"#MeToo" An interpretation of The New York Times article by Adelaide Willert

Kellyanne Conway Says She Was a Victim of Sexual Assault

In his recent article, Mihir Zaveri records some of the most recent events to unfold in the controversial Kavanaugh case. On Sunday, Kellyanne Conway told CNN interviewer Jake Tapper that she too, was a victim of sexual assault, and that while she does not mean to belittle the experience of the "compelling" and "credible" Christine Blasey Ford, the Supreme Court confirmation should not turn into a #MeToo movement convention. The article recounts Conway's opinions on the case, centralizing on two main topics aside from the central exordium: Ms. Conway's multiple statements that she knew of Congress members who were "rubbing up against girls, sticking their tongues down women's throats who, uninvited, who didn't like it" and Conway's supporting and defending of Kavanaugh.

What I personally find very interesting about this article is that Conway mentioned that she didn't bother mentioning that she too was a victim of sexual assault because she is associated with current U.S. President Donald Trump. It's very intriguing because she then goes on to say that she supports Kavanaugh, despite having come forward and publicly joined the #MeToo movement, which is currently placing Kavanaugh in its line of fire.

The #MeToo movement is such a large movement, what could be considered a revolution because it brings forth revolt and undoubtedly is involving American politics and society. It is comparable to the "Revolution of 1800" because it has been (thus far) a peaceful revolution that will go down in history as having a large affect on our society. Every time I read articles to research, to keep up with current events or to write my own article and reflection, I can't help but wonder what will end up in a history textbook. So many people say that the #MeToo movement will go down in history and will eventually be one of the pieces of evidence used to support an essay on women on an AP exam. But at the same time, important women like Hilary Clinton, the first woman to be nominated by a large political party for president, from historical curriculum. Evidence that important people and movements have been erased from history is that the first woman to ever run for president, Victoria Woodhull (1872 presidential candidate), hasn't been mentioned in many history courses for years.

What determines if something goes down in history? What will people generations from now learn about from our era? What if we're missing the most important details of history because history is written from the winner's perspective? What are we missing?