hill to suspend normal personal ethics to achieve her ends.
The issues of race and gender raised by the confirmation hearings were extremely complex. Toni Morrison states that black women who protest sexist treatment from black men are often reminded that they are black first and female second. As the hearings demonstrated, a black woman suffers a double risk: racial discrimination and sexual discrimination from both black and white males.5 The issues of gender were raised by Hill, feminists and supporters, and projected as criticism of the state of gender relations in society. A spectacular implication of the hearings was that, for the first time, the issue of sexual harassment and its effects on women was considered important. Jacqueline Jackson, while condemning Hill's behavior, stated that "we must forgive and forget Hill, but not the continued fight for racial and sexual liberation including, for women, freedom from...racial and/or sexual harassment."6
Hill was viewed as a courageous woman, who appeared before the Senate with sexual harassment charges against a powerful, political figure following his Supreme Court nomination. Placing her reputation and career in jeopardy for the sake of integrity, Hill was not taken seriously by the all-male committee. From the perspective of the black community Hill, although her behavior and demeanor did not agree, was portrayed as a black woman bringing down a "good" black man. She was perceived as vindictive and intent on destroying a distinguished African-American male.7 Hill's motives, integrity and sanity were maligned and many were of the opinion that more effort was put into discrediting Hill then into her testimony.
Thomas' "reality" was seen as an emblem of political and intellectual potential. His characterization of the hearings as a "high-tech lynching" at the hands of the senators and media, empowered Thomas racially and dramatically illustrated the process of regulating and normalizing the politics of difference. Thomas refocused attention on himself by presenting himself as a "victim."8 As it turned out, this proved to be politically effective, since observers were caught up with the image of Hill and her case as presented by the media. Some felt that Thomas' analogy to the unsubstantiated charge of sexual harassment was instrumental in securing his nomination. Others believed that this conduct against a black man, obscured the real cause of his vilification, namely his conservative politics.9
Feminists take the position that the differences attributed to sex are the lines drawn by inequality. Toril Moi has argued that because the balance of power would be upset, it serves the interests of patriarchy to equate gender with sex, confusing socially constructed role expectations.10 Social and political inequality are basically indifferent to similarity and difference. Inequality is substantive and identifies a distinction, while difference is abstract. Abstract equality undermines and reinforces substantive inequality. MacKinnon points out that a deceptive antifeminism approach in society, politics and the law, treats gender as though it were a question of difference, rather than treating the gender difference as a construct of the difference gender makes.11
MacKinnon points out that in the practice of law women lawyers are held to what she calls, the "man standard" and the "lady standard." In society a successful lawyer is a man, in the sense that the role of a successful lawyer is a male role. Being a lawyer is also substantially more consistent with the content of the male role, with what men are taught in society: to be ambitious, upwardly striving, aggressive, not just assertive, and capable of hostility.12 The role of the lawyer has as its implicit norms the same qualities that are the explicit norms of masculinity, as it is socially defined. A successful "lady" by contrast is taught to be considerate, receptive, sincere and emotional; qualities which are not equated with the legal profession.
To liberate women from social demand that life follows a traditional pattern, would call for separation of sex and gender. If femininity is socially constructed and not biologically determined, the social change can result in women's liberation. Feminists should try to maintain the distinction between sex and gender, so that biological makeup cannot be viewed as determinative of women's roles. Moi's definition of woman appeals to the importance of differentiating between female sex, as naturally determined and feminine identity, as culturally determined.13 Feminism, when viewed primarily as a struggle for equal rights for men and women, does not emphasize but rather minimizes the difference between genders. Julia Kristeva contends that it is the lack of political rights rather than biological differences which sets women apart as a group.14
An argument can be made in support of the case for equal rights for women, in the distinction between nature and social conditioning. Simone de Beauvoir's claim that one is not born woman, one becomes woman, has been called the most famous formulation of the view that women are not defined biologically, but have learned to conform to social norms. The fact that women are socialized into adopting "feminine" values, formulates the possibility of changing the destiny of women.
