Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, May 12, 2020

Monica Hesse: There's a bit of semantic gaslighting going on right now, so subtle that I recently had to go digging through news archives and online databases to verify that I hadn't lost my mind. Believe women. Two words. I revisited the history of the phrase because its original meaning is being retroactively altered, amid discussions of Tara Reade's sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden, to "Believe all women." And that extra word is a weapon.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

In 2017, as the hashtag #MeToo rose in popularity, another slogan rose along with it: "Believe women." The idea was to neutralize bias: "Believe women" meant "don't assume women as a gender are especially vindictive, and recognize that false allegations are less common than real ones," the feminist author Sady Doyle wrote in Elle in November 2017. In other words, allow yourself to believe that women are just as trustworthy as men have been believed to be for decades. Believe women. Two words.

"Believe women" was a reminder, not an absolute rule; the beginning of a process, not an end. It was flexible enough to apply to various contexts: Believe women . . . enough to seriously investigate their claims.

"The Left's believe all women' standard was shattered when Tara Reade accused Joe Biden of sexual assault," Glenn Beck posted on Facebook.

"Democrats say believe all women " just not Tara Reade," read a Boston Herald columnist's headline.

" Believe all women'? Now that Reade has accused Joe Biden of sexual assault, never mind," opined a columnist in USA Today.

"I think [the #MeToo movement] went very sadly off track when we started getting into the territory of believing all women," Fox news anchor Martha MacCallum said on air last week.

"Believe all women," on the other hand, is rigid, sweeping, and leaves little room for nuance. It would imply that every single woman, everywhere, has always told the truth, on every occasion, about everything. I have never met a single feminist who believes that, and frankly, I doubt many (any?) exist. So it's not surprising that the folks inserting these three little letters are often not feminists but reactionaries who are pretending this is what feminists believe as a way of re-upping the oldest and dumbest stereotype about feminism: that its goal is to turn men into second-class citizens rather than turn women into first-class ones.

In the constantly swirling, non-stop 24 hour news cycles we live in today, it's painfully difficult to keep up with all the right wing agitprop dressed up as intellectual arguments. For weeks, the right wing has misrepresented both the definition and the express purpose behind the mantra of "Believe women' adding the additional word and trying to bludgeon everyone they both knowingly and wrongly accused of hypocrisy and situational ethics.

The right wing has no credibility, no ethics, and no boundaries in their attempts to rewrite history and gaslight the very subtleties and nuances fatal to their lies distortions and misrepresentations. Bottom line, there is nothing wrong with finding Reade's version of events not credible in the light of her own past in telling multiple versions of her truth along with the fact that at this moment, not a single other woman has come forward with a story in any way similar to the one she tells - which gives credibility to Biden's unshakable abject denials.

I listened to Reade with an open mind, not with mine already made up as 'Believe women' mandates. But her story (so far) does not pass the credibility test because she does not appear to be a credible person. And that has zero to do with the fact that she is a woman.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-05-12 07:00 PM | Reply

This is an example of the right weaponizing the left's empathy.

#2 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-05-12 07:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Biden's a diddler, get over it. Just admit the double standard. You'll feel better. Less like a you know, hypocrite.

#3 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-05-12 09:48 PM | Reply

#3

BernieBros who don't listen to Bernie never die.... they just smell like Trump's rear end.

#4 | Posted by Corky at 2020-05-12 10:43 PM | Reply

It wasn't originally "BelieveAllWomen," that is something new... I believe the actual origin is some statement from the 2016 election. Possibly related to this?:
Clinton tweeted in September that every sexual assault survivor had "the right to be believed."

And later,
The Democratic nominee's campaign deleted the line, "You have the right to be believed," from the page on its site, though there is still video of Clinton saying it.

thehill.com

#5 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2020-05-12 11:17 PM | Reply

It wasn't originally "BelieveAllWomen," that is something new...

Damn GoNoles, you missed the entire story. Actually read post 1. It tells the history of the term and how the right wing added the word all for the purpose of weaponizing the slogan against those who created "Believe Woman" - through the Reade allegation.

#6 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-05-12 11:29 PM | Reply

"All Lives Matter"

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-12 11:54 PM | Reply

Tara has a history of making up outrageous claims and has an axe to grind with Biden because she was fired from his office after getting caught in cheque fraud.

She has been bribed to lie, just like other accusers against Trumps enemies.

Trumps numerous accusers have cheques from Trump attempting to buy their silence.

Trump is a pedo rapist.

