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