NY Times: "'Believe *all* women' is a right-wing trap!" Seriously!

Way WAY back in the dim, distant past--2019--Democrats were determined to block the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.  Their weapon of choice was the claim by one Christine Blasey Ford that the nominee had "assaulted" her decades earlier at a party.

Ford claimed the alleged "assault" consisted, in its entirety, of Kavanaugh jumping on top of her on a bed, with both fully clothed, then rolling off.  That was the entire claim.

Ford claimed another male was in the room, but couldn't recall who it was with certainty.

She also could't recall the year, or who hosted the party.  She didn't tell anyone about the alleged "assault" at the time, though she claimed several of her friends would confirm her story.  None did, and in fact two testified that they didn't believe her current claim.

But Democrats had two powerful weapons on their side:  The Lying Mainstream Media, and social media.  Both quickly started pushing some variation of the theme "We must believe all women" who claimed to have been victims of sexual assault.

But that was way WAY back in 2019.  Now the Left is pushing a far more...nuanced demand:  They're telling you to Believe all women, unless a woman accuses a Democrat.  Conservatives noted that this represented a huge, hypocritical reversal of the position they'd relentlessly screamed at us for months just a few months earlier.

Because this was so obviously true, the Left began to see a few people straying off their plantation, and realized they needed some damage control, stat.  So yesterday the NY Times jumped in with the New Narrative:  "Believe all women," read the headline of the Times piece, is a "right-wing TRAP!"

Really, that was their headline on a piece by militant feminist Susan Faludi, author of “Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women.”  When Faludi makes a declaration of the position of feminists, that's as authoratitive a statement of the position of Leftists and feminists as it gets.

Here's the opening graf of Faludi's propaganda piece:

Joe Biden has been accused of sexual assault, and conservatives are having a field day, exultant that they’ve caught feminists in a new hypocrisy trap. A woman, with no corroboration beyond contemporaneous accounts, charges a powerful man with a decades-old crime? Hmm, doesn’t that sound mighty close to Christine Blasey Ford’s complaint against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh?

"With no corroboration beyond contemporaneous accounts," eh?  Except that's one of the many things missing from the claims Ford made against Kavanaugh.  Ford didn't tell anyone at the time, nor in the decades between the time she claims Kavanaugh assaulted her and 2019.  By contrast, the woman who has accused Biden told several friends and family members at the time (1993).  This is confirmed by a court filing from 1996.  Does Faludi seriously believe the accuser set a trap for Biden that she waited 27 years to spring?

Even a deranged propagandist like Faludi can't seriously believe that, yet Faludi summarizes the charge against Biden as "mighty close to Christine Blasey Ford’s complaint against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh." 

In fact, “Believe All Women” does have an asterisk:  It’s never been feminist “boilerplate.” What we are witnessing is another instance of the right decrying what it imagines the American women’s movement to be.

Spend some mind-numbing hours tracking the origins of “Believe All Women” on social media sites and news databases...and you’ll discover how language, like a virus, can mutate overnight. All of a sudden, yesterday’s quotes suffer the insertion of some foreign DNA that makes them easy to weaponize. In this case, that foreign intrusion is a word: “all.”

Except that even the Womens' March organization used the hashtag #BelieveALLsurvivors.  But Faludi blythely ignores that...because she and she alone determines whether a use of that hashtag is "authentic."

Great trick, eh?  'I have given myself the authority to tell you the real position of feminists, cuz reasons.'

Oh, and about those "mind-numbing hours" poor Faludi spent looking for the origins of that awful, right-wing-trap phrase "Believe ALL women"?  One wonders where Faludi was looking, because she missed this from the very paper that runs most of her propaganda.  Here's the Times on November 28th of 2017:

And hasn’t the hunt been exhilarating? There’s no small chance that by the time you finish this article, another mammoth beast of prey, maybe multiple, will be stalked and felled.

The huntresses’ war cry — “believe all women” — has felt like a bracing corrective to a 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 so very difficult to prove. 

Yeah, Faludi, you spent lots of hours "looking for the origins" of "Believe ALL women" and concluded it was all a right-wing plot, eh?  Obviously you weren't trying very hard.

BTW, the author of that piece--Bari Weiss--blythely wrote that it didn't bother her or her feminist comrades in the slightest if "a few good men" were destroyed by false claims of assault--because that was simply what she and her comrades viewed as "justice."  Really.

Faludi comes by her warped worldview ('reality is what I say it is') honestly.  Her father--from whom she was estranged for 25 years, had a sex-change operation late in life.  Faludi clearly hated the guy, and explained her feelings in 6,000 words in the Times three years ago.  The piece was titled "In my world photographs lie," and much of her sad lament comes from the shocking revelation that...wait for it...lots of photos are...are you sitting down?...posed.

Do ya think her f-d-up relationship with her father had anything to do with her worldview, or the many articles and books she's written embracing the bitter, man-hating views of far too many on the Left?  Read her own words and decide.

It's clear to anyone who reads her article about her dad that Faludi comes to her warped worldview honestly.  I wouldn't wish her experiences--or those of her extended family--on anyone.  But readers deciding whether to believe her should know her...unique outlook.

Finally, if you want to see how deftly the Left re-writes history when they're caught lying, read the comments to yesterday's Times piece--in which Faludi claims no one on the Left EVER claimed we should "Believe ALL women."  Commenters are now claiming that even if one or two non-authoratitive Dems MAY have used that hashtag--without official permission from headquarters, of course--that was NEVER what they actually, y'know, meant.  Oh no no no, citizen!  What "BelieveWomen" actually meant was simply that all women who claimed to have been assaulted have the right to be heard.  Meaning Democrats will graciously allow accusers the right of free speech, but will demand that any such claims be diligently, thoroughly investigated.

Ah!  Just as they're doing with the claims against Biden?

Oh, wait...they're blocking any serious investigation.  Instead, the Times proposed that the unbiased, diligent, fair, non-partisan investigation be done by...the Democrat National Committee.

Seriously, that's what the Times proposed.  Cuz who better to investigate claims against the Dem Party's presidential nominee than that party's national committee, eh?  Sure, makes perfect sense.