Home News Page 2633

The ‘Subway Shirt’: How Young Women Are Dressing to Deflect Unwanted Attention

My new book offers an incisive exploration of why many young women wear body-revealing outfits and share sexy selfies and what these choices say about our toxic, sexist culture.

(Screenshots from TikTok)

Panicked parents kept messaging me about their daughters’ “inappropriate” clothes and selfies. What do I, an expert on slut-shaming, they asked, suggest they say to their daughters? I realized the only way I could be of help was to speak with young people to find out what was going on. 

I ended up spending six years speaking with young women and nonbinary people around the U.S., ages 14-30. We talked about the nonconsensual sexualization they experience on a regular basis at school, online, and in nearly every space they inhabit in their daily lives—and how they are seizing a sense of bodily autonomy for themselves. We also discussed their victimization through revenge porn and deepfakes, and the pros and cons of OnlyFans.

The result is Sexy Selfie Nation: Standing Up for Yourself in Today’s Toxic, Sexist Culture. I show that critiques of young women’s clothing and selfies are misguided, even harmful. Instead, the problem we all should be concerned about is the toxic, sexist conditions that shape young women’s daily lives. With women’s bodily autonomy under attack, this issue is more important than ever.

The following is an excerpt from my new book, out May 20.


In the spring of 2023, as temperatures in New York City climbed, young women faced a dilemma: They wanted to wear summery tank tops and miniskirts but were concerned that as they traveled around the city, especially on the subway, they would be met with predatory stares, harassing, “Hey baby, won’t you give me a smile?” comments, and even unwanted touches and gropes.

And so, being resourceful New York women, they hatched a solution: the “subway shirt.”

An oversized, shapeless shirt one slips over her “real” outfit, the subway shirt—also referred to as an “outfit dampener”—hides the contours of one’s body from neck to thighs, shielding from view the skimpy outfit beneath. And, because this is the age of TikTok, a few women shared their genius trick with other women on social media. The cover-up went viral.

It’s fantastic that women on TikTok raised awareness of the harm caused by sexual harassment and assault in public spaces. Hopefully, the result is that now more people recognize how scary it can be to simply go about your day, including taking the subway, as a woman (or as someone gender-non-conforming).

Claire Henrick, 24, told The Guardian, “I wish I didn’t have to wear one and that it was safe to be able to wear what I want. It feels like I’m going back to a middle school dress code as an adult—continuing to dress so that men leave me alone.”

Ajana Grove, 19, who had moved to New York from Nebraska, added, “I learned quickly that I can walk around and do what I want as long as I’m covered up. Every time I forget my subway shirt, I instantly regret it and think about turning around.”

Did these TikTokers devise a solution to the age-old problem of being harassed and assaulted? No, they did not. There is no evidence that harassment or assault is motivated by what a victim wears. While covering up might make you feel safer, the subway shirt offers no real protection against sexual harassment and assault. And if someone does not wear a subway shirt over their tank top and is victimized, they did nothing wrong.

However, the subway shirt phenomenon resonated because it reveals the lived experience of young women, who are always being watched—and sexualized. Having grown up devoid of privacy in a culture that values sexy femininity, you experience a sharp contradiction between wanting to appear sexually provocative and feeling pressured to appear so—but selectively, and only on your terms.

As Henrick told The Guardian, the big question is when to remove the subway shirt: “When you’re in line for the event? Right as you walk in? In the bathroom? Everyone thinks I just came in this huge shirt, but then, oooh, look at my cute top.” By choosing the optimal moment for the big reveal, Henrick controls the narrative about how hot she looks.

As news of the subway shirt trend imploded, extreme-right-wing men, including “incels” (men who, because of sexual rejection by women, openly despise and denigrate women) and white nationalists had something to say. Someone created a thread on 4chan titled, “New York sluts accidentally discover modest dressing.” Many of the comments exuded vile racism and misogyny. Throughout, commentators opined—paradoxically—that women who wear subway shirts are “sluts,” “hookers” and “whores.” One anonymous contributor wrote, “It’s truly unbelievable what the women are currently wearing as the weather gets nice. They literally look like prostitutes working the streets.” Another wrote, “NOOOOOOOO I WANNA DRESS LIKE A DISRUPTIVE WHORE AND FACE NO CONSEQUENCES,” while another added, “At this point they’re begging to get raped.”

The individuals who contributed to this anonymous website board were particularly extreme, crude and repulsive. But the essence of their collective opinion—that women are to be evaluated in sexual terms, whether they wear revealing clothes or do the precise opposite and intentionally cover up—is mainstream. Even middle-aged, church-going women say much the same thing, albeit under the cover of maternalistic concern.

