Feminists Who Now Claim They Never Meant 'Believe All Women' Are Gaslighting Us

The central tenet of the #MeToo movement is being memory-holed.


The emergence of Tara Reade's accusation of sexual assault against presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden has prompted the swift and sudden collapse of the #MeToo movement's central tenet—that all women who come forward with such allegations deserve to be believed.

In fact, some who speak for the movement aren't merely retreating on this point: They are pretending that feminists who wielded the #MeToo hashtag never claimed that all women should be believed. This is a transparent attempt to rewrite history and should be treated as such.

For a perfect example, see the journalist Susan Faludi in The New York Times: "'Believe All Women' Is a Right-Wing Trap," reads the headline on her article. Faludi accuses conservatives of inventing the idea that feminists were demanding that all women be believed. According to her, "the preferred hashtag of the #MeToo movement is #BelieveWomen. It's different without the 'all.' Believing women is simply the rejoinder to the ancient practice of #DoubtWomen."

"Good luck finding any feminist who thinks we should believe everything all women say—even what they say about sexual assault," Faludi continues. This directly contradicts her earlier admittal that she had in fact "encountered some feminists who seemed genuinely to subscribe" to the more extreme interpretation of the hashtag.

Faludi is narrowly right that "believe women" was the more popular phrasing among #MeToo activists, and that contrarians were more likely to introduce the word "all" as a means of pointing out how silly the concept was. But whether the phrase contains "all" is unimportant: It means the same thing, regardless. The command to believe group X is straightforwardly and obviously a plea to have faith in the entire collective entity. Faludi claims in her piece that "believe women" is actually the opposite of "believe all women," but this is absurd. She is, to use a term beloved by victims' rights advocates, gaslighting her readers.

One of Faludi's examples of a sensible "believe women" statement getting twisted into a "believe all women" attack was Juanita Broaddrick—who accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault—calling out Hillary Clinton for hypocrisy. Hillary had tweeted, "To every survivor of sexual assault … you have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed." Faludi shames contrarians for cynically appending a "believe all victims" hashtag alongside a question mark, but it's right there in Clinton's initial tweet, between the words to and survivor. #MeToo advocates demanded a presumption of belief for every individual who claims to be a sexual misconduct victim: i.e., believe all women.

It was equally clear when Biden stated the mantra during the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation hearings: "For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you've got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she's talking about is real—whether or not she forgets facts, whether or not it's been made worse or better over time." Biden was clearly instructing the public to believe even the allegations that seem doubtful or flawed: The all is unstated but quite implicit.

The problem, of course, is that the implication of this mantra is ridiculous. We know that some women lie—not because they are women but because they are human beings, and human beings are capable of all sorts of deceptions, large and small. It's the task of journalists to consider claims, gather evidence, and help the public to make informed decisions. Belief is not really an aspect of this process.

In truth, believe-victims activists have been making generous use of the motte-and-bailey fallacy. This is a form of argument in which a person makes a strong, unreasonable, and indefensible claim—the bailey—and then falls back on an uncontroversial claim—the motte—when challenged. With "believe victims," the bailey position was something like what Biden and Clinton said: Presume that each and every alleged victim is telling the truth. The motte position is closer to this: Respect and support alleged victims, and don't automatically discount what they say. In the wake of Reade's allegations against him, Biden has unsurprisingly retreated to the motte.

The "respect and support" position obviously enjoys broad support—only the crueler corners of the internet would profess that victims should be mistreated and rejected as a general rule. To the extent that the #MeToo movement encouraged people to be more supportive and more open-minded when women accuse men of sexual assault, it has helped fix a great injustice. But the movement's sloganeering attracted well-deserved criticism, and the abandonment of the literal believe-victims standard is equally welcome and long overdue.

Let no one claim, however, that the mantra was some figment of the imagination, like the proverbial flickering gaslight.

NEXT: Jackson Cops Claim Drug Busts Are Protecting the Public From COVID-19

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Wow. Jumping off the Roundup pretty fast today, aren’t we?

    1. Sarah Paul Walker, Six months ago I lost my job and after that I was fortunate enough to stumble upon a great website which literally saved me• LMS I started working for them online and in a short time after I’ve started averaging 15k a month••• The best thing was that cause I am not that computer savvy all I needed was some basic typing skills and internet access to start•••

      This is where to start… For More Detail

  2. “‘Believe All Women’ Is a Right-Wing Trap”

    Taking that what you say are your principles are actually your principles is such a right-wing notion.

    1. To be fair, trickle down economics is actually a left wing trap. So is greed is good.

      1. “Capitalist” was coined by the commies.

        1. Change Your Life Right Now! Work From Comfort Of Your Home And Receive Your First Paycheck Within A Week. No Experience Needed, No Boss Over Your Shoulder… Say Goodbye To Your Old Job! Limited Number Of Spots Open…
          Find out how HERE……More here

      2. The Venn diagram of “Believe Women” vs “Believe All Women” is a single, perfect circle.

        1. The article is spot on and it can apply to a number of things. For instance, Trump has said many times “Democrats are traitors who hate America and want to destroy it” or some variation on that same theme. When I point out that he’s impugning tens of millions of people as traitors, Trump supporters invariably say, “Well he doesn’t mean ALL Democrats.” But by this article’s logic of course he means all Democrats. See? It cuts both ways.

          1. Well I’m happy to concede that feminists are crazy and Trump is crazy. Next subject.

    2. Principals over Principles – Left-Wing Mantra.

      1. “Logical consistency is a social construct of the white supremacist cisheteropatriarchy used to oppress marginalized peoples.”

        All Leftist arguments are simply rhetorical manipulation to further Leftist power. Postmodern Marxism 101.

        They argue in bad faith *on principle*.

    3. Haven’t we been told that very thing multiple times – at this very publication – that holding people to their own standards – if those are not your standards – is the height of hypocrisy?

      1. Not that I can recall. Can you link an example?

        1. New troll using an old name?

          Maybe you should go back and review all the Kavanaugh commentary here.

      2. Double standards are the best standards, because you get twice as many as less principled people do.

    4. F a woman ets raped, she better hope republican did it. If the attacker is a democrat, they will be protected.

      1. That’s not at all true. Bob Packwood routinely sexually assaulted women. He was a Republican, but he got away with because he carried water for feminist organizations.

        1. I wouldn’t call being forced out of the Senate in disgrace as getting away with it. By that standard, Al Franken got away with it too.