On the Platonic concept of eros, Levinas criticizes its failure to recognize the role of the feminine, associating eros with Shakespeare's witches, "an order where seriousness is totally lacking." By drawing attention to the presence of the feminine, Levinas shows interest in investing it with a positive significance. His early (l947) accounts of the feminine show a preoccupation with the erotic, slowly leading to a concern with the ethical and by l96l, Levinas appears to favor the ethical relation.15 The feminine [Levinas often says "the woman"] would be excluded from the highest destiny of human, which would be reserved for the masculine. On Levinas treatment of femininity, Tina Chanter questions whether the feminine is secondary, the absolute other and, as such, primary for Levinas. Chanter accepts that Levinas insists on the subordination of the feminine and points out that Derrida finds [in Levinas] the feminine described as a figure of the wholly other.16
Chanter focuses on Sophocles' Antigone to introduce several issues in current feminist thought. In Hegel's reflections on the role of Antigone, it is the male power that woman invests her interest in. Conforming to the traditional female role of subservience, woman depends on the superiority of her male counterpart. Female rights are then measured in relation to male rights.17 In feminist thinking, an arena where similarities are emphasized and differences minimized is problematic, in the sense that sex is viewed in opposition to gender. The notion that women should strive to retain and develop their differences is looked upon with suspicion.
On the issue of gender, Derrida would say that woman is the other of man, non-man, assigned a negative value in relation to the principle of male superiority. By the same token, man is what he is only by virtue of the negation of woman. Woman is an other, related to man as the image of what man is not and as such a basic reminder of what he is. As he rejects this other, man is dependent upon woman and the act of excluding and subordinating her, and obliged to give a positive identity to what he regards as nothing.18
In his infamous essay "On Women," Schopenhauer considers them "sexus sequoir," the inferior second sex, incapable of objective interest in anything and lacking in all objectivity of mind. He considers women inferior to men in respect to justice, honesty and conscientiousness. As a result of their weaker reasoning power, women generally are affected by what is present and visible, lacking a sense of the abstract, past or future. Schopenhauer contends that man possesses the power of reasoning, and that woman is always indirectly dominated by man.19 Feminists would take the position that because men are in power, most women in power are accountable to men, a reflection of sexual inequality, which is substantive and identifies a difference. In a postmodern world in which everything is intensified into representations and simulacra, Baudrillard would say that the identification between power and representations of power are so complete, that power has effectively disappeared.20
Sexual harassment is an abuse of power. If one looks at sexual harassment as power, what is power supposed to be? Unless one accepts the notion of male power, situations of coequal power are difficult to view as sexual harassment, which has emerged as a creature of hierarchy. Basically, women are victimized by men regardless of their relative position on the formal hierarchy. In issues of sexual harassment, the woman is treated without regard to her sex; it is because of her sex that it occurs.
MacKinnon states that in the past, when determining whether an incident occurred because of sex, courts did not consider the social meaning attributed to women, in which they are defined as gender female by sexual accessibility to men. When the pattern of a legal wrong does not conform to the occurrence, the law can undermine social, political and legal legitimacy.21 Subsequently, the existence of a law against sexual harassment has changed the context of meaning and the delivery of rights through the legal system. It was necessary that injustices of women be legitimized in order to delegitimize their victimization. The legal claim for sexual harassment made the events of sexual harassment illegitimate socially as well as legally.22
MacKinnon, whose arguments have been instrumental in how courts have defined sexual harassment, stated that Hill's story was "the very most common kind of case." Judith Resnick, law professor at the University of Southern California, referred to Hill's testimony in Time as "a paradigm of a sexual harassment case."23 [According to David Brock, MacKinnon and Resnick were advisors to Hill.] Brock takes the position that this judgment was a subjective, emotional and political reaction to a woman's charge of sexual harassment against a man, not an objective, reasoned assessment of the facts and evidence of the case.24
It is MacKinnon's contention that gender has structured thought and perception so that mainstream legal and moral theory consider issues of gender and equality issues of differences and sameness. The approach to sexual equality that has dominated politics, law and social perception, views equality as an equivalence and sex as a distinction. This concept of equality which assumes similarity and sex which assumes difference, carries a built-in conflict. This dominant approach "to be the same as men," termed "gender neutrality" (doctrinally) and "single standard" (philosophically), reflects the ideology of the social world and is considered a standard for all. To be different from men, is viewed as an alternative approach for women who want equality yet find that they are different. Considered an exception to true equality, this equal recognition of difference is also known philosophically, as the "double standard."25
The philosophy underlying the difference approach is that sex is a difference beneath which can be found a sameness. The moral thrust of a sameness approach is to make rules conform by granting women the same access as men. Men have become the measure of all things, with women measured according to their similarity to men, and equality judged by how they measure up to men. Under the difference standard, women are measured according to their dissimilarity to men. Gender neutrality is the male standard.26
Black feminists have been critical of feminist theory produced by white, middle class feminists. Black feminists' experience of gender is quite different from white women.27 The Hill-Thomas hearings showed that for black men who are successful in the white system, sexism separates black men from black women, illustrating the greater gap between white men and black women. While many elements of feminist discourse about gender power and sexuality would apply to Hill, Hill and Thomas had to be removed from racial classification so that they could be represented in a recognizable story of sexual harassment.
