First, I don’t think not hiring someone because someone else told you not to is illegal in any way.
But beyond that, if that dude actually knew people who did that, then HE could call them out by name. He could say, “This specific person aid this.” And then leave it up to them to decide if they want to be honest or try to lie. But he didn’t even do that.
But I have no idea how much of that was based on reality, or based on the same thing we’re seeing here… an assumption that he did something without actual evidence.
In most of these cases, we actually have proof that stuff happened. While folks didn’t admit that it did for a long time, NOW they do. And that’s what makes them proven.
The idea that “the guys used to always be believed, so now we should always believe a woman” is nonsensical on its face. You need actual proof. I’m not saying you need to be able to make a criminal case and present stuff beyond a reasonable doubt, but you need SOME corroboration. You can’t convict people in the public space simply based on one person accusing them. Because people lie. If you require no evidence of any sort, then you open up the door to have people make those kinds of claims against perfectly good people. That’s not justice.
Imagine, for instance, you had someone accuse Al Franken of something that he totally didn’t do. Now, in that case, you even have a pre-recorded history of him doing stuff (although I would categorize it as poor taste rather than any of the abusive things we’ve talked about here). But if you require absolutely zero evidence, then what would stop people from just lying about him because they hate him?
We can’t react to years of injustice where people never listened to women despite evidence and corroboration, by saying that you no longer need any evidence at all. If someone accused you of these kinds of things, you would be deserving of a fair assessment too. This seems obvious to me.
But what if he didn’t actually do anything? If you have no corroborating evidence, then how can you know?
I guess in the absence of any such evidence, it is potentially good for someone to say such a thing, to at least give the beginning of a history, to encourage future women. But at the same time, in the absence of evidence, I don’t feel comfortable taking either side. I’m not going to call the woman a liar, but I’m not going to condemn the guy. I need evidence of some sort in order to pass judgement.