  3. “Feminists Who Now Claim They Never Meant ‘Believe All Women’ Are Gaslighting Us”

    Can we stop using that ridiculous term “gaslighting” and use the correct term “fucking lying”?

    1. I believe the term is justified. Gaslighting is going the extra mile beyond lying where you have to try to convince people that you never heard what you heard and that you’re the crazy one.

      1. Exactly. Gaslighting is a subset of lying, within a specific context. Like perjury.

      2. Right, it’s beyond merely lying, it’s lying plus a form of mental control wherein the target of the control starts to think they’re the one who’s crazy when you later contradict your previous lie (usually with another lie). That way the person doing the gaslighting can continue to lie and their target eventually starts to just believe whatever they say even when the evidence of the lie is right in front of their face.

        It’s how abusive people are able to keep their victims in an abusive relationship and the victim almost always claim “He/she still loves me” despite having a black eye. Or how cheaters are able to convince their spouse/ boy/ girlfriend that they’re totally not cheating even though the evidence is obvious to anyone else.

      3. How about nuanced fucking lying? Adding the ‘nuanced’ makes it swing a bit left; they lie with bigger, longerer words that say: I am smrt, yur not so shut the fuck up before I make you (that would be de-platforming among the cognoscenti).

      4. All lying misrepresents reality.

        Lying is foiled when you recognize reality.

        Everyone who thinks fantasy is reality is delusional.

        Like taking mind altering drugs, people like being lied to (be delusional) when they can regain self control ( recognize reality, truth).

        This must have been known by the developers of propaganda.

        1. When I provide irrefutable evidence that your cherished narrative, one in which you are portrayed in a heroic gaslight for vanquishing a villain and saving the helpless, is a lie, it forced you to recognize your delusion.

          The section of your brain responsible for recognizing reality, which has been unknowingly manipulated by propaganda artificially rejects reality.

          A thorough brainwashing will leave you afraid to objectively review the evidence leaving you an unhappy delusional scaredy bigot.

          This is the best possible outcome for a liar.

          1. Far.

      5. Naw, it’s the Sociopath’s Smirking Big Lie.

        They’re not trying to convince your you’re crazy. They’re trying to demoralize and humiliate you with your impotence to fight their lies.

    2. I mean maybe they are just misremembering something that happened *checks notes 1 1/2 year ago and has been catalouged extensively on thier twitter feeds and articles they penned. Think we should give them the benefit of the doubt here.

    3. Gaslighting is a very specific thing. Brazen lying to someone who knows that it is a lie with the express intent of making someone doubt their memory and/or sanity.

      1. Correct. See the play “Angel Street”, and the film “Gaslight”.

      2. Yep. typically Dear Leader is the one engaging in the brazen lying part, while his douchy Neo-Nazi asshole supporters (who ironically get absolutely nothing from him) Start gaslighting when someone calls him on his lies.

        1. You Russian trolls need to try a different approach.

          1. AmSoc appears to be a Chicom troll, not a Russian one.

            Perhaps it’s a citizen of China, hoping to up its social credit score enough to be allowed to buy toilet paper.

            1. I kind of wish there was a vote button on this site…

        2. You are aware that nazies are full on socialists, right?

          1. Xer’s just gaslighting.

          2. Wow, Rev, you’ve not been at the VC lately but commenting instead with the lumpen-proletariat of mainstream Reason?

            Does Prof Volokh’s little exposition on your insults and general lunacy have anything to do with it? Maybe your fake persona was getting old, even for you.

    4. Gaslighting can also mean holding a match to your own farts.

    5. “Can we stop using that ridiculous term “gaslighting”

      I’m just glad we stopped “throwing shade” on everything.

      1. To be sure, both terms are literally problematic

      2. Only if we can replace it with “assglighting”

    6. Yes, Tom! I’m not alone! I’m sick of the misuse of “gaslighting” when people are simply lying.

  4. Welcome to 1990’s Feminism, when “Telling a joke is evil” quickly morphed into “Well, you get one free grope”

    Few movements clown themselves as utterly as feminism does. It’s why so few women self identify as feminist.

    1. And we should be thankful that modern feminism is, by and large, laughed at by most women.

      1. It’s scary that even 20% of Americans identify as feminists. Then again, 25% of Americans think the Sun orbits the Earth. I wouldn’t be surprised if there wasn’t a significant overlap between these two groups.

    2. Joe has had more than his share of those “one free gropes”.
      “Feminist” is just a subset of the left and just as likely to lie as are the rest.
      As long as he protects their sacrament of abortion, men of the left get all the free gropes they can get away with.
      The party of lies, doing the bidding of the father of lies.

      1. I agree with Soave and Trump. I don’t know if Biden did it. I hope he didn’t. False accusations do happen.

        That said, there’s way more substantiation for the Tara Reade accusation than there ever was for the Blasey Ford accusation.

        Tara Reade has corroboration of at least some aspects of her claims. That corroboration (hearsay) doesn’t necessarily make them true, but it should led the “believe women” crowd to rally behind Reade, not cut her loose. But you know. It’s politically expedient to dismiss her claims because Biden has pledged to undo all the progress made by DeVos.

        So it makes sense. You let one possible rapist go free so a thousand innocent men will be condemned.

        Feminist justice!

  5. Lmao. Robby these people were never earnest about anything beyond raw political power and bludgeoning their opponents rhetorically. This was apparent during bill clintons bullshit and also the way they look back fawningly on JFK. Or see Ted Kennedy, or Harvey Wienstien or Anthony Wiener. This has always been obvious. Same goes for both political parties but the repubs act with a little more decorum and shame given they are held to account by the media.

    1. There’s two seperate rules they operate from and they don’t care about the hypocricy or what normal people think because they will get willful and blindingly biased coverage from the media. Only real difference is we have the internet to keep people relatively informed of this dumbass charade and talk to each other about the raw shameless hypocrisy of the people leading the charge. But trying to call them out for it has no impact on them because they are shameless.

      1. But trying to call them out for it has no impact on them because they are shameless.

        About the only thing you can really do is openly mock them. That at least usually pisses them off, which is a start.

  6. We’ve always been at war against Eastasia.

    1. Eastasia? I thought it was …. wait. Never mind.


    Worthwhile companion piece. Former Reason writer Cathy Young’s take. It’s actually a pretty good article, but it unfortunately mostly falls into the trap that a lot of Reason writers seem to fall into. It takes the accusations about Kavanaugh and Biden at face value instead of the obvious unprovable political hit jobs they are. At least with Biden the right has a good point. If the left is willing to treat due process like a tertiary concern, then they better accept the consequences when it happens to them.

