Designing Women S6 E2 Extra Sugar: The Anita Hill Of It All

sweetteatvpod

Oct 10, 202422 min read

Updated: Dec 4, 2024

This week’s “Extra Sugar” was inspired by Designing Women, S6E7, “The Strange Case of Clarence and Anita”

That would be Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (then nominee) and Anita Hill, the woman who testified he had sexually harassed her years earlier when he was her supervisor.

We’ll talk about the aftermath of her testimony and then discuss where we are now. Our conversation circles issues of sexual misconduct, harassment, and assault, so please take care of yourself.

Sources and additional reading:

Come on y’all, let’s get into it!

Or listen on Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music.

Transcript

My name is Anita F. Hill. Hill told National Public Radio that Thomas pressured her to go out with him while she worked for him in the early 1980s. And when she refused, she says he talked about scenes from pornographic movies and sexual. I felt I had a duty to report.

Do you have a martyr complex?

I have no personal vendetta against Clarence Thomas.

Are you a scorned woman?

M. It would have been more comfortable to remain silent.

I would think that these things, what you describe, are so repugnant, so ugly, so obscene, that you would never have.

Talked to him again.

This is not too bad. Women's large breast. That's a word we use all the time.

But when I was asked by a representative of, this committee to report my experience, I felt that I had to tell the truth. Judge Thomas and Professor Hill are black. And, that community has a special interest in the outcome of this.

Judge Thomas said if this came out.

It would ruin his career.

I have nothing to gain here. I've been threatened, and I have not gained anything except knowing that I came forward and did what I felt that I had an obligation to do, and that was to tell the truth.

Hey, y'all. Hey, Nikki.

Hey, Selena.

I switched up on you. I gotcha.

Extra Sugar focuses on issues regarding sexual misconduct, harassment, and assault

welcome to this week's edition of Extra Sugar. Thank you. What you just heard was a clip from the 2021 podcast series because of Anita by Pineapple Street Studios and the Meteor, which I have a hard time saying, apparently. So sorry about that.

It's a lot of unusual words.

Altogether it is. we'll link to that series in our show notes, and I highly recommend. But a couple of quick notes right off the bat. Today's topic circles issues regarding sexual misconduct, harassment, and assault. So please take care of yourself. Nikki, please pop in with questions and thoughts at any time. You're good.

Thank you.

In 1991, attorney Anita Hill testified that Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas had harassed her

And today's segment is inspired by Designing Women Season 6, Episode 7, the Strange Case of Clarence and Anita. I don't think there was any world where this wasn't going to be an extra sugar or an extra sugar of mine.

I think you maybe made your mind up on it before we even got to an episode about it.

It's possible it will be mine, but we are talking about a watershed moment in American history that has impacted lawmaking businesses, the perception of sexual harassment, period, but especially in the workplace, and our shared and not shared understanding of gender violence. What I don't want to do today is spend a lot of time on the 91 of it all. aside from, like, a really quick NPR recap to set the table, if you will. We're going to be going in a slightly different direction, but to get us all on the same page. In 1991, attorney Anita Hill testified that Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas had sexually harassed her, first when they worked together in the US Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, and then again when he was chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Hill's testimony was unlike anything heard before at a Supreme Court nominee hearing. A committee of 14 white men, chaired by then Senator Joe Biden, grilled her in a televised live hearing. The Senate ultimately confirmed Thomas nomination in a 52 to 48 vote, and Hill went home to a new life, condemned by many and facing death threats. Nevertheless, she has no regrets about stepping forward. So I don't want to ignore the Biden piece of it and that he has received a lot of criticism over the years and especially in more recent years for the way he handled the hearing. But that's not really the focus today. I just don't want to ignore it. So we'll drop a couple articles in the show notes if you want to do a little bit of your own digging. If it's not something you were familiar with already, you can do that. Nikki, before we move on, any questions, any thoughts, any reactions?

So many thoughts, so many reactions. But, no, I think, carry on, and I'll weigh in as we go.

Anita Hill testified against Clarence Thomas during the 1991 Senate Judiciary Committee

Okay, so I want to pause for a moment, because a lot of times when I feel like Anita Hill gets brought up, we skip over her as like a human being. And both she and Clarence Thomas's names, like, they're, like, linked together in the American consciousness. But she's her own person with her own interesting history, who had achieved many things before she ever set foot in front of that Senate Judiciary Committee. So, just real quickly, hill was born July 30, 1956, in Longtree, Oklahoma. I know it doesn't seem like it's going to be quick, because I started with the day she was born, but 1956, just moving on to 57.

she learned to walk at six months.

