While recognising the failures of leaders of the women’s movement to speak up for Clinton’s accusers, they question what revisiting the past is meant to achieve. It is very, very hard to create a world in which sexual harassment [and] sexual assault do not actually happen. It is very hard to take the time to even imagine that world.”Chloe Safier, an independent consultant on global women’s rights and gender justice, said discussion about Clinton’s past rarely gets past the more lurid aspects of his actions. If President Clinton were as vital to preserving freedom of speech as he is to preserving reproductive freedom, would journalists be condemned as “inconsistent” for refusing to suggest he resign? Emily May, of Hollaback, thinks that if there’s value in revisiting Clinton’s abuses if it is used to learn from.

Source: The Guardian November 19, 2017 13:18 UTC