    1. Tara Reade’s allegations are also supported by her contemporaneous discussions of said event occurring with multiple firends/family members/acquaintances.

      That’s not to say the event occurred as she described, but it’s clear she didn’t make it up just now (she could have made them up 26 years ago).

      It’s also not to say that even if the event did occur as she described, that it’s not being brought up for political purposes.

      Blasey-Ford’s accusations were unbelievable, at least in part because there was NO corroborating data (and according to HER OWN “witnesses,” contradictory data) or contemporaneous accounts and they were CLEARLY politically motivated. Reade’s accusations are only unbelievable because they are most likely politically motivated…and because the NY Times and now PBS Newshour says Biden doesn’t show a pattern to touching women and young girls against their will…

      1. Blasey’s Ford’s accusations were totally believable. Being a teenager at a house party drinking with peers and awkwardly hooking up with someone happens. It’s part of growing up. It’s just everything else afterward that strains credulity, especially why we should care or this should have any impact on someone’s career or this was somehow the seminal moment of Blasey-Fords life.

        1. My overall point is that in both scenarios, the story has almost nothing to do with whether man did what they’re accused of. As long as they can find people that will come out of the wood work and make accusations that the other team can deem “disqualifying”, people will gleefully believe any story no matter how circumstantial to non-existent the evidence is. See Julie Swetnick. I think it is pretty undeniable that the shit show that the dems allowed to go on with Kavanaugh exposed their character and the lengths they would go to far more than the minor media kerfuffle the GOP has put up over Reade. In either case, I think it’s important that we hold the flag for principles and be consistent for due process as the most important good no matter the team.

          1. I’m all for due process. And the Dems decided that in cases like this:
            1. This is not a criminal matter, it’s a “jOB inTeRView,” so making a public spectacle of this is appropriate
            2. The evidence, while unverifiable, seems sufficient to warrant an investigation
            3. Kavanaugh’s “due process” came in the form of a Senate investigation, this requires the same.

            Don’t forget, this isn’t the first or even second time the Dems have done this. They came after Clarence Thomas with baseless sexual harassment allegations, kept Bork from being confirmed, reelected Ted Kennedy, Marion Berry, and BILL CLINTON afterwards. All of this because they KNEW they could do it and no one would do it back to them. Studies show tit-for-tat works at discouraging bad behavior. I’m not saying Joe Biden should be arrested for a crime we aren’t sure he (or anyone) committed against Tara Reade, but if the court of public opinion wants to punish him by keeping him out of office, I’m completely fine with it. He did this to himself by aligning himself with the #Metoo and #believewomen BS.

            1. I’m also fine with the public judging the merits of this and allowing it to be a deciding factor in voting for him. However, in regards to the idea that “tit-for-tat works at discouraging bad behavior”, I doubt that study was on politicians. These type-A narcissistic sociopaths are incapable of learning lessons. The only thing that matters is “does this get me or allow me to keep my prestigious dream job?” Tit-for-tat with these people is the same as the mob. Escalation is the only response.

              1. At least the show will be entertaining…and hopefully the scales will fall from citizens’ eyes…

            2. Studies show tit-for-tat works at discouraging bad behavior.

              We are beyond childhood. It is time for tar and feather.

        2. Are you implying that you don’t believe BF’s statement that she had to build a second door into her house as a coping mechanism?? How Dare You!

          1. I actually know a woman who grew up in a district of Saudi Arabia that was frequently bombed. It was her job, at age 9, to wake everyone up when the air raid sirens went off and get the family to take shelter under the kitchen table, which had a mattress over it.

            She’s told me that 38 years later, whenever she enters a room, she looks for the exit signs. Just to be sure.

            And even she never felt the need to add a second front door to her home.

            1. a district of Saudi Arabia that was frequently bombed.

              This isn’t true.

        3. The general situation was believable (this stuff DOES happen relatively frequently), but given the SPECIFICS she provides, HER story wasn’t particularly believable. She didn’t remember what YEAR it was (she believed it was in ’82, but wasn’t sure), let alone the date? She doesn’t remember WHOSE house it was or HOW she got there OR back? NOBODY, even people she names as attending the party and were (ostensibly) her FRIENDS don’t remember the event? She didn’t tell ANYONE about it until 2012? It’s pretty unbelievable that she is LITERALLY the only one who remembers ANYTHING about it, and she has a selective memory about it. It’s all pretty unbelievable once you get passed “I was assaulted once at a party.”

          1. good points on all but I tried to that’s coverid my everything else part as “this was somehow the seminal moment of Blasey-Fords life”

          2. My biggest issue with her story is that she could only not remember the very details that would have allowed Kavanaugh to defend himself, therefore rendering her story non-falsifiable. She had some pretty good lawyers helping her out.

            1. And going to Feinstein to prepare the story for a month makes it suspect.

            2. My biggest issue was that anyone treated it like it was a story worth hearing.

              Even taken 100% at face value, it had absolutely zero value in determining the fitness of a 55 year old Kavanaugh to sit on the bench. Her allegations were a 2 at best… she added on “I was afraid he was gonna…” to make it sound more serious. But she didn’t even claim he did. She said they wrestled around on a bed briefly, laughing… and he touched her boob through her clothes.

              If true, not the best of behavior. But for two high school kids? Not sociopathic behavior either.

              But that’s all irrelevant, since he proved by way more than a preponderance of the evidence that it never happened at all. Her own best friend and the witness she named says she was never at such a party, has never met Kavanaugh and does not believe her story. That alone should be plenty. But he also has a detailed calendar that lists all of his activities, and actually precludes the possibility that he attended such a party. With those facts, you don’t even need to bring in her ludicrous claims about needing to put in 2 front doors because he traumatized her so much, or her being unable to fly because of her fear. (claims debunked by both reality and her live-in ex. who says no such attitudes were ever presented during their time together)

              Reade at least has the documentation that her story is about attempting to rectify some form of office harassment and being met with intractable resistance and retaliation. We have plenty of documentation of that much – even if the digital penetration part of the story remains un-provable.

              1. I totally believe Reade but the why of her coming out with it now is not coincidence.

                WHY not when Biden ran for VP, twice?!! Not an important enough position? No, Tara is telling the truth except for her reason for telling it. She is a Democrat. She has not had reason before now, after over a decade, to come forward?

                Reade is an agent of the Hildebeast. She is either being paid or was simply convinced to help elect the “first woman President”. There is no way that this is being done with the possibility that it will hurt the Democrats, which is why she has never come forward before now.

