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.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep