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

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.

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.

In light of the national conversation surrounding the rights of free speech, religion and self-defense, Mercury One is thrilled to announce a brand new initiative launching this Father's Day weekend: a three-day museum exhibition in Dallas, Texas focused on the rights and responsibilities of American citizens.

This event seeks to answer three fundamental questions:

  1. As Americans, what responsibility do we shoulder when it comes to defending our rights?
  2. Do we as a nation still agree on the core principles and values laid out by our founding fathers?
  3. How can we move forward amidst uncertainty surrounding the intent of our founding ideals?

Attendees will be able to view historical artifacts and documents that reveal what has made America unique and the most innovative nation on earth. Here's a hint: it all goes back to the core principles and values this nation was founded on as laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

Exhibits will show what the world was like before mankind had rights and how Americans realized there was a better way to govern. Throughout the weekend, Glenn Beck, David Barton, Stu Burguiere, Doc Thompson, Jeffy Fisher and Brad Staggs will lead private tours through the museum, each providing their own unique perspectives on our rights and responsibilities.

Schedule a private tour or purchase general admission ticket below:

Dates:
June 15-17

Location:

Mercury Studios

6301 Riverside Drive, Irving, TX 75039

Learn more about the event here.

About Mercury One: Mercury One is a 501(c)(3) charity founded in 2011 by Glenn Beck. Mercury One was built to inspire the world in the same way the United States space program shaped America's national destiny and the world. The organization seeks to restore the human spirit by helping individuals and communities help themselves through honor, faith, courage, hope and love. In the words of Glenn Beck:

We don't stand between government aid and people in need. We stand with people in need so they no longer need the government

Some of Mercury One's core initiatives include assisting our nation's veterans, providing aid to those in crisis and restoring the lives of Christians and other persecuted religious minorities. When evil prevails, the best way to overcome it is for regular people to do good. Mercury One is committed to helping sustain the good actions of regular people who want to make a difference through humanitarian aid and education initiatives. Mercury One will stand, speak and act when no one else will.

Support Mercury One's mission to restore the human spirit by making an online donation or calling 972-499-4747. Together, we can make a difference.

What happened?

A New York judge ruled Tuesday that a 30-year-old still living in his parents' home must move out, CNN reported.

Failure to launch …

Michael Rotondo, who had been living in a room in his parents' house for eight years, claims that he is owed a six-month notice even though they gave him five notices about moving out and offered to help him find a place and to help pay for repairs on his car.

RELATED: It's sad 'free-range parenting' has to be legislated, it used to be common sense

“I think the notice is sufficient," New York State Supreme Court Judge Donald Greenwood said.

What did the son say?

Rotondo “has never been expected to contribute to household expenses, or assisted with chores and the maintenance of the premises, and claims that this is simply a component of his living agreement," he claimed in court filings.

He told reporters that he plans to appeal the “ridiculous" ruling.

Reform Conservatism and Reaganomics: A middle road?

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Senator Marco Rubio broke Republican ranks recently when he criticized the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by stating that “there's no evidence whatsoever that the money's been massively poured back into the American worker." Rubio is wrong on this point, as millions of workers have received major raises, while the corporate tax cuts have led to a spike in capital expenditure (investment on new projects) of 39 percent. However, the Florida senator is revisiting an idea that was front and center in the conservative movement before Donald Trump rode down an escalator in June of 2015: reform conservatism.

RELATED: The problem with asking what has conservatism conserved

The "reformicons," like Rubio, supported moving away from conservative or supply-side orthodoxy and toward policies such as the expansion of the child and earned income tax credits. On the other hand, longstanding conservative economic theory indicates that corporate tax cuts, by lowering disincentives on investment, will lead to long-run economic growth that will end up being much more beneficial to the middle class than tax credits.

But asking people to choose between free market economic orthodoxy and policies guided towards addressing inequality and the concerns of the middle class is a false dichotomy.

Instead of advocating policies that many conservatives might dismiss as redistributionist, reformicons should look at the ways government action hinders economic opportunity and exacerbates income inequality. Changing policies that worsen inequality satisfies limited government conservatives' desire for free markets and reformicons' quest for a more egalitarian America. Furthermore, pushing for market policies that reduce the unequal distribution of wealth would help attract left-leaning people and millennials to small government principles.

Criminal justice reform is an area that reformicons and free marketers should come together around. The drug war has been a disaster, and the burden of this misguided government approach have fallen on impoverished minority communities disproportionately, in the form of mass incarceration and lower social mobility. Not only has the drug war been terrible for these communities, it's proved costly to the taxpayer––well over a trillion dollars has gone into the drug war since its inception, and $80 billion dollars a year goes into mass incarceration.

Prioritizing retraining and rehabilitation instead of overcriminalization would help address inequality, fitting reformicons' goals, and promote a better-trained workforce and lower government spending, appealing to basic conservative preferences.

Government regulations tend to disproportionately hurt small businesses and new or would-be entrepreneurs. In no area is this more egregious than occupational licensing––the practice of requiring a government-issued license to perform a job. The percentage of jobs that require licenses has risen from five percent to 30 percent since 1950. Ostensibly justified by public health concerns, occupational licensing laws have, broadly, been shown to neither promote public health nor improve the quality of service. Instead, they serve to provide a 15 percent wage boost to licensed barbers and florists, while, thanks to the hundreds of hours and expensive fees required to attain the licenses, suppressing low-income entrepreneurship, and costing the economy $200 billion dollars annually.

Those economic losses tend to primarily hurt low-income people who both can't start businesses and have to pay more for essential services. Rolling back occupational licenses will satisfy the business wing's desire for deregulation and a more free market and the reformicons' support for addressing income inequality and increasing opportunity.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality.

Tax expenditures form another opportunity for common ground between the Rubio types and the mainstream. Tax deductions and exclusions, both on the individual and corporate sides of the tax code, remain in place after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Itemized deductions on the individual side disproportionately benefit the wealthy, while corporate tax expenditures help well-connected corporations and sectors, such as the fossil fuel industry.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality. Additionally, a more complicated tax code is less conducive to economic growth than one with lower tax rates and fewer exemptions. Therefore, a simpler tax code with fewer deductions and exclusions would not only create a more level playing field, as the reformicons desire, but also additional economic growth.

A forward-thinking economic program for the Republican Party should marry the best ideas put forward by both supply-siders and reform conservatives. It's possible to take the issues of income inequality and lack of social mobility seriously, while also keeping mainstay conservative economic ideas about the importance of less cumbersome regulations and lower taxes.

Alex Muresianu is a Young Voices Advocate studying economics at Tufts University. He is a contributor for Lone Conservative, and his writing has appeared in Townhall and The Daily Caller. He can be found on Twitter @ahardtospell.

Is this what inclusivity and tolerance look like? Fox News host Tomi Lahren was at a weekend brunch with her mom in Minnesota when other patrons started yelling obscenities and harassing her. After a confrontation, someone threw a drink at her, the moment captured on video for social media.

RELATED: Glenn Addresses Tomi Lahren's Pro-Choice Stance on 'The View'

On today's show, Pat and Jeffy talked about this uncomfortable moment and why it shows that supposedly “tolerant" liberals have to resort to physical violence in response to ideas they don't like.