                When the nomination occurs, via virtual or normal convention, the “super-delegates” will have to have some concerns about her claims and choose someone else who is a “compromise”.

                1. Reade is an agent of the Hildebeast.

                  Reade admits to being an agent of Bernie Sanders. She came forward in disappointment after he lost , again.

        4. She left out the part where she was abandoned on her front lawn in the shopping cart.

          1. You win the thread.

      2. Even now, the scandal isn’t about Tara Reade. Too much time has passed for anyone to assume anything, unless some new witnesses or evidence come forth. The scandal should be that Biden and many of his supporters want us to believe all women, or used to want it, at least.

        It was only a matter of time before enough prominent supporters of the movement got accused that the movement had to get away from its ridiculous stance.

        1. That is indeed the important story – and critically the treatment the press has given her allegation in light of their previous obsessions.

          But it is also true that we need not assume anything to know this much is true: She felt she was being seriously harassed at the time. She claimed at the time that she filed complaints and she felt that her documented demotion was in retaliation for these complaints. We have witnesses and even contemporaneous documents of these facts. We don’t have contemporaneous claims of physical assault, nor do we have copies of her written complaints. But don’t pretend that “we just can’t know what to believe”. We do know that she felt that she had to leave Washington because of how she was treated in Biden’s office, and felt strongly enough about it that her mother felt moved to call in on a Larry King show about such matters to ask about her story. Taken together, that’s plenty of evidence that something of consequence happened in that office.

          1. Why did she come back now, instead of when Biden ran for VP, twice?

    2. ” It takes the accusations about Kavanaugh and Biden at face value”


      In only one of those instances was there a mad rush by Reason contributors to declare the accuser “credible.”

      1. And that was for the claim that seemed to be tailored to avoid anything that might be fact-checked.

    3. That article has a metric crap-ton of wishful thinking tea-leaf reading.

      The overall point – that the allegation of digital rape might be fantastical – is well taken.

      But the rest of it is wishful thinking. There is zero question that she raised the issue of in-office sexual harassment at the time. And everyone in the media – Kathy Young included – put 100% of their effort into debunking her claims.

      This, within recent memory of those same folks putting in overtime in an effort to elevate the ludicrous claims of Ford to proof of an indelible character flaw.

      That is the real take-home from this article. That motivated reasoning among the press allows them Orwellian levels of double-think.

    4. Compelled, great point.

      For a long time, I’ve been kind of a middle of the roader. Not really trusting the GOP or DEMs but voting for each on a somewhat equal basis. I have changed recently and this topic has much to do with it. While I am not going to blindly vote right in the future, I going to rarely go Dem for a while, maybe for good.

      Why? After watching Joe Biden for years, an honest, rational person is not going to question his denial of these accusations. Holy hell, there are loads of videos of the dude walking up behind women and sniffing them. Maybe Kavanaugh was abusive to his main accuser, but the story was far fetched to the point that only a bias person would believe it without better support. So what the Dems, and yes, the disgusting media, has done is to make the standard “does the real answer benefit me” rather than “what really happened.”

      There is more to the why too. So you have a President that has clearly created division and your response is to have a list of possible candidates made up of ultra far left socialist and and old senile womanizer. You bet screw you.

      Then this virus comes along and the response in states run by democrats is to overreact and step on rights much more than in other States. And the to scream about a freaking pill the President is taking (that my doctor is also taking for prevention) and almost cheering for the drug to be ineffective so the guy looks stupid. Oh, and almost cheering that the economy is dying.

      So I guess this “I believe Joe” movement was the last straw for me, but I doubt I’m alone. One year ago, I would have never imagined that I would happily step into the booth and cast a vote for the Windbag in Chief, but I am. And I didn’t vote for him last time. Am I happy with most things he has done? not really. But the worst thing he has done in the past four years is better than the best thing the the democrats have done, by far.

      – One pissed off libertarian.

  8. It’s a shame Mott & Bailey isn’t a more well known term. It describes how the feminist movement tends to operate so incredibly well.

    1. They aren’t honest brokers and shouldn’t be treated as such. They are able to operate from a different rule set they themselves created. It’s time to quit playing their game and tell them to go fuck themselves.

      1. Couldn’t much the same could be said about the entire Democrat/Left? Yet the authors here will forever extend them every benefit of the doubt and their every word is taken as intellectually honest.

        Which would be acceptable if that approach extended to everyone else, yet does it really?

      2. Right. They are just women, why bother to pay any attention at all?

  9. Since Trump normalized sexual assault no one care anymore.

    Weiner’s dick pics seem so quaint today.

    1. Excuse me, but you’ve just offended Bill Clinton.

      1. Brett Favre called

        1. It’s ok, I’m Big Ben!

      2. It’s all fun and games until someone ends up at the bottom of a pond on Chappaquiddick Island.

        1. Yeah, that poor car!

    2. If you’d like to participate in the comments, could you try to have some knowledge of history that extends back before 2015? Thanks!

      Weiner’s pics would probably still be shocking to you if you hadn’t set them to be your desktop background.

    3. Sexual assault has always been normalized in politics. Its never been anything more than a convenient cudgel to use against your opponents

    4. Huh. How did Trump normalize sexual assault? I must have missed that.

      1. This happened when “they let you grab’em by the pussy” got transformed by the media into “I just grab them by the pussy against their will”. As crude and distasteful and boorish as he is, that is NOT what he said. He never claimed to be assaulting anyone and never had any claims of assault against him.

        1. How dare YOU! You can just use his words as he meant them.

        2. The irony being that he basically defined the poundmetoo movement, correctly, in one sentence.

    5. Buttputz prefers cocktail weiner pics. #believeallchildren.

    6. Well you’re a pedophile, of course you’d be cool with Weiner sending dickpics to an underage girl

  10. Besides the gaslighting on the meaning of #BelieveWomen, there is the trashing of Tara Reade’s character:

  11. Bombshell. Shocked face. Gambling going on in here.

  12. Susan Faludi and other feminists are like battered wives. They literally cannot escape the prison created by the left.

    It takes some bizarre North Korea style thinking to justify all their contradictory and extreme social positions.

    1. No it doesn’t. It’s all about rice bowls. The DNC funds many of their pet projects and political organizations. It’s not contradictory to them at all they have a monetary and professional agenda that matters more to them than their idealogical one. It’s a con.

      1. That is the best I’ve ever heard it put.

      2. ” It’s not contradictory to them at all they have a monetary and professional agenda that matters more to them than their idealogical one. It’s a con.”

