NYT Opinion Points out ‘Limits’ to the Mantra ‘Believe All Women’

November 29, 2017

WRITER

As more and more women come forward with accounts of harassment, assault and abuse, “believe women” has become a rallying cry.

Yes, it’s high time our society treated sexual harassment and rape as serious issues and dealt with predators and abusers. But as a New York Times opinion writer pointed out, “believe women” is something of an oversimplification of the problem.

Dan Rather Once Excused Bill Clinton Assault Allegations; ‘It Happened a Long Time Ago’

Bari Weiss wrote:

From time immemorial, men have been allowed to just be people while women have had to be women. I thought feminism was supposed to liberate us from this flattening of our identity. It’s supposed to allow us to just be people, too.
What we owe all people, including women, is to listen to them and to respect them and to take them seriously. But we don’t owe anyone our unthinking belief.

Pat and Stu talked about this piece today while sitting in for Glenn on today’s show. Skip to 11:40 in the clip (above) to hear Stu’s analysis.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

PAT: Pat Gray Stu Burguiere, for Glenn who lost his voice today. So hopefully day of rest will have him back tomorrow. 888-727-BECK.

Interesting that some of these left-wing publications are starting to sound the alarm that, hey, maybe we're a little too hasty on some of these sexual harassment charges.

STU: Yeah, there's been several that we've highlighted the last couple of weeks. This one comes from the New York Times. The title is the limits of believe all women.

Again, this is coming from a left-wing source. You know, talking about the reckoning that is happening recently wouldn't have happened without Gretchen Carlson. And they go through a bunch of people that they say deserve praise and gratitude. And hasn't the hunt been exhilarating? Again, this is a woman writing this. There's no small chance that by the time you finish this article, another mammoth beast of prey, maybe multiple will be stopped and felled. Against, Matt Lauer, right? So that was certainly true.

PAT: Wow.

STU: The hunter says, war cry, believe all women has felt like a brace incorrect to historic injustice. It has felt like a justifiable response to a system in which the crimes perpetrated against women, so intimate, so humiliating. And so unlike any other are difficult to prove. But I also can't shake the feeling that this mantra creates terrible new problems, in addition to solving old ones.

In less than two months, we've moved from uncovering accusations of criminal behavior -- Harvey Weinstein -- to criminalizing behavior that we previously regarded as presumptuous and boorish, like Glenn Thrush, the New York Times reporter.

In a climate in which sexual escapades are transforming so rapidly, many men are asking, if I were wrongly accused, who would believe me? This is a question I would love to see someone ask a media member, who is really aggressive on this.

Just, we know you didn't do it, right? Wolf Blitzer. Okay? Who is the guy you think would be the least likely person in America? Let's say Wolf Blitzer. That's the person who pops into my head. There's no way Wolf Blitzer did anything like this. Wolf Blitzer, let's just say some person who didn't like you from your past, or two or three people who were interns and thought you should be promoted and you didn't promote them. And they just accused you completely falsely. What could you say -- what would anyone believe?

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: If you were completely innocent, just craft for me the response that makes it even plausible for you to hold your job for more than a week.

And I think the answer -- everything turns out to be, well, you're blaming the victims. Oh, come on. It wouldn't be three women doing this. There's no way. What do they have to gain? No matter what you say, there's that pushback. And I don't think that's right. The New York Times goes on. I know the answer -- if I were wrongly accused, who would believe me? I know the answer many women would give and are giving is good. Be scared. We've been scared forever. It's your turn for some sleepless nights. They'll say if some innocent men go down in an effort to tear down the patriarchy, so be it.

Emily Lyndon. I think you talked about this, Pat, columnist at Teen Vogue summed up this view concisely last week on Twitter. I'm actually not at all concerned about innocent men losing their jobs over false accusations of sexual assault. If some innocent men's reputations have to take a hit in the process of undoing the patriarchy, that is the price I'm absolutely willing to play.

Ms. Lyndon was widely criticized. But say this much for her, at least she had the guts to publicly articulate a view that so many women are sharing with one another in private.

Countless innocent women have been robbed of justice, friends of mine insist. So why are we agonizing about the possibility of a few good men going down?

This is, again, the New York Times. I believe that the believe all women vision of feminism unintentionally fetishizes women. Women are no longer human and flawed. They are truth personified. They are above reproach. I believe -- this is an amazing perspective, and brave for the author to do this.

PAT: It is.

STU: I believe that it's condescending to think women and their claims can't stand up to interrogation and can't handle skepticism. I believe that facts serve feminists far better than faith.

That due process is better than mob rule. Maybe it will happen tomorrow. Maybe next week. Maybe next month. But the Duke Lacrosse moment, the Rolling Stone moment will come. A woman's accusation will turn out to be grossly exaggerated or flatly untrue. And if the governing principle of this movement is still an article of faith, many people will lose their religion.

It's interesting too, they go on to say, we know women -- it's not that women can't lie. Of course, they can. And the -- the example they give is the Project Veritas thing from yesterday with James O'Keefe.

Yes, that was a conservative thing to try to get the media -- to try to catch them. But what it is, was a woman lying. The woman went up and told a false story, to try to trap someone who they wanted to make into a bad guy. It's the same story that could happen to any person in the media, any person who is accused of these things. And we have to, as a society, set some sort of lines of due process and skepticism. Women can handle it. Women absolutely can handle it. They're not these -- we're treating -- we're treating women like children. And it's not fair to women. They deserve -- equality is one thing. And it's right. But equality means the same skepticism, that everybody gets. The same -- the same critical look at their claims that everybody receives.

PAT: Yeah. Again, and I don't know Matt Lauer. This could be completely true.

STU: Totally.

PAT: But you can't make that determination, I don't think, unless you have video, in 12 hours.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The dangerous lie: Rights as government privileges, not God-given

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is America’s next generation trading freedom for equity?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Glenn's Show Prep