Is it only harassment or workplace intimidation if the victim is a demure female? The Comey Hearings – with each committee member trying to establish his or her “aha!” moment – produced a whole lot of nothing.
But there was one interesting line of questions. Where is the backlash against Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) for her sexist question of Comey? Forget that Comey is a 6 ft, 8 in. man and replay Feinstein’s question to him. “You’re big, you’re strong,” the veteran liberal Democrat told Comey. “I know the Oval Office, and I know what happens to people when they walk in. There is a certain amount of intimidation. But why didn’t you stop and say, ‘Mr. President, this is wrong – I cannot discuss that with you’?”
Now forget the reason for the Comey hearings and analyze that question on its own: I can assure you that, had the tables been turned, no man on that committee would have had the balls to say to Feinstein, “You’re a feeble woman… I can understand if you would be intimidated by standing up to your male boss.”
No one can argue the irony that it was Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) of all people who sent us back 60+ years with her question. Yet, typical of double-standards, no one is lashing out at Feinstein. Her comment implies that, if Comey were petite or female he might not have been able to stand up to the president when asked. Is fear of reprisal, up to and including the loss of your job, somehow less actionable if you are physically larger or more male than your boss?
I have no idea what went on in that office, that day or any other. I can’t tell you whether there are Russian colluders or what was said or meant in conversations between the president and former director of the FBI.
But I’m stunned at Feinstein’s implication. In four short sentences, she either set us back 60-odd years or proved that we aren’t as advanced as we’ve been convincing ourselves we are.