        Careful, the Reason editorial staff might think you are on to something.

      3. It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

      4. …they have a monetary and professional agenda that matters more to them than their idealogical one. It’s a con.


        Judge them by what they do, not what they claim to believe when the cameras are rolling.

  13. Lol at pretending the words mean anything.

  14. As the coronavirus spread around the globe, Pakistan’s foreign minister called his counterpart in Beijing last month with an urgent request: The country’s economy was nose-diving, and the government needed to restructure billions of dollars of Chinese loans.

    Similar requests have come flooding in to Beijing from Kyrgyzstan, Sri Lanka and a number of African nations, asking to restructure, delay repayments or forgive tens of billions of dollars of loans coming due this year.

    With each request, China’s drive to become the developing world’s biggest banker is backfiring. Over the last two decades it unleashed a global lending spree, showering countries with hundreds of billions of dollars, in an effort to expand its influence and become a political and economic superpower. Borrowers put up ports, mines and other crown jewels as collateral.

    Now, as the world economy reels, countries are increasingly telling Beijing they can’t pay the money back.

    China faces difficult choices. If it restructures or forgives these loans, that could strain its financial system and infuriate the Chinese people, who are suffering under their own slowdown. But if China demands repayment when many countries are already angry with Beijing over its handling of the pandemic, its quest for global clout could be at risk.

    “China is politically on the back foot,” said Andrew Small, senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund. Should China foreclose on those loans, he added, “they would be taking over strategic assets in countries that now can’t afford to feed their people.”

    China’s global reputation is on the line. Countries are openly questioning its role in the coronavirus outbreak, after Chinese officials in January initially downplayed the severity and contagiousness of the disease. Beijing is selling and donating masks and equipment to help its battered image. A misstep could deal its global ambitions a major setback.

    At the same time, the financial stakes are huge. The Kiel Institute, a German research group, pegs China’s lending to the developing world at $520 billion or more, with the vast majority doled out in the last few years. That makes Beijing a bigger lender than the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund.

    At the forefront of the spree is the Belt and Road Initiative, President Xi Jinping’s $1 trillion program to finance infrastructure projects across the world and pick up allies in the process. Since the initiative started in 2013, China has lent up to $350 billion to countries, about half of them considered high-risk debtors.

    China has dismissed the idea of mass debt forgiveness but signaled that it is willing to negotiate. In some cases it has already acted: The Kyrgyzstan government announced in April that China agreed to reschedule $1.7 billion of debt repayments, without disclosing details.

    Others are hoping for relief too. “Not only from China have we requested,” said S.R. Attygalle, Sri Lanka’s secretary to the treasury, in an interview, citing requests to Japan and China’s Export-Import Bank. In the meantime, he said, China Development Bank widened a credit line by $700 million to help Sri Lanka cope, lowered the interest rate and delayed the repayment timeline by two years.

    Beyond those steps, Chinese officials haven’t yet decided how to tackle the problem, say people familiar with some of the deliberations.

    Debt relief is “not simple or effective,” Song Wei, an official in the research arm of China’s Ministry of Commerce, wrote in the Global Times, a newspaper controlled by the Communist Party. “What China could do to help is bring projects funded by loans back to life and realize sustainable profits, instead of measures as simple as offering write-offs.”

    Belt and Road had become a sensitive subject before the outbreak. Chinese officials worried whether too many banks and companies were pouring money into the same countries with scant coordination. China’s financial system is already straining under debt accumulated by state-run companies and local governments to keep growth humming.

    Some people in China began questioning whether their hard-earned money was being squandered abroad. Despite China’s growing wealth, its households still have incomes less than a quarter of those in developed countries. Its economy has also been shaken by the outbreak, leading it to shrink for the first time since the Mao era.

    The lending has drawn scrutiny outside China, too.

    China’s loans differ from most other loans to developing countries by rich nations or by institutions like the World Bank. They tend to carry higher interest rates and shorter maturities, requiring refinancing every couple years. They frequently use national assets as collateral. Those features gave Chinese state-controlled banks the confidence to lend to poor countries.

    In some places, lending has soared. Djibouti’s debts to China jumped to more than 80 percent of its annual economic output. Ethiopia’s debt to China totals 20 percent of its annual output. In Kyrgyzstan, the amount is about 40 percent.

    The Trump administration has accused China of “debt trap diplomacy,” lending more money than poor countries could afford to seize strategic assets and to expand its military and economic footprint.

    Read more here:

    Half a trillion dollars in lending to developing countries. That is insane.

    1. If you owe the bank $1000, the bank owns you. If you owe the bank $1 million, you own the bank.

      For all the “long game” we hear, the Chinese government are fallible humans – they may have set themselves up for a serious fall with Covid.

      1. Chiang’s image of competence has largely been the product of compliant and sympathetic Western Media.

        Thomas Friedman instantly jumps to mind.

    2. How exactly, do they plan on foreclosing on assets that belong to a sovereign nation? Seizing the odd ship or airplane would only satisfy a pittance of the total debt obligation.

      It’s like the PRC couldn’t open a financial history book, or was asleep throughout the late 80s and 90s, when international banks had to write down billions in worthless debt owed to various Third World nations. And then the US Government bailed out some of them, and told them to do it again…

      The cloud of dust that will erupt when China’s financial house of cards implodes, will be able to be seen from Saturn. Unfortunately, I think China goes to war with someone, anyone, before that would be allowed to happen.

      1. Same way countries have always foreclosed on assets belonging to sovereign nations – war.

  15. Feminists Who Now Claim They Never Meant ‘Believe All Women’ Are Gaslighting Us

    FTFY. Gaslighting people is what they do best.

  16. Principles shminciples.

    What matters is who, not what. More specifically the person’s politics.

    People on the left have good intentions, which makes them good people. They care so much about the greater good that they want to force people to help others, whether they like it or not. So accusations against them must obviously be false because they are good people.

    People on the right are selfish fucks. They have the audacity to say that people should keep what they earn without being forced to help others. Obviously they are bad people with bad intentions. So accusations against them are obviously true because they are bad people.

    Libertarians though, they’re the worst of the worst. Don’t even get me started on those heartless bastards.

    1. So what happens when someone on the Left accuses someone else on the Left? Do we believe the accuser, the one with more power, or the one furthest to the Left?

      1. Ummmm, yes?

        1. “It’s complicated” or “What happens in SJW Club stays in SJW club”

      2. someone on the Left accuses someone else on the Left

        Say what? Cite your source, please.