#8 | Posted by bored at 2020-05-13 12:15 AM | Reply

#8 Prove that she was paid. Is that just hot air,or can you back it up? If not, STFU.

#9 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-05-13 01:22 AM | Reply

Damn GoNoles, you missed the entire story. Actually read post 1.

#6 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

No, he didn't miss it. He put it in context by demonstrating that while #believewomen is semantically vague enough that nimrod liberals can claim today they didn't mean "blindly believe all women as a default position", it was used EXACTLY that way. Do you even USE your brain, Tony, or are you content to just cut and paste your way through life?

#10 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2020-05-13 06:49 AM | Reply

#6 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

Haha not the entire story. I blame it having been late at night for not better framing the addition I was making to the narrative. Post #1 mentioned 2017 and the rise of #MeToo, and my quote + controversy over the deleted content from HRC's campaign website was from August 2016.

#11 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2020-05-13 07:29 AM | Reply

Do you even USE your brain

Far better than you use whatever decaying mass is housed in your cranial cavity Mustang.

My brain tells me that the terms Believe Women and Believe ALL Women don't mean exactly the same thing - unless you want to ignore the word "all".

I have few words for any imbecile who doesn't understand that as a means of communicating differences, the definitions, inclusions, and exclusions of the words one uses matter. All adds context and meaning that it's absence doesn't.

Cut and paste that stunod.

#12 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-05-13 07:55 AM | Reply

Just admit to the double standard and quit trying to gaslight, Tony.

#13 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-05-13 10:20 AM | Reply

Tara is a nutbar and her accusation against Biden has fallen apart. Just like many other GOP funded sexual assault accusations.

The GOP have no credibility, but they desperately need to distract from the rapist in Chief. SAD!

#14 | Posted by bored at 2020-05-13 11:06 AM | Reply

#8 Prove that she was paid. Is that just hot air,or can you back it up? If not, STFU.
#9 | POSTED BY EFFETEPOSER

^
Are you here to "Believe All Women" at us?

#15 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-13 12:22 PM | Reply

Just admit to the double standard
#13 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

You mean, the Democrat "Believe women" vs the Republican "Believe All Women" double standard?

Your opinion of Ford's allegations is your answer.

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-13 12:24 PM | Reply

Saying she was paid without evidence is slander and beneath civil discourse. If you have evidence,show it.Otherwise just assert that you don't believe her. Even the repubs never said dr. Ford was paid to come forward. It just make Dems look hypocritical and desperate when they assert without evidence that she is a paid liar.

Do you have any EVIDENCE that she was PAID to lie, or not?

That's pretty far from #METOO and shows what total crap the whole self righteous #METOO BS is.

#17 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-05-13 12:37 PM | Reply

"That's pretty far from #METOO"

Okay...

"and shows what total crap the whole self righteous #METOO BS is.

Ah.

So you are here to discredit the #MeToo movement.

Figures.

It's interesting how #MeToo is what caused the crack in your facade.

You let your emotions get the better of you!

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-13 12:46 PM | Reply

What facade? I never claimed to be all in with the Dems,but I hate Trump more than you do I would wager.

I just can't stand the smug hypocracy of the#METOO people, they weaponize actual heartbreaking injustice against women in a very selective way so it benefits Dems only. Hillary was savage against the women who accused Bill. And now all this Venom against Tara Reade. They need to reflect on their own sins.

The Repubs suck,I am not one. But the Dems are also so similar in Outlook and behavior to them that I can't fully support them either.

The Two Party system leaves 100,000,000, people disenfranchised, that's what it is illegitimate and why so many people understandably,don't vote.

America is Venuzuela with Nukes and a bad attitude.

#19 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-05-13 01:36 PM | Reply

What's so funny about the headline is it's a distinction without a difference, especially as it pertains to Reade vs Blasey Ford.

#20 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-05-13 02:44 PM | Reply

What's so funny about the headline is it's a distinction without a difference,

You've really sunk to Sniper level ignorance. The distinction and the difference were articulated in post 1:

"Believe women." The idea was to neutralize bias: "Believe women" meant "don't assume women as a gender are especially vindictive, and recognize that false allegations are less common than real ones," the feminist author Sady Doyle wrote in Elle in November 2017. In other words, allow yourself to believe that women are just as trustworthy as men have been believed to be for decades. Believe women. Two words.

"Believe all women," on the other hand, is rigid, sweeping, and leaves little room for nuance. It would imply that every single woman, everywhere, has always told the truth, on every occasion, about everything. I have never met a single feminist who believes that, and frankly, I doubt many (any?) exist. So it's not surprising that the folks inserting these three little letters are often not feminists but reactionaries who are pretending this is what feminists believe as a way of re-upping the oldest and dumbest stereotype about feminism: that its goal is to turn men into second-class citizens rather than turn women into first-class ones.

