IT IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY that anyone will ever know definitively whether Judge Clarence Thomas committed the sexual harassment that Professor Anita F. Hill alleges. That is the nature of sexual harassment: It is usually one person's word against another's, and the accuser is rarely believed.

As a result of Hill's testimony, however, the issues surrounding charges of sexual harassment have been placed at the fore-front of American consciousness as never before in history.

The hearings have given women a chance to see how their interests are handled in Washington, and to understand why a predominantly male Congress can never really represent them.

Men and women seem to be speaking different languages with regard to sexual harassment. They each come to the table with different assumptions about the issue. For instance, the all-male Senate Judiciary Committee seemed shocked that Hill did not report the alleged incidents when they occurred.

But no woman who has worked in corporate or political settings would be shocked that Hill ignored the harassment and continued on her career path, until the story was drawn out of her by the FBI.

The men on the committee think that if this indeed happened, Hill should have run to the police at the time. Most men don't realize that women experience this kind of harassment in some form or another on a daily basis, and most don't run to the police; Hill's response was perfectly natural.

For me, the most shocking aspect of the hearings is not that Judge Thomas might have said the things that Hill alleges. The worst part was listening to the disbelief in the senators' voices as they questioned Hill. Like other men in this country, they believe Thomas must have been a psychopath to say the things he allegedly said.

Here again is where men and women are speaking different languages. No woman in this country who has experienced sexual harassment would view Thomas as a psychopath. He is just another man who used poor judgment and stepped over the line.

Why didn't these women speak up before? Because if they did take action every time that they were sexually harassed, they would spend most of their lives in court. It wasn't until 1986 that the federal definition of sexual harassment covered the kind of behavior Hill allegedly encountered.

Washington Post staff writer Juan Williams's characterization of the sexual harassment accusation as a "speck of mud" flung at Thomas misses the point. He characterized the alleged exchange between Thomas and Hill as a "sexual conversation between two adults."

Not only was this not an exchange--it was language imposed on Hill--but there was also no consent on the part of Hill. Even in 1991, women are still being labeled as the provocateurs in the realm of sexual harassment. For one reason or another, a woman who makes such allegations is assumed to be crazy, vindictive, or the stereotypical "Woman in the Attic." This case is no different from others. As the senators questioned Hill, they suggested in their tone, "Little girl, are you sure you're not lying?"

MEMBERS OF THE Judiciary Committee have done their best to prove that Hill is fantasizing about Thomas. Not surprising: 14 males, who identify immediately with Thomas and see her as yet another woman ruining a man's political career. Every single man on that committee, as Barbara Ehrenreich said on Sunday in the Boston Globe, sits in judgment, knows just how precarious his own political position is.

Politicians have seen their colleagues get "caught" in previous scandals. They have seen women ruin many a man's career. They don't see it for what it really is--men using poor judgment and digging their own graves. They sympathize with Thomas because they identify with him.

Why do I believe Anita Hill? The reality at the time when Hill worked for Thomas was that she could not easily bring a suit against her boss for sexual harassment. There were no witnesses, and a court would require witnesses. Had Hill, an ambitious woman with serious career goals, become known as a complainer, or even a "feminist"--God forbid--she undoubtedly would have experienced greater obstacles.

For most women, it is easier to let the countless innuendoes just slide. Nonetheless, the alleged language used by Thomas made Hill uncomfortable, and that counts as sexual harassment. The character witnesses presented in defense of Thomas are not enough to disprove these allegations. With such pending allegations it would be incomprehensible for the Senate to confirm Thomas.

THE WHOLE ISSUE boils down to frustration. Women are angry about the things they've heard. Why did women cheer during the scene in Thelma and Louise in which the two women shoot at a truck driver who made lewd remarks to them on the road? It's because women are sick and tired of being objectified--having rude things said to them every time they walk down the street or being asked out at work by bosses who should know better. What happens if a woman draws attention to the kind of abuse she regularly ignores? She is told that in some way she provoked it.

Women must take this moment to challenge the male-dominated Congress. These hearings have proven that there are certain issues on which men cannot represent the interests of women. Women should mobilize and elect more sensitive candidates to the Senate.

Thank you, Anita Hill, for bringing us to this turning point. You have served us all by bringing forth these allegations.