that most people still think that women own men sex, that it is totally within their right to harrass us and what's the big deal since they would love for women to make advances towards them. Not realizing that their advances breed fear because of the threat of violence, in general men do not have to worry that some woman they aren't attracted to may corner them in a locker room or office and rape or grope them.

Sarah wants to "get past" the question of whether Thomas harassed her, suggesting that we should just "assume" she was harassed?

Great, while we're at it, why don't we "get past" the question of whether the defendant was actually selling drugs, since we can just "assume" that since he was black and hanging out on a street corner, he was. We can also "get past" the question of whether Salim's a terrorist - he's Arab, that's close enough, lock him up.

Um, yeah, I'm going to have to agree here. We shouldn't assume she was harrassed because one is presumed innocent until proven guilty here in this country...

I'm all for taking him down if he's guilty, but she has to prove it first.

because that is they way the justice system works. But I ask you, would you assume she is lying if she said her belongings were stolen and was suing the theif for repayment?

If a woman is the victim of a non sexual crime or harassment she is believed to be telling the truth and that it is the police and DA's responsibility to find the criminal and prosecute or have the lawsuit go forward for financial compensation.

But if a woman says she was harassed or raped, it's well what were you doing, maybe you're lying, where's the rape kit, where's the proof you were wronged, even though a woman can claim her house was robbed and have hidden the goods to get insurance payments just as easily as she can claim someone sexually wronged her.

The point Broadsheet is trying to make is that assume she is telling the truth, don't assume she is lying, assume the men are lying because they are the ones who are going to get into trouble, not her.

It also takes quite a bit of bravery to come out and accuse men of this type of behavior when she knows people are going to call her an incompetant gold digging whore to discredit her claims.

Just look at the woman who claimed she was drugged and fondled by Bill Cosby, even when another woman said Bill did the same thing to her 20 yrs ago, people wouldn't believe it cause how could sweet Jello pushing Bill be that gross.

the same problem you have when you consider the question Did you ever do something sexual that you didn't want to? to be the equivalent of Were you raped? Posession of property is clear cut, you either have it or you don't. It constitutes a willfull denial of reality to insist that a very large gray area regarding both motive and interpretation doesn't exist when it comes to women and sexual relations.

If this women is not telling the truth (executives and women can lie just as much as mobsters and men) - and she wins in court - then people will lose their jobs, and it won't be the men at the top.

Lawsuits are paid at the bottom, whether they are discrimination or environmental suits. Janitors don't get the dental plan that was in the works. Women don't get maternity leave. You get the idea.

Do you have to be a lawyer to know how stupid that sentence is?

You know, I can't really believe I just read Ms. Goldstein's article without my head exploding. What utter pap.

"But let's get past, for a moment, what is otherwise the central question here -- whether Sanders was sexually harassed. In fact, I'm not even sure such a question is necessarily relevant." ????????? (Huh? is right).

Worse, however, I read the article in order to understand exactly what the charges are. That would be kind of an interesting thing to know at least...especially if Ms. Goldstein wants to say anything meaningful about sexual harrassment on a more general level. Does Salon use qualified editors? I would have gently said something like, "Uh, Sarah, could you please rewrite this as something useful and meaningful for our readers?"

Yes, sexual harrassment is a funky problem in America, but if you're going to write about it, you really need something to say other than: "...suing the entire corporation, bringing down the whole damn house, at least symbolically, is the way to go."

Come on! Life is subtle, not dumb.

This is hate masquerading as feminism. Goebbels would be proud.

How exactly are we supposed to respond to the question "...why shouldn't we assume Sanders was harassed?"

Was this a rhetorical question? I hope to god it is, though the rest of the article seems to argue otherwise, but as there is a small possibility that Ms. Goldstein is seriously requesting a response I will respond seriously:

We should not assume a crime was perpetrated against Ms. Browne Sanders because our legal system, flawed though it may be, assumes that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. We should no more assume Isiah Thomas is guilty of sexual harrassment than we should assume Ms. Browne Sanders is guilty of the inevitable defamation of character lawsuit that will be filed against her.

Granted, dispensing with the mess and fuss of a trial would speed the process of accusation and recompensation, but it tends to lead to those messy authoritarian or lawless societies (either end of the spectrum will do) where laws and their attendant complexities get thrown out the window. I'm assuming (there's that ugly word again) this is not Ms. Goldstein's intent, but perhaps I assume too much.

And Broadsheet, do you review submissions from your writers before posting them?

Most understand that this isn't reasonable but the fact is that if you require proof or a defined offense someone will figure out how to get away with something without leaving proof or meeting the definition of the crime. When you are dealing with sex and emotion rather than something concrete there is an especially wide arena for this sort of creativity.