  17. Creepy Joe don’t ‘member, why should they?

  18. Feminists Who Now Claim They Never Meant ‘Believe All Women’ Are Gaslighting Us

    So what? Women started figuring out around 1975 that they were sick of men playing grab ass with them and now they’re employing a little sophistry to achieve that goal. Who cares?

    1. Is “sophistry” now a euphemism for weaponizing fake criminal accusations to ruin people on a whim? Can you sit there with a straight face and tell me that you’re okay with pissing away due process as a standard just because it can possibly help you win some short term symbolic political battles?

      1. They have to win political battles because for so much of the Left their entire lives are entwined with politics.

        Their politics is their identity. And when you attack their politics you’re really attacking their personal identity.

        1. This is a great way to put it. These people generally have nothing going on for themselves, so they get their identity by voting for the “right” leaders. If they lose, they have nothing to fall back on.

      2. How many fake accusations of sexual assault by women are levelled every year? A dozen? So what. Is this the sort of thing that keeps you up at night? May I suggest Xanax. That’ll work so you don’t have to worry about every.single.little.thing.

        1. “How many fake accusations of sexual assault by women are levelled every year? A dozen?”

          Wow. Just a dozen?
          [citation needed]

          1. [citation needed]

            The voices in his head tell him it’s true.

          2. According to FBI statistics, 127,258 rapes were reported to police departments in 2018.

            If we are to apply feminists’ dubious claim that only 2% of rape reports are false, that’s still over 2500 false accusations to police that year.

            If we are to use End Violence Against Women International’s “Making a Difference” study, which found a “very low” false report rate of 7%, we have 8900 false reports of rape per year in the US.

            And those are just the false accusations make it into a police report.

            Wouldn’t include false reports to Title IX coordinators that weren’t brought to the police, nor does it include a lot of #MeToo style public allegations that never involved the police, nor accusations made to friends for the purpose of reputational annihilation.

            That 18 year old boy in the UK who was beaten to death a few years ago by a group of friends after one of them accused him to the others… yeah, the girl admitted during the murder trial she made the entire thing up over a grudge. But she didn’t falsely report it to police, so it doesn’t get counted in the 2% or 7% or -87% feminists would have everyone believe is so small a number as to be not worth worrying about.

        2. I guess I can’t expect you to be anything other than a short-sited fool. You are what you are. Forgive me if I think that removing any standard of proof for accusations of what is general considered the worst crime next to murder might be a bad idea. What keeps me up at night is the idea that immoral sociopaths like you and the people you seek to empower get giddy at the prospect of bringing back collectivist punishments and black bags for any and all dissidents that won’t bow to your aesthetic political preferences. What keeps me up at night is that despite the history of your way of thinking being crystal clear, you’re still incapable of asking yourself if you might be the bad guy.

          1. The way sexual assault law has already been “reformed”, you’re better off, due process-wise, being accused of terrorism than rape.

        3. Just because you can’t count any higher than a dozen doesn’t mean that’s all there are.

        4. Well, the National Sexual Violence Research Center says false reports account for about 2%-10% of reported sexual assaults. The Bureau of Justice Statistics show there were 734,630 reports of sexual assault in 2018.
          You can do the math, but I’m guessing the number’s a little above a dozen.

          1. You are being way to generous in believing that he can do the math.

      3. Can you sit there with a straight face and tell me that you’re okay with pissing away due process as a standard just because it can possibly help you win some short term symbolic political battles?

        Yes, yes he can.

    2. Women started figuring out around 1975 that they were sick of men playing grab ass with them and now they’re employing a little sophistry to achieve that goal.

      Several decades to figure out that they didn’t like being grabbed and several more to figure out sophistry? That’s a pretty degrading view of women.

  19. They’re not gaslighting us. They’re gaslighting themselves.

    1. You have to wonder. I can’t imagine it would possible to be this lacking in self awareness without consciously choosing to lie to yourself.

      1. “If you can convince yourself the lie is true, everyone else is easy.”

      2. People do it all the time.

        1. I think that’s what frustrated me the most about my ex-wife: her ability to lie to herself.

  20. Orwell was right:

    “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”

    Winston Smith’s job was to edit the past to conform to what the Party wants it to be now.

    1. As the ChiComs have demonstrated with the complete deletion of the Tianenmen Square massacre from their country’s records.

  21. Hillary had tweeted, “To every survivor of sexual assault … you have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed.”

    Franken aside, behavior in the Clinton years should have been a good indication that #MeToo was not going to survive the first threat to a major Democrat. “Feminist” groups at the time fawned over Clinton despite arguably credible accusations, not to mention admitted predatory actions.

    1. They say history repeats itself, and it certainly did this time.

      In 1991 feminists weaponized sexual harassment in an attempt to stop a Republican president from putting a conservative on the Supreme Court, only to have to walk it back when the Democrats nominated a sexual harasser for president in the next election.

      In 2018 feminists weaponized sexual assault in an attempt to stop a Republican president from putting a conservative on the Supreme Court, only to have to walk it back when the Democrats nominated a sexual assaulted for president in the next election.

    2. That sounds alot better than her earlier quot about rape victims “when you drag a dollar through the parking lot you never know what trash will follow it out”

      1. Probably a bunch of super-predators.

      2. That wasn’t for rape victims… just “pressured to give my boss a blowjob” victims. Oh, and indecent exposure.

        And I think it was a hundred bucks, not a single.

      3. Wasn’t that Hillary quote “trailer park” rather than “parking lot”? Insulting poor people is not likely to win their votes..

  22. Bob Menendez keeps getting elected, doesn’t he? What’s a little fucking of underage girls among friends?

    1. Didn’t get a lot of coverage in NJ, and too many people just instinctively choose the (D) candidate.

      Despite having more independents than Ds and Rs combined, NJ is a pretty blue state.

      1. It doesn’t matter which candidate YOU choose, the vote get recorded as (D).

    2. it’s disgusting he hasn’t been lampposted …

    3. Yeah I just looked him up the other day to still see if he was a selfless public servent. I literally spit coffee out when I saw he was still gainfully employed.

    4. “” What’s a little fucking of underage girls among friends?””

      Careful, that can get you locked in prison where you will not kill yourself.

  23. Didn’t AL Franken call this, and tell everyone this was happening? When he was being me tooed he flat out said he did nothing inappropriate, and he was being sacrificed because
    1. his seat will never be turned R.
    2. with kicking him out the d’s can say “see we take this seriously and police our own”, and run cover for higher up d’s who actually should be gone.