"Recognize that false allegations are less common than real ones," is wholly different than saying "all" allegations have to be believed if they come from women.

It's really sad how far you've fallen down the rabbit hole in trying to defend the indefensible for the unrepentant who twist lies and distortions from simple truths.

#21 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-05-13 03:06 PM | Reply

Tony,

You are trying to gaslight the indisputable fact that there was one standard for Kavanaugh and a completely different one for Biden.

That's what this is really about and you're trying to gaslight it.

#22 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-05-13 03:15 PM | Reply

You are trying to gaslight the indisputable fact that there was one standard for Kavanaugh and a completely different one for Biden.

Well, that is simple to answer, far left groupie certainly can't have hopeful tarnished like he would a republican.

#23 | Posted by Crassus at 2020-05-13 03:30 PM | Reply

You are trying to gaslight the indisputable fact that there was one standard for Kavanaugh and a completely different one for Biden.
That's what this is really about and you're trying to gaslight it.
#22 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Notice how Jeff never mentions the dozens of women and young girls who have accused Trump of sexual harassment, assault and abuse?

Not once, Never.

Jeff doesn't care about women.

He wants revenge for Kavanagh being exposed as a rapist.

He wants a win for his team!

This isn't about the future of America.

This is about Jeff. It always is.

#24 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-05-13 03:35 PM | Reply

#23 | POSTED BY CRASSUS

Hey man. How've you been and how are you holding up through all of this?

It's been a while.

#25 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-05-13 03:44 PM | Reply

#22

I'm not trying to do anything but point out the fact that you and the right wing spin machine are using two different standards when comparing the two cases.

I haven't said one word about the details of the comparisons. It's the false narrative created by you and your ilk that I have issue with. "Believe women" is exactly as the women defined it, not as the right wing twisted it into - an absolute that it was never meant to be.

There is no gaslighting except by you in your blindness to the mountains of foundational corroboration that exists for Blasey-Ford to the zero foundational evidence that exists for Reade, not to mention her credibility sullying record since the alleged events.

Reade's only corroboration comes from her telling others what happened. Not a single person on planet Earth corroborates that she reported to them about the details she describes today, and she herself says that she did not then make any claims as she is today to anyone in a capacity authority. She states no exact time, nor any exact place. She has not passed a polygraph which would add credibility that she currently lacks.

Blasey-Ford does not remember an exact time, but she placed others at the scene, some who corroborated that indeed such a gathering did happen though they were not in the room of the alleged attack. Ford passed a polygraph test. Kavanugh's own diary supported Ford's story and the actual date of the gathering where the alleged attack occurred. And Kavanugh has been documented as a blackout drunk in the timeframe of the incident, which negates his recollections as unreliable compared to the non-drinking Ford. Don't you realize that if Kavanaugh hadn't been such a high volume, documented drinker his own denials would have carried much more weight? His best friend wrote of Kavanaugh not remembering things that he did after sleeping off a high school bender.

I don't care one whit about comparing Kavanaugh to Biden because neither case is the same as the other. But I do care about those with lying agendas trying to hide their own bias by redefining what is not theirs to redefine. The only gaslighting is that being done by you and everyone with any sense of proportion can see that.

#26 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-05-13 03:49 PM | Reply

Jeff, doing OK, been furloughed for last 2 months and it will probably last for 3 more months, it will take at least that long for the airlines to start back up.

#27 | Posted by Crassus at 2020-05-13 03:51 PM | Reply

Well, that is simple to answer, far left groupie certainly can't have hopeful tarnished like he would a republican.
#23 | POSTED BY CRASSUS

I always get a good laugh reading far right wing whackos calling moderates, the "far left".

Bernie Sanders is left of center in most European nations.

But here in America. He's a full blown socialist.

It would be funny, if it weren't so sad.

#28 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-05-13 03:55 PM | Reply

There is no gaslighting except by you in your blindness to the mountains of foundational corroboration that exists for Blasey-Ford to the zero foundational evidence that exists for Reade, not to mention her credibility sullying record since the alleged events.

Did you seriously type that with a straight face?

We have ZERO evidence to show that Ford and Kavanaugh ever even met.

Can't say that for Reade and Biden.

Blasey-Ford does not remember an exact time, but she placed others at the scene, some who corroborated that indeed such a gathering did happen though they were not in the room of the alleged attack.