Well, so she's a Southern gal, for starters. she's also the youngest of 13 children and was brought up on a farm. She got her BA From Oklahoma State University and then her law degree from Yale. She taught for three years at Oral Roberts University and then joined the faculty of the law college at the University of Oklahoma, where in 1989, she became the university's first tenured African American professor. I think that Made her only like her early 30s.

So I was thinking that she. And I don't. I hate to comment on age, but I will in this instance because it's kind of historical stuff. She's a lot younger than I would have expected that she was.

I think she was 35 when she was doing the, her testimony.

It doesn't help that I think I'm 21, but it does seem like she's, she's still really young.

Yeah, she was like a baby.

So after a lot of accomplishment by a young age too.

And that's why I wanted to talk about this at least a little bit. After the hearing, she became a sought after speaker on sexual harassment, and she left OU in 1996 after continued calls for her resignation. Hill went on to Brandeis University, first as a visiting scholar and eventually professor of gender, race and law. And she has authored many articles and three books. And since the hearing, she has dedicated her life to defending safer, better workplaces and uprooting gender violence. What a scab.

You know, man, that's, God's work.

I mean, honestly. Exactly.

And we were, we were just talking about this off air, this concept of, like, how far do you take something when you feel like there's been an injustice and so much bravery to do that and pick up your life and keep going to make your experience mean something better for other people?

So I don't think I included this anywhere else. But I will say when she got done with everything that happened, and there was a lot of talking heads at the time that were like, no woman will ever come forward again after Anita Hill. And that was a moment that changed for her, everything that she was going to do, because she was like, I can't have that on my conscious. And so. And that's why she's dedicated the rest of her life, in the way that she has.

God bless her.

In 1992, 1600 black women took out an ad protesting Anita Hill's testimony

So for the remainder of today's segment, I'd like to talk about the aftermath of her testimony. So what happened in 1992 and a bit further into the 90s. And then I want to fast forward and we're going to talk about a lot of those same things, but like today. So it's going to, it's good news. So In November of 1991, the following month, after Thomas was confirmed. So, I guess we're starting with 91. Anyways, there were 1600 black women who took out an ad in the New York Times titled African American Women in Defense of Ourselves. It spoke to their disapproval of Thomas's Confirmation and Hill's treatment. And I want to read a few of those lines. We are particularly outraged by the racist and sexist treatment of Professor Anita Hill, an African American woman who was maligned and castigated for her for daring to speak publicly of her own experience of sexual abuse. We pledge ourselves to continue to speak out in defense of one another, in defense of the African American community and against those who are hostile to social justice, no matter what color they are. No one will speak for us but ourselves. So I just stopped there and asked Nikki, any thoughts or anything that you want to share?

I mean, just what a shame that that's what it takes to, Hm. Get to that point. And that's what it takes to get your point heard is to come together as a big group and say, that last line really spoke to me. No one will speak for us but ourselves. What a sad reality.

Yeah. Every time I read those lines, I get chills. Yeah, for me, I agree, it is, it is, telling what had to happen. You know, at the same time it's, it's so powerful because especially at that time, thinking about the amount of hate that she was receiving and then, you know, there wasn't anything immediate like social media to show that a, swell, of support. And so for them to come together in such a unique way and show that is just really touching. and honestly, that is one piece of this that I didn't know about until I started researching, which probably, probably says more about me, but, you know.

1991, you were six.

Thank you. I'll take the pass. 1992 was declared the year of the Woman when a historic number of female politicians were elected to Congress. So basically this doubles the number of women in the Senate to 6 and women in the House to 47. 1992 also marked the beginning of more women of color entering those hallowed halls, including Carol Moseley Braun, the very first black woman senator. And not everyone was a fan of this declaration. So Senator Mikulski is on record saying, quote, calling 1992 the year of the Woman. Makes it sound like the year of the caribou or the year of the asparagus. We're not a fan fad a fancy or a year, which I really liked.

Oh, I do like that. I initially wanted to, like, swing my shirt around and, scream.

I felt that way.