    1. And then he voted party line in the next election, like a good boy

    2. Speaking of your namesake, he’s been notably persona non grata with his NPC comments lately. Wonder if he’s battling the coof after French-kissing Tom Wolf in the coat closet.

      1. I have noticed the more I parody him the less we see…. Hmmmm

        1. Like with Weird Al, the parody is almost always better than the original.

        2. Being a “better” takes more and more of ones time as we draw closer to “replacement”. It’s coming! I swear! Soon!


        3. My hero! [swoon]

          Rev was over at the Post where the readership believe his crap.

      2. Someone told him the culture war has been won.

    3. I’ve always suspected that with Franken, they let out the stuff that wasn’t that bad and told him they’d release the donkey video if he didn’t go quietly into the night. He said decided it wasn’t worth Pelosi going down with him too, so he complied.

      1. I never suspected that…. but the dude was an SNL writer during the peak of SNL If he doesn’t have skeletons, he’s too incompetent to be in charge.

    4. I agree. And I don’t get why some of your repliers don’t get that the Franken episode was where the Democrats had a chance to deal with this shit, and they blew it, and that was bad for everyone, even if they don’t like the man. Intolerance never works out for anyone! The haters are too busy rippin on Franken. I am glad this is blowing up in the Democrats faces, like everyone else on this board.

  24. the central tenet of the #metoo movement was never really the central tenet.

    1. The central tenet of the me too movement are that women are only women if they have a (D) after their name. That was the case from day 1.

      1. The only central tenet is no enemies to the left.

        Biden is to the left of Trump so must be protected at all cost.

        Judge Sullivan is abusing the judicial system to persecute a Trumpista so must be tolerated.

  25. As was mentioned on Twitter, in a few more years, you’ll see progs claiming that NOBODY on the Left argued that biological males could be women and that claiming they did was just a right wing smear.

    1. Bookmark that comment.

    2. Well… what we’ve seen with the transgender issue is at least part-in-parcel of what I predicted would happen when this thing first reared its head: A collapse of identity politics– at least as it pertained to women’s issues.

      While I’ll admit the ‘collapse’ was probably overstated, it definitely caused a huge rift and has resulted in the infighting we see in feminist circles. However, I believe that infighting is because many feminists– especially the old guard saw a collapse coming and circled the wagons to protect the territory they were able to stake out over the previous decades.

      Bottom line, for better or worse, if you establish a victim group (and I’m hesitant to use that word, because it can come off as disrespectful to many feminists I generally respect and admire, but I’ll stick with the term for illustration purposes), and suddenly, anyone can join and claim membership (open borders for the in-group– if you will) then the group has no functional meaning.

      1. Excellent way of putting it. It doesn’t just go for victim groups. Any group based on an identity has this same rule. And the feminist/LGBTQ/SJW movements have always had this rule. The group defines who qualifies as a member. The rhetoric just wasn’t always consistent.

      2. “Victim groups” is entirely appropriate. There are individual victims of course, but when they’re a collective they vote d. Shameless exploitation. People will catch on to being pandered to some day, and that will be a bad day for d’s.

    3. Considering the fact that radical feminists already think that (at least the trans-excluding types do), it’s only a matter of time before this point of view becomes ascendant on the left.

      Ironically, this is the one point of agreement I have with radical feminists.

  26. former Vice President Joe Biden has prompted the swift and sudden collapse of the #MeToo movement’s central tenet—that all women who come forward with such allegations deserve to be believed.

    It was a ‘central tenet’ that was bound to collapse by it’s very illogical design. The only question was how long would it take? Now we know. The #believeallwomen trope should have been dismissed out of hand as the Orwellian concept it was from day one. They did it to themselves.

    1. Oh, don’t believe the hype. Nothing collapsed. The instant it becomes useful again, they’ll be back at it.

      Hell, the ACLU is already saying that providing the accused with some form of due process in campus harassment cases will prevent women from having access to an education.

  27. “‘Believe All Women’ Is a Right-Wing Trap/How feminists got stuck answering for a canard,” by Susan Faludi (NYT).

    If it looks like a canard, swims like a canard, and quacks like a canard, then it is a duck (In French of course).

  28. But whether the phrase contains “all” is unimportant: It means the same thing, regardless.

    What if it contains “Black”?

    1. Then it’s “only” 😀

  29. This directly contradicts her earlier admittal …

    The attempted neologism admittal is sufficiently frequent that has a redirection to admission, but not so frequent that it gets its own entry.

  30. As members of a twice-oppressed group, are transfolk even capable of committing sexual assault?

    1. Are you suggesting that Biden is a tranny? Yuck!

      Maybe an early prototype.

  31. False allegations of sexual assault are so rare that I don’t worry about them. Its like worrying about getting eaten by a grizzly bear. Possible? Yes. Likely? No.

    You know what I *do* think is unfair? Nancy Pelosi saying that Dear Leader shouldn’t be taking chloroquine because she’s *extremely concerned* that he’s old and fat. That was pretty savage. Is Robby going to write an article about that? He seems very concerned about how women unfairly treat men and that definitely was an instance when some bitch got way out of line and deserves a slap from the superior sex.

    1. I hope some woman falsely accuses you of sexual assault. That’s the only way dumbasses like you learn, and sometimes not even then.

      1. Have you been falsely accused of sexual assault?

        1. I haven’t. I haven’t been falsely accused of murder either. That doesn’t mean I think it is okay when it happens to other people. Jesus you are stupid.

        2. A good friend’s son was, and it ruined his college career.

        3. You’re screech, a pedophile who got banned for posting kiddie porn.

    2. So then there is no point to the Innocence Project?

      1. The innocence project mainly deals with murders and other less serious crimes.

        1. Not so fast it deals with plenty of rapes because they can test DNA.

          1. DNA testing gets in the way of Title IX.

            1. Since DNA no longer distinguish male from female, it is probably useless in any trial.

    3. We always have men like American Socialist whose rantings rebut the idea that men are the superior sex.

      1. Are you certain American Socialist is male?

        1. Do you really think a woman would come around trolling the comments section of a libertarian rag?

          1. Dude, you have been here long enough to know the name Mary Stack.

    4. You realize that the three highest profile college campus rape accusations of the past decade (Duke Lax, Mattress Girl, and UVA/Rolling Stone) all turned out to be false. And no, they did not only become high profile after the accusations fell apart. That’s a pretty damning record.

      1. Those aren’t even cases with high stakes. When it comes to high profile political positions, the incentive to abuse “believe all women” to conveniently get rid of opponents becomes enormous. Julie Swetnick anyone? That accusation was jawdropping in it’s absurdity. Yet, almost every news organisation was dutifully parroted it under the guise of “according to the New Yorker” just to make sure gang rape was out in the ether as much as possible.