None of the witnesses she named did any such thing. Her best friend at the time, Leyland Keyser, not only says she doesn't remember anything of that description but that she was NEVER at a party when Kavanaugh was present, with or without Ford. Afterwards, she not only said that Ford's team pressured her to change her story AND threatened they'd release dirt on her if she didn't. Even further, she now says there is no what that could have happened without her knowledge because she and Ford told each other everything and that if Ford just up and left a small gathering like that she absolutely would have questioned Ford about it the next day, at the earliest.

You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

#29 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-05-13 04:01 PM | Reply

LOL...how did we get to Sanders? The loser isn't even part of the conversation.

#30 | Posted by Crassus at 2020-05-13 04:02 PM | Reply

Jeff, doing OK, been furloughed for last 2 months and it will probably last for 3 more months, it will take at least that long for the airlines to start back up.

#27 | POSTED BY CRASSUS AT 2020-05-13 03:51 PM

Furloughs suck, especially for that length of time. Gives you an opportunity to get some home projects done though and to ride the Japanese bike, if you still have it.

#31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-05-13 04:03 PM | Reply

BTW - the email address I had when you and I shot a few back and forth was hacked years ago. My current email addy is accessible from my user page.

#32 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-05-13 04:04 PM | Reply

Facts will always be different between the partisans, can't have religious party look bad.

#33 | Posted by Crassus at 2020-05-13 04:05 PM | Reply

#26 None of that changes the fact that two completely different standards have been applied to Ford's and Reade's claims with Reade's being the more credible of the two. Although, when the hurdle for that is a sidewalk crack...

#34 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-05-13 04:05 PM | Reply

Roger Jeff J. It does suck, and doing a lot around the house and riding the bike, seeing a lot of gas stations...LOL

#35 | Posted by Crassus at 2020-05-13 04:07 PM | Reply

"two completely different standards have been applied to Ford's and Reade's claims"

JeffJ keeps saying this, but he's never provided any examples of the differing standards.

Never.

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-13 04:07 PM | Reply

"You are trying to gaslight the indisputable fact that there was one standard for Kavanaugh and a completely different one for Biden."

There is a different standard.
The Constitution says Biden must be at least 35 years old to be President, while Kavanaugh faces no such requirement.

What's that got to do with sexual assault allegations?

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-13 04:10 PM | Reply

" with Reade's being the more credible of the two."

JeffJ has never substantiated that claim either.

Never.

Also, it's worth mentioning he claims Ford's claim has zero credibility, so he's not really saying anything.

JeffJ is gaslighting.

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-13 04:11 PM | Reply

#35 POSTED BY CRASSUS It's been awhile and I don't want to hijack the thread. I'd love to catch up with ya a bit.

If that sounds good just shoot me an email.

#39 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-05-13 04:15 PM | Reply

Facts will always be different between the partisans, can't have religious party look bad.
#33 | POSTED BY CRASSUS

Religious party?

Is that the new name of the Republican party?

If so, let's be honest Jews, Muslims and other religious people aren't accepted by you Trumpublicans.

#40 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-05-13 04:15 PM | Reply

I don't want to hijack the thread.
#39 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Since when?

#41 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-05-13 04:16 PM | Reply

Why is it more credible that Biden sexually assaulted Tara Reade in a busy DC building, not far down the hall from the Capitol Police's office, without being seen?

#42 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-05-13 04:17 PM | Reply

We have ZERO evidence to show that Ford and Kavanaugh ever even met.

Lying off the top isn't the way to prove your case Jeff.

So that's where we begin. Did Dr. Ford know Kavanaugh in 1982? Yes, CORROBORATED. Kavanaugh admits he may have met her, as he admits he went to parties girls from Dr. Ford's school attended. The schools were near one another and the social milieu of the area encompassed both.

But it goes beyond that. Dr. Ford knowing Kavanaugh is also CORROBORATED because in 1982 Ford was *dating Kavanaugh's friend*, a fact Kavanaugh failed to mention in his testimony"and as we'll see, Kavanaugh *omissions* can corroborate Dr. Ford's claims if they are suspicious.

But it goes beyond that. Dr. Ford was even able to say, beyond that Kavanaugh knew Chris Garrett"the guy she was going out with"that she *also* knew *other* people who Kavanaugh confirmed under oath he was friends with, like P.J. Smyth and Mark Judge. So, more CORROBORATION.

But it goes beyond that. Dr. Ford was able to confirm"even more specifically than who Kavanaugh was *friends* with"who his *1982 drinking buddies* were, as her claim that Smyth and Judge were Kavanaugh's drinking buddies was CORROBORATED by Kavanaugh's own personal calendars.