And then I also identified with her when she said that. I was like, dude, I see both ways. You know, get it?

Hill's testimony changed the national conversation about sexual harassment in the workplace

okay, so then we have Hill's testimony and what it changed about sexual harassment in the workplace. So, technically, sexual harassment had been outlawed in Title 7 of the Civil Rights act of 1964, but it hadn't been well defined or enforced.

Perfect.

Exactly.

That's the way good policy works.

Hear, hear. So Hill's testimony brought it out of the shadows and into the national conversation because it was like the first time that there would be standards for what was and was not acceptable in the workplace. Lack of awareness had been, maybe arguably the biggest problem because people didn't. They didn't even know if this was like a. A thing, let alone illegal. Most people saw that type of harassment as like, a foregone conclusion. Like, your boss is such a cad. You know what I'm saying?

Like, Yeah, I was going to say, like nine to five. Yeah.

It was like something you just had to deal with or get through. Right. And so Anita's testimony changed all that. And to a New York Times article, By the next year, EEOC sexual harassment complaints increased 73%. Wow. By the late 90s, most American companies had developed mandatory training programs for all employees. That's about 75%. And put grievance procedures in place for reporting harassment and requesting hearings. And that's at 95%.

Wow.

So fast. It was.

And high.

Yeah. Well, I'm wondering how much CYA was in that.

Does it matter, Selena? They got the training.

Yes. This is the extra sugar. It absolutely matters.

They got probably really stilted, awkward trainings like that one from Schitt's Creek when Moira Rose acted in the one for Rose videos.

Oh, yeah.

Super impactful. There were 95% of them.

That's so funny.

I'm surprised that some people didn't feel put off to complain there

so I do have a couple of thoughts here. I don't want to diminish the eeoc, but I'm surprised that some people didn't feel put off to complain there, since that.

It's not a safe space, guys.

It didn't sound like one. You know, the same. Like, And I'm not. I don't know. I just feel like if I had been in that position, I'd be like, well, yeah, well, wasn't that part of the news story or something?

Anyway, we both know people read in an interesting way, so maybe they missed that.

That. That's such a nice way to put that.

You know, maybe they missed that.

I think protections are also somewhat minimal, depending on what kind of job you have. So if you're working in, like, a Fortune 5, like, is like those. Let me put it this way. I don't remember A sexual harassment course at any of my restaurant jobs. You know what I'm saying? Yeah. and so I just think that experience, even today probably feels very different, whether you're like, in an office job or something else.

So I don't think all things are fair and equal, but we could just probably make that the sweeping statement for.

Yeah, I don't think I had a sexual harassment training at Quiznos.

Or the library at uga.

That said, though, I don't think we've had one in our current place of employment either.

I have.

Have you?

Yeah.

Oh, well, there you go. Was that, ah, mandatory? Was that after you were sexually harassing someone or not? Just checking.

Preventative measure.

Okay.

Not just me either. Sorry, need to clarify. Mandatory for all.

Too late.

I'm clean.

okay. So although, they first started working on it in 1990, that's the year before the Thomas hearings. Congress passed the Violence against women Act, or VAWA, in 1994. This is the first comprehensive federal legislative package designed to end violence against women. It was most recently reauthorized by President Biden in 2022. For the record, some, including Hill, have noted that a few Supreme Court decisions have gutted the act and limited the federal government's ability to protect survivors. So there are, like, these ongoing calls to reinvigorate it and strengthen it.

It took until 1994 to get the Violence Against Women Act passed

Any final thoughts before we move on to today?

No.

Okay.

Yes, but yes and no. it's so crazy. I'm sorry. I do. I'm sorry. I'm going to go back, so I'm going to spend a little more time on the Violence Against Women Act. I do think it's fascinating that this is a package of legislation intended to protect women against violence. And it took until 1994 to get passed, even though violence against women, especially domestic violence, but violence against women, it's been well documented for, I mean, probably centuries. It took that long. And then since 1994, they've gutted the act kind of piece by piece. And I wonder how people who argue with that sleep at night. Like, what is it that they put under their pillow that makes them feel okay about those decisions?

Cash? No, I don't know. Yeah. Ah, I don't know. I don't know.

Violence against women. So what is the argument there? And I know that's a gross oversimplification. Again, I admitted I need to research it more. So I don't even know what's in there. But on the face of it, it feels like something that's dangerous to Start piecing apart.

Yeah, I did. So I did actually initially have like 2 of the cases in here and everything that had happened so folks can like link to it and read to it. I mean, once you get in the legal ease, I think it just.

Well, I'm not going to read that.

I think that they were arguing like they were trying to apply the Civil Rights act is a lot of what informed the package. And I think they were saying, it had something to do with like, who you were able to sue.

But you know, I mean, come on, guys. That's how we have set up our court system. That's how we're able to fight for ourselves, is through the court system and sometimes by making people pay through their pocket. But they had made some sort of like, I think it was in 2000, they had made a case against that part that dropped that part out. Then something happened again, like in 2014, and dropped another part out. And it just like whatever holes you're poking in, it's. It's not helpful. Right. I mean, I know that there's like, there's bad pieces of legislation.

Right.

Okay. So. And I did.

It all gets bundled together too.

Yeah.

So it's not like the whole piece of legislation is we're going to make it easy for victims to hold their abusers accountable. It's not that simple. There's more in it. And so maybe sometimes you do have to piece those apart because concessions were made. But on the face, it's not a good look.

Right. Well, and it's not a good look either when it's men who keep dismantling.

Which is like an. I'm still reeling from the fact that she was, interrogated by a group of men. That's just terrifying.

Just like re. Traumatizing her, you know, which is a.

Word they wouldn't have even thought about back then. But it does seem like, you know, the same reason you have. Female interrogators interrogate women when they're either being brought in for a crime or for reporting a crime. They interrogate them because they feel a little bit safer, which is unfortunate, but these are all things that should be considered anyway. That's sort of an aside to your side.

Well, so my jaw was like on the floor hearing what some of those senators said to her. Yeah, you know, don't worry about it. Breasts are a common word. okay, well, up your nose with a rubber hose. I really wish she had said that. No, I really nice. And that up for our clean podcast, because that is not what I would have said. but yeah, I just, it's, it's really baffling. I don't know. So we can judge where we are now, by some different components that I pulled together. Three decades in.

Women made up 51% of the population at the time and 2% of Senate

I thought it might be interesting to start off with the stats that Mary Jo dropped in her very Julia esque rant. So she notes there that women made up 51% of the population at the time and 2% of the Senate. I've really tried to go easy on the numbers here, but there are numbers involved. So as of 2023, we're holding pretty steady at about 51% of the population while currently making up 25% or 25 out of 100 senators. Thank you for some easy math there.

Progress.

Yeah, didn't even have to break out my calculator for that. So that was nice.

Ti83.

I had to graph it. back then there were 406 men in the House of Representatives. Quick math tells me that means women made up roughly 7% of the house. And as I understand it, it was that tiny cohort that demanded Hill be called as a witness after the Senate initially refused to call her or hear her, if you prefer. This is why representation matters. For the next person that ever asked me that, Today there are four times as many women with 125 now in the House. So we're reaching, about a third of Representatives. Mary Jo did Not mention the 1991 Senate Judiciary Committee was made up of all white men. But I will. And today, glancing at their website of their 19 members, it looks like there are four women, about, a fifth of the group, and, five people of color, also about a fifth. And my sincere apologies, I was having to like, just like breeze through some photos, but that's the best that I can do from just that information.

You did say it appears.

It appears. Mary Jo mentioned that the men in the House of Representatives at the time had a pool, a sauna, a gym, while women had six hair dryers and a ping pong table. This was a real reference, by the way, something that was said in the mid-60s.

The difficulty that elected women had getting a ding dang bathroom

But instead of talking about saunas and whatnot, just a quick reminder that last season we had a whole sidebar about potty parody. And that is the difficulty that elected women had getting a ding dang bathroom, as Carly might put it.

I'll have you know I talked to my daughter about potty parody.

Oh, did you?

Some event or something. And I didn't use the exact term, but I just told her it's really well established. Women don't get the same bathroom assessment. Yeah, we talked about it for a little while.

Yeah. What did she think?

Influence. I confused. What are you telling me about? Can I just go to the bathroom?

I'm about to pee my pants.

I felt really good that I started planting the seeds.

I love it. so just a reminder on what some of that looked like. The first restroom for congresswomen in the Capitol was opened in 1962. Female senators got their Senate chamber level bathroom in 1992. It's the year of the woman, guys. It's the year of the woman. The House of Representatives got the first woman's bathroom near the chamber in 2011. It's too late, guys. It's too late.

You know, we've peed in all the corners.

That's right. You gotta establish a pee corner. It's very important. Mary Jo told us that women made 58 cents on the dollar at the time. Today it's about 84 cents on the dollar, 45% higher than it was. But I shall remind you that this remains unchanged for about the last 20 years.

This one's always so crazy to me, and I think it pops up a lot when you talk about, celebrities and how much money they make, or actors, I should say, and how much money they make for movies.

Right.

And there's never a really good response given for why the paychecks are so much higher for men than for women.

Penises.

It's just wild. Crazy.

Well, it was. And I was just listening to something about this again. Oh, it was the, the. The thing with the, Seth Rogen movie where, with North Korea.

Oh.

So when they found all of those. When they exposed all of those emails of Sony M, it put out all of the different salaries, and that's when people started realizing the disparity between them. Yeah.

Ah.

And, what the good look?

Well, because a man can come to the table and request more money and he's like a shrewd businessman, but if a woman does it, then she's like, overstepping our boundary and asking for too much and being pushy.

Yeah. Next thing you know, she might want her own rights, access to her own body. she might want to pee in a toilet. God bless. I told you this was going to be a feel good episode.

So getting angry.

Christine Blasey Ford testified against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh

We can't talk about, present day without. Without at least mentioning. I'm sorry, but Brett Kavanaugh, who is a sitting Supreme Court justice, nominated by former President Trump in the summer of 2018. So during his confirmation hearing, Christine Blasey Ford testified that he sexually assaulted her 35 years prior when he was 17 and she was 15. And, while she is mostly remembered, I do also want to point out that two other women, Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick, also came forward with accu accusations of sexual misconduct. Naturally, he was confirmed. And today, in some ironic twists from hell, is up there with Clarence Thomas dismantling protections for women and most historically, Roe v. Wade in 2022.

It just feels fair, you know, it just feels like.

Feels right.

Deserve. Yeah.

Force. club. That's right. Ford, on the other hand, found herself and her children on the other end of death threats and harassment. And as recently as this year, this all happened in 2018. She reportedly still receives death threats and still needs security. On a bittersweet note before her testimony, 1600 men took out a full page New York Times ad that mirrored the one supporting hill back in 1991. And it read, we are 1600 men who now stand behind Professor Anita Hill as well as Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, because we believe them.

How easy is it to be an ally? You just have to take out a.

It's also the. Who now stand behind Anita Hill.

Yeah.

but it's fun.

Progress.

Yeah. Yes.

40% of women and 16% of men say they've been sexually harassed

So where are we today with sexual harassment in the workplace? Obviously, I'll tell you where we are. I found I do turn into Bette Davis by the end of this. I found a 2020 Harvard Business Review article that cited about 40% of women and 16% of men say they've been sexually harassed at work. Now, this number apparently has remained largely unchanged since the 80s. That article also highlighted a Harvard led study looking more closely at sexual harassment programs and procedures. And it found that these amounted to, quote, little more than managerial snake oil. And we're doing more harm than good. I mean, that's the main takeaway. It is a really interesting article. So we'll link to that for anyone who wants to read more on their findings or about their suggestions on how to improve these programs.

I actually kind of want to bring in something that Anita Hill said in a 2021 interview, which was basically pointing to systems issues. So employers and corporations don't necessarily take action when sexual harassment is reported. Then on the employee side, they don't usually have the means to seek legal action. And if they do, the damages aren't usually worth the initial cost. most people don't want to stir the pot and risk losing Their job. And in perhaps another twisted and ironic turn, she said, true change lies in the hands of the courts.

Excellent.

Including the Supreme Court.

Well protected. So it's fun.

They love us. It's fine. Yes. And yet they've set a precedent as recent as 2013 that supports the employer over the employee. So here we are. And if you're not a news junkie, you may be wondering, well, how is that Clarence Thomas faring?

I wasn't wondering that.

well, you can just Google it. And when you do, you'll find one article after the next about luxury trips from GOP donors, undisclosed trips, private jet flights. John Oliver did an episode about Thomas's escapades earlier this year, which I can't recommend enough. The comedy helps the WTF go down, you know?

Any thoughts? Sorry? I mean, I know you have thoughts, but so many.

So many. And I think the one sort of redeeming, and this is going to sound dark, and I don't mean it to.

The one, because I've been so lightnery.

Redeeming factor in all of this is that there is change in the Supreme Court, for instance, is. It's a long game. So if we just can outlive some of the old school thinking, then progress.

Will come if everyone will just die.

So this is why I say it sounds dark and I don't. I'm not wishing ill on anyone. I'm just saying it's like this, the circle of life. And unfortunately, with the Supreme Court, it's just a real long game, which is a whole conversation in and of.

Itself, and it doesn't have to be. Yeah, we can change that with the stroke of a pen.

Yeah.

So we just have to make that decision again.

Whole discussion unto itself. I will say I'm really glad you said that about Clarence Thomas, because. Yeah, I'm not super anxious to learn what he's been up to, but I'm glad you said that, and I hope that resonates with some people that like.

It won't.

But, like, you should be curious if an impartial, Someone who's intended to be impartial and led by the law is being led around, flown around the world to luxurious places on luxurious airlines, paid for by one particular political party.

Yeah. So I would just say, like, for me, when I hear about this, I think we're really change. So iterative. And I really like Anita Hill systems points, because I think sometimes, I don't know, that just really strikes a chord with me because how do we make things better when these Systems are so big. I think it just all feels so overwhelming. It feels like Groundhog Day. And it's like. It comes with, like, this sense of defeatism. And I don't want it to be like that. I don't want to feel like that. there are, like, a lot of progressive things that have happened. You know, I was taking really specific points, like, because I wanted it to be point for point, like, here's the things that changed right after that. Here's where we are. I'm just reporting the news. You know what I'm saying? And so, but I also don't. It doesn't mean that there's not hope. It doesn't mean that there's not change. It just means that sometimes you're like, wow, that's great. And sometimes you're like, really? you know, and there was a lot of that when I was doing research for this one. And yet, Nikki, we shall persist.

We shall.

I shall burn my bra. But that never happened. But you couldn't burn it anyway.

I'm starting the bra burning.

It's going to burn anyway.

I just really want to burn my bra. Can I just burn my bra?

Yeah, whatever you want. You can burn it today if you'd like.

to wrap things up, I'd say we have what I call a mixed bag at this point, in the post Anita Hill testimony world, because if the highest offices in the land are a litmus test for where we are now, then as she herself told NPR, quote, three of the last five U.S. presidents and two sitting Supreme Court justices have been accused of abusive behavior. These are the men who were or are currently making decisions that have and will continue to shape America for generations to come, despite their eventual confirmations to the Supreme Court. We have had, on a more positive note, two really strong women put it all on the line to make sure the American people knew what happened to them at the hands of two different men entrusted to hold up justice, including justice for women. And I know there are those who believe Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford sought revenge or were used as some sort of a political pawn. Let me address that here and now. These are two highly intelligent, highly educated, and highly successful women who risk their livelihoods, reputations, families, and place in the world. There are lots of better ways to get revenge. Put fizene in the drink. Put shrimp in the curtains. Do something, you know, do a waiting tax hell moment. Set that car on fire.

They know how to Google, you know, they know how to Google on protected mode.

But These women endured polygraphs, which they both passed, by the way, retold embarrassing, private and traumatizing stories on live tv, were grilled by the Senate for hours and raped over the coals by the media, became the butt of cruel jokes and had their lives threatened repeatedly. That just doesn't bear out a revenge scenario.

To what end? Yeah, like the motive. Just the motive and the reward just aren't there.

Exactly.

It just logically doesn't make sense.

Right. And not that I think I would be honored, I don't think these ladies will hear this. But if I may, I want to say thank you for your courage in the face of adversity, for doing what so many of us never could, for using your voice to try and right the wrongs. It truly is a commendable thing and I am so honored to even be able to say words about you today, to speak to your truth and the truth that you spoke for me. As a 39 year old woman in this country, I often find myself wondering whether people truly care about women. They say they do. But if the abuse of women is deemed acceptable by our elected officials and our rights are pushed aside with a mere wave of the justice system's hands, isn't it arguably just a bunch of snake oil? You know the drill. DM us, email us or contact us from the website and find us all over the socials. And that's this week's extra sugar.

Designing Women S6 E2 Extra Sugar: The Anita Hill Of It All

Recent Posts

Comments