        Maybe conservatives should be comparing Tara Reade to that one instead.

      2. “You realize that the three highest profile college campus rape accusations…”

        It’s more damning if the 3 lowest profile rape accusations turn out to be true.

    5. Considering that you’re screech the pedophile, that’s in your interest.

    6. Just imagine what would happen if Trump called Stacy Abrams fat.

  32. Of course, if I sincerely believed Trump was a National Socialist who was going to enslave women and children and who gleefully allowed a pestilence to ravage the land, I would vote for a Democratic rapist in preference to him.

    Since I *don’t* believe this, I don’t mind watching the Dems stew in their own #MeToo juices.

    1. Except they aren’t even stewing. They seem to be calmly handwaving and shrugging it off. I see absolutely no reason to think that this will finally be the event that causes some amount of self-reflection.

      1. There has to be a capacity for introspection, intellectual honesty/maturity for self-reflection. They are are lacking on all counts.

      2. the event (II) that causes some amount of self-reflection

        Nov 3, 2020

  33. Only Trump is allowed to do this sort of thing and have people forgive him for it:

    Peter Thiel (Trump advisor) on Trump:

    “I think one thing that should be distinguished here is that the media is always taking Trump literally. It never takes him seriously, but it always takes him literally. … I think a lot of voters who vote for Trump take Trump seriously but not literally, so when they hear things like the Muslim comment or the wall comment, their question is not, ‘Are you going to build a wall like the Great Wall of China?’ or, you know, ‘How exactly are you going to enforce these tests?’ What they hear is we’re going to have a saner, more sensible immigration policy.”

    1. What’s Trump got to do with gas lighting feminists upset they have been exposed as hypocrites?

      1. This is Reason comments. Trump has to be included in every one.

  34. To the extent that the #MeToo movement encouraged people to be more supportive and more open-minded when women accuse men of sexual assault, it has helped fix a great injustice.

    There’s that “to be sure” equivocation we all expect from Robby. Was there really a great injustice in society to be fixed? When and where in history were accusations of sexual misconduct not taken seriously? The existence of rape culture is just another of feminism’s many lies, and the need to fight it is just a cheap justification for what #MeToo always was: another assault on due process and the presumption of innocence.

    1. There’s a rape culture in *some* countries, which is why we should generously let in migrants from those countries, who are undoubtedly motivated to flee the patriarchy in their home societies and to change American misogyny into pure feminism.


  35. The simple truth is if you believed Christine Blasey Ford then you’re a hypocrite if you don’t believe Tara Reade. I’m not saying I believe Reade, but then again I didn’t believe Ford either. She didn’t even have any proof she ever met Kavanaugh.

    And it would have been so damn easy to make your slogan “Listen to women”. Since “believe women” means the same exact thing as “believe all women”. To suggest the “all” is not implied when you say “believe women” is crazy.

    1. Did a woman write it?

      Then you must believe her version. QED M-F’er. Q. E. D.

  36. And for Biden and the feminists trying to say that when they said believe all women they merely meant we should start out with the presumption women are telling the truth is chilling.

    In other words: we should presume the accused is guilty until we’re given a reason not to.

    Just imagine what is gonna happen when these kind of people take power again.

  37. Ford was treated as a saint and Time put her on the cover.

    Reade was ignored en masse, and was not even afforded the now revised standard of “just take their accusations seriously and treat them respect”. NYT included a nifty “it’s illegal to file a false criminal report” in their puff investigation piece. And now they’re going after her for not paying rent in time.

    When even parts of the left began to call out the hypocrisy, the feminazis reflexively deflected to Trump and the multiple (mostly inactive) accusations. What about Trump! Well, what about it? When the did the media ignore accusations against Trump?

    You should see the extent of how they twist themselves like pretzels to deny their double standard, even thought their words and intentions were well preserved in the annals of internet history.

  38. It’s been transparently obvious from its first appearance that #Believewomen, or #believeallwomen, or anything similar, meant only “believe all the women who deserve to be believed”; and that the Left gets to determine which “deserve to be believed”.

  39. Believe all Holocaust victims, too. Or get clapped in irons.

  40. Can we retire the word “gaslighting”? Please?

  41. #bullshitlyingcunts

  42. In Biden’s favor, Tara was hot back in the day. He may have been just grabbing a handful and accidentally penetrated. But we must remember she didn’t “let him” grab. And how does that compare to whipping it out in front of someone? How could a woman not feel safe when there are Arkansas State Troopers or Secret Service Agents in the vicinity?

  43. What to do when liars say “don’t believe us”?

    1. Put Jews in the oven?

      1. #meejoo

      2. The iron curtain was removed years ago.

        Why is it still a crime to objectively review the evidence in every nation where the holocaust allegedly occurred?

      3. “”Put Jews in the oven?””

        First you arrest them for going to synagogue.

  44. True, at the time they meant to just believe women, to assume they are telling the truth. Only extraordinary and obvious evidence the claim was false would make an accusation go away.

    And it made me angry, because sexual harassment/assault against women is a real problem and they undercut their movement with that slogan. Anyone with the least sense of justice knows you don’t just believe an accuser, but women were too angry after having to deal with what they dealt with for so long.

    So this was used by those who dismiss women’s complaints to delegitimize the entire movement. The slogan should have been ‘Listen to Women’. Listen, take their accusations seriously and investigate.

    1. That happened because they tried weaponize it against a political opponent for purely political reasons.

      1. You mean Trump?

        That fucker’s most def guilty.

    2. The slogan should have been ‘Listen to Women’.

      The slogan should have been ‘repeal the 19th’.

  45. “…only the crueler corners of the internet would profess that victims should be mistreated and rejected as a general rule.”

    Or the comments section of any Washington Post story about Ms. Reade’s accusations against Biden.

  46. Only black lives matter.

  47. Everybody knows they’re liars.

  48. “The “respect and support” position obviously enjoys broad support—only the crueler corners of the internet would profess that victims should be mistreated and rejected as a general rule. To the extent that the #MeToo movement encouraged people to be more supportive and more open-minded when women accuse men of sexual assault, it has helped fix a great injustice.” – It is so ironic to read a guy who calls rape apologist Mary Koss a friend write this. Mary Koss did more for erase rape victims than all these corners of the internet combined.

  49. I would have some respect for soave if he had the balls to say something against amber heard being in the aclu.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.