Katie Hill officially resigned from Congress today, and ABC News thinks we need to consider exactly what that means … for the future of women and LGBTQ candidates:
What Rep. Katie Hill's resignation could mean for the future of LGBTQ and women candidates https://t.co/5aN73JsM7P
— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) October 31, 2019
Expect them not to sleep with staffers?
— L Peezy (@WHLPJr) October 31, 2019
Nothing if they don’t sleep with their staff. Next ridiculous question please.
— Carl Spackler0 (@Carl_Spackler99) October 31, 2019
It means nothing. It means to not sleep with subordinates and then take nude photos yourself with said subordinates. Nothing more. Nothing less.
— Andy Herbert (@andy3herbert) October 31, 2019
That we are expected to follow the same rules as everyone else? https://t.co/deGmj9v7e9
— Chad Felix Greene 🕷🎃 (@chadfelixg) October 31, 2019
that everyone should be held to the same ethics rules?
— Every Cow Fart Is A Policy Failure (@jer2911tx) October 31, 2019
It could mean they have to abide by ethics rules like everyone else?
— Bohemio (@El__Bohemio) October 31, 2019
And that would be a problem because … ?
More from Alexandra Svokos:
Elliot Imse, director of communications at the Victory Institute, an organization that supports LGBTQ leaders in government, told ABC News her story “will give further pause to up and coming LGBTQ and women leaders.” He said this is especially true of younger people who are more connected to their phones and taking pictures.
“Many young people considering running for office are going to be hesitant to take this leap if these types of attacks are normalized,” he said, adding that personal attacks are “weaponized with more effectiveness” against women and LGBTQ people.
“Unfortunately, the experience that Katie Hill is having in terms of harassment and sort of abuse in a sexualized nature is not entirely new to women running for office,” Kelly Dittmar, a scholar at the Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP) at Rutgers University, told ABC News.
Because of that, Dittmar said, Hill’s story in particular may not change the landscape of candidates, but it would be just one more story to add to the list of potential barriers for women considering running for office.
So, if we’re to understand this correctly, the decision to repeatedly engage in documented sexual relationships with subordinates isn’t the problem, but such a decision being a “potential barrier” for prospective women and LGBT candidates is?
So men are not allowed to sleep with their subordinates but women and LGBTQ can?
— 🎀 𝒫😍𝓊𝓃𝒸𝒾𝓃𝑔𝓀𝒾𝓉𝓉𝓎 🎀 (@kelisw) October 31, 2019
Why are you dragging LGBTQ into this. She abused her power. She has to pay the consequences. She is not a victim of anyone other than herself.
— Mistress Abyss (@countingthetoll) October 31, 2019
She shouldn’t be held accountable for breaking ethics rules? Why? Are you seriously saying women and LGBTQ individuals should be exempt from the consequences of misusing their power and violating ethics rules by having sexual relationships with their subordinates?!?
— Ms. Perception (@Lgem2000) October 31, 2019
Why is this crazy associated with us gay men and women?
— Миро🏳️🌈 slav 🇧🇬 soon🇺🇸 (@brumcho) October 31, 2019
Absolutely nothing !! She slept with someone on her staff !! Nothing to do with her sexual orientation or photos !! Stop lying!
— B/K (@bk00023) October 31, 2019
You expect LGBTQ candidates to act as unethically as she did?
— See Jack Run (@CrackaJackin) October 31, 2019
It means that gay people have morals too. We can spot inappropriate behavior like sleeping with your staff and posting raunchy photos on wife swapping sites. Where not whores just because were gay.
— TeaStainedTusks (@LeftyLemn) October 31, 2019
This is actively homophobic. The insinuation here is that gay people won’t be able to not sleep with subordinates. Trash. Pure trash. https://t.co/bRPGg3JaOY
— Chris Barron (@ChrisRBarron) October 31, 2019