The notion that the male senators "just didn't get it," served the interests of a broader ideological movement to redefine the legal and social relations between the sexes. The phrase echoed the feminist argument that American society is a patriarchal system that enshrines a male perspective and relegates women to subordinate roles. Notions of logic, objectivity, equality under the law and common good, are all regarded as reflections of this patriarchal bias. Ann Scales, of the University of New Mexico Law School, argues that feminist analysis begins with the principle that objective reality is a myth. It recognizes that patriarchal myths are projections of the male psyche. National opinion polls taken at the time of the hearings revealed that male and female perceptions of value are not shared and perhaps not perceptible to each other.28 This reasoning formed the basis for an argument that women evaluated Hill's case in a different way from men.
It is Brock's contention that a political campaign was being waged against Thomas by activists whose strategy was to block a conservative nominee, since his individual views, philosophy and record were never an issue. He suggests that Hill, along with feminist law professors and Senate aides enhanced Hill's story to attack a conservative nominee. Brock further contends that the hearings presented an opportunity for radical feminists to seize upon a "broader ideological movement to redefine the legal and social relations between the sexes."29 By focusing attention on the evils of sexual harassment, Hill's supporters successfully diverted attention from the question of her truthfulness on specific issues. It was believed that Hill's image as a victim was enhanced by the exposure of her deceptions, deflections and incorrect statements. Brock's investigative reporting [purportedly an unbiased, revisionist view] accuses Hill, a "full-fledged campus radical," of fabricating her charges of sexual harassment.
An exception to the media myth of Hill's conservatism appeared in a Wall Street Journal article published a month after the hearings. On politics, Hill, an advisor to a feminist group at the Oklahoma Law School, was described as a mild-mannered feminist who endorsed women's rights in a non-ideological fashion.30
The spotlight on the hearings and the "gender consciousness" raised in the entertainment industry's coverage have made Hill's name a symbol for reverence, respect and ridicule. The "reverence" and "ridicule" appear disconnected from reality and based more on gender abstractions, i.e., a notion of sexual politics romantically removed from class and racial politics. The "respect" is in response to Hill's withstanding of the racist-sexist harassment of the Senate Judiciary Committee during nationally televised "hearings" on sexual harassment.31
Whether she proved her case against Thomas or not was insignificant. The Hill-Thomas hearings have become one of the most politically and sexually polarized confrontations, having affected politics on almost every level. The controversy surrounding the confirmation hearings, especially the treatment of Hill, has helped inspire a renaissance in women's politics. Hill's testimony has been recognized as a catalyst for a surge in women's political activism, and has resulted in financial support and more women candidates for the House of Representatives running on gender issues.
The white, male Senate Judiciary Committee prompted increased exploration in the media in male-female relationships. The spectacular implications of the story and the issue of sexual harassment and its effects on women have been recognized as important issues. Many have argued that the hearings have strengthened political forces and increased awareness of power and the capacity of those in power to rule over their opponents. In the years since Justice Thomas was elected to the Supreme Court, a coalition of liberal interest groups, politicians, academics and media have "reconstructed Anita Hill into Everywoman, Everyvictim."32