In 2019, a mother of four sons named Maryann White wrote a letter to the editor that went viral. White was horrified that a group of young women in the pew in front of her family at Mass wore tight leggings. She expressed empathy for the men sitting in the pews behind the women because they were forced to see their behinds, even if they didn’t want to. (I don’t think she recognized that people can move their eyes to focus on what they want.) White—who became known in the press and social media as “Leggings Mom”—also expressed worry that these young women were jeopardizing their own safety—presumably because the men who could not control their gaze would also not be able to restrain themselves from sexually harassing or even assaulting the young women.

With judgments like this, is it any wonder that many young women refuse to go out in public without a subway shirt? The subway shirt signifies control and privacy—two key things that we all deserve yet are denied young women today.

Great Job Leora Tanenbaum & the Team @ Ms. Magazine Source link for sharing this story.

Trump Fired Her For Not Giving Mel Gibson His Guns Back!

Former U.S. pardon attorney Liz Oyer was fired after refusing to recommend restoring Mel Gibson’s gun rights. She speaks out about Trump’s abuse of the pardon system to reward allies and donors, DOJ intimidation tactics, and her fight to bring transparency to a secretive and corrupt process.

Liz Oyer Substack

Leave a comment

As always: Watch, listen, and leave a comment. Bulwark+ Takes is home to short videos, livestreams, and event archives exclusively for Bulwark+ members.

Don’t care for video? Use the controls on the left side of the player to toggle to audio.

Add Bulwark+ Takes feed to your player of choice, here.

Great Job Sam Stein & the Team @ The Bulwark Source link for sharing this story.

Justice Department to pay $5 million to family of Ashli Babbitt

The Trump administration has agreed to settle a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the family of Ashli Babbitt, one of five people who died in or immediately after the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, according to The Washington Post. The Department of Justice will reportedly pay Babbitt’s family nearly $5 million.

Babbitt, then a 35-year-old Air Force veteran from California, was at the front lines of rioters rushing the Capitol doors leading to the Speaker’s Lobby, which leads to the House chamber. She was  attempting to jump through a shattered doorway when she was shot by a Capitol Police officer. Video footage from the day shows she had a Trump flag strewn over her backpack.

Babbitt’s family filed the lawsuit in early 2024, seeking $30 million. It argued that “Ashli posed no threat to the safety of anyone” and that she was unarmed and had her hands in the air when she was shot. 

In 2021, the Justice Department announced it had conducted an internal investigation and cleared Lt. Michael Byrd, the officer who fatally shot Babbitt, of any wrongdoing. A Capitol Police investigation also cleared the officer and found that his actions “potentially saved members and staff from serious injury and possible death from a large crowd of rioters.” The Justice Department under President Joe Biden opposed the case, and a trial was set for July 2026.


  • Read Next:

    A mob gathers on the steps of the Capitol on January 6.

  • Read Next:

    ‘Can’t wait to tell my grandkids I was here’: The women arrested for storming the Capitol

But the Trump administration has reversed that position, keeping in line with his campaign promise to issue pardons for about 1,500 rioters who faced convictions for their involvement in the riot. President Donald Trump repeatedly referred to January 6 as “a day of love” and the rioters as “patriots” and “hostages.” For many Trump supporters, Babbitt was cast as a martyr in a collective patriotic act. 

Trump released a pre-recorded video in October 2021 to mark Babbitt’s birthday in which he praised her actions and demanded justice for her death. 

“There was no reason Ashli should’ve lost her life that day,” Trump said in the video. “We must all demand justice for Ashli and her family, so, on this solemn occasion as we celebrate her life, we renew our call for a fair and nonpartisan investigation into the death of Ashli Babbitt.” 

The events of January 6 — in which a mob of Trump supporters temporarily halted the certification of the legitimate results of the 2020 election — have been called an act of domestic terrorism by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It sparked the Department of Justice’s largest criminal investigation in the country’s history and led to more than 1,500 people being federally charged. Rioters brought firearms, knives, hatchets, pepper spray, baseball bats, stun guns and explosive devices to storm the building where lawmakers were voting to certify the 2020 election. Approximately 140 law enforcement officers were injured and $2.9 million worth of damage was done to the Capitol. Congress also impeached Trump  on grounds that he incited the riot – his second impeachment, for which he was acquitted – and held  separate committee hearings in 2022 to shed further light on the events of the day.

Great Job Mariel Padilla & the Team @ The 19th Source link for sharing this story.

Trump Agrees to Pay $5 Million to Family of January 6 Rioter

The settlement reverses a 2021 DOJ finding that Babbitt’s civil rights were not violated and it was reasonable for the officer who shot her to believe he was acting in self-defense or in defense of members of Congress.

U.