When powerful men are accused of violence against women, we hear:
“Impossible! They never would have gotten their positions if that were true!”
And I ask you—did anyone inquire into *your* violence history before you got your current job? (And background checks don’t count.)
“Impossible! They never would have gotten their positions if that were true!”
And I ask you—did anyone inquire into *your* violence history before you got your current job? (And background checks don’t count.)
I have been on hiring committees where a candidate’s history of bad behavior came to light—and the person who brought it up was removed from the committee for a “conflict of interest.”
In contrast, I have worked for exactly zero organizations that have done any kind of serious vetting for gender-based violence.
(And, again, background checks don’t count. Perpetrators are almost never prosecuted.)
(And, again, background checks don’t count. Perpetrators are almost never prosecuted.)
Honestly, we all know that organizations don’t include this stuff in their hiring process.
So let’s call it what it is:
A way of saying some men are powerful enough that we believe they deserve impunity. That their “work” outweighs their treatment of individual women.
So let’s call it what it is:
A way of saying some men are powerful enough that we believe they deserve impunity. That their “work” outweighs their treatment of individual women.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