But it goes beyond that. What if Dr. Ford had been in Kavanaugh's social milieu, knew who his friends were, and knew who his 1982 drinking buddies were, but had *no* idea about his drinking *habits*? Well, fortunately she *does*: her knowledge of those habits is CORROBORATED.

Dr. Ford's testimony on Kavanaugh's summer 1982 drinking habits is CORROBORATED due to Mark Judge's memoir, Wasted, which describes the drinking habits of Judge's high school friends, including Kavanaugh (styled in the book as "Bart O'Kavanaugh" instead of "Brett Kavanaugh").

Here too we get additional CORROBORATION by Kavanaugh's testimonial omissions or evasions. Kavanaugh *falsely claimed* that Mark Judge's memoir of his drinking was a "fiction" (i.e. a novel, not a memoir) and that he used variations of his friends' names as a literary device.

Dr. Ford says "6 to 8 weeks" after the sexual assault she saw Mark Judge working at Safeway. Judge's memoir says he was working at Safeway in August 1982"6 to 8 weeks after early July, a month in which Kavanaugh's calendar says he was partying with those Dr. Ford said he was.

But it goes way beyond that. Dr. Ford's allegation that the event happened in early July 1982 is CORROBORATED by Kavanaugh's own calendar, which *specifically notes* him partying with the guy Ford was going out with (Garrett, or "Squi") and Smyth and Judge on July 1, 1982.

Seth Abramson

#43 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-05-13 04:17 PM | Reply

point out the fact that you are the right wing spin machine

Jeff excels at right wing spin.

Considering the fact he spends 24/7 on the DR, perhaps that's his job.

#44 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-05-13 04:19 PM | Reply

"Notice how Jeff never mentions the dozens of women and young girls who have accused Trump of sexual harassment, assault and abuse?"

Oh, that?
He's already addressed that, without realizing it:

two completely different standards have been applied
#34 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-13 04:20 PM | Reply

Why is it more credible that Biden sexually assaulted Tara Reade

Because he's a democrat and Trumpublicans need Biden to have sexually assaulted Reade.

While at the same time ignoring the dozens of women who have come forward to accuse Trump of sexual harassment, assault, and abuse.

Jeff is a cultist looking for revenge for Kavanagh being exposed as a rapist.

That's it. End of story.

Jeff doesn't care about the future of America, he's rich and white, so are his kids. He couldn't care less about the rest of us.

#46 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-05-13 04:23 PM | Reply

Lying off the top isn't the way to prove your case Jeff.

It works for Trump, why not his Trumpublicans?

#47 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-05-13 04:24 PM | Reply

Roger Jeff.

#48 | Posted by Crassus at 2020-05-13 04:25 PM | Reply

two completely different standards have been applied

Yea, seems like no standards have been applied to Trump.

#49 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-05-13 04:25 PM | Reply

And here's the most important difference between Kavanaugh and Biden: How they reacted to the allegations.

(W)hether Kavanaugh assaulted Ford is not even the crux of the issue anymore. The point is that Kavanaugh told a series of provable lies and gave explanations for his behavior in high school and college in a way that was belligerent, partisan, and ultimately, not credible.

So is there irrefutable proof that Kavanaugh assaulted Ford? No. But his behavior during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing is all the irrefutable proof I need that Kavanaugh is unfit to serve as an associate justice to the Supreme Court.

rewire.news

I believe Kavanaugh lied about his past, lied about his behavior, and lied about others who witnessed it aberrance. Blasey-Ford's allegation was just the door which opened Kavanaugh's past, which he kept denying and lying about. And do you know what else that Biden hasn't done? He hasn't lashed out as a victim like Kavanaugh did. He issued his denials and managed to keep his dignity.

Biden doesn't have any way to disprove something that has no date and no physical location. But he does have 40 years of history in which no other person has leveled an allegation like the one Reade has. Without a circumstantial reason for such a one-off, it strains credulity that of all the women Joe Biden has ever employed or interacted with during his political career that Reade is the only one he allegedly assaulting.

I think anyone with a brain would conclude that more corroboration is needed to indict Biden than just the single word of Reade without any other corroborating evidence not coming from her alone or supporting evidence of similar conduct by Biden with someone else.

#50 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-05-13 04:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Tara was believed.

#51 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2020-05-13 06:19 PM | Reply

So do right-wingers believe Anita Hill now?

#52 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-05-13 08:36 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort