Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand has introduced bills to combat sexual assault on college campuses and in the military. An important emphasis of her legislation has been to encourage the victims of these crimes to come forward and report them.
But when it comes to sexual harassment in her own life, the New York senator sings a different tune.
Gillibrand disclosed in her new book, Off the Sidelines, that she has often been sexually harassed in the U.S. Senate. She said that one male colleague called her “porky,” and another told her not to lose weight because he likes “my girls chubby.” He told her this while squeezing her waist from behind.
The New York Democrat did not name the offenders in her book, and she still refuses to name them when asked. On Tuesday morning, MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski asked Gillibrand on “Morning Joe” why she wouldn’t “name names.”
“The reason why I used these examples is to illustrate the broader point,” Gillibrand said. “I want to elevate the debate about all the challenges – it’s not about a specific insult of one person. It’s about what’s been said to you, what’s been said to you?”
Brzezinski pressed further. “But this is harassment …”
“Not for me,” Gillibrand responded. “They’re not my bosses. They didn’t affect me … Those instances were irrelevant to me. I was very far along in my career.”
It was an odd answer because earlier in the interview, Gillibrand had said she found these examples of inappropriate behavior toward her “devastating.”
Gillibrand redirected when asked again whether she would name the senators who had harassed her.
“No, because then it’s all about that individual,” Gillibrand said. “I want to talk about the bigger challenges, like the fact that we don’t have equal pay in this country.”
Gillibrand said she wanted to “elevate the debate” to the challenges faced by women today. But her refusal to name her harassers seems to tell women not to speak up about workplace harassment. It also spares her harassers the spotlight, so that they are free to keep behaving badly toward other women (their aides?) who might be more vulnerable.
Moreover, her excuse that the senators in question weren’t her bosses implies that it is okay to harass women in the workplace, so long as they are already sufficiently successful.
Feminist writer Amanda Marcotte condones Gillibrand’s silence:
“In the real world, when an anecdote shifts to an accusation, the accused immediately denies any wrongdoing and accuses his accuser of being crazy, slutty, or some combination thereof. And should she not be able to produce rock solid proof that the harassment happened, people will take sides and tempers will flare. The accused will likely get away with it, even if he’s totally guilty, and the accuser’s reputation will be seriously damaged.”
But harassers always get away with harassment if the victims remain silent. And they continue to harass.
Gillibrand is in a position where she can actually do something about sexual harassment. She is accomplished and powerful. Even if she cannot provide irrefutable evidence that these incidents took place, this is nearly always the case with such incidents when other women are victimized.
As long as she refuses to name names, how is Gillibrand not perpetuating a culture in which victims feel shame and remain silent about harassment in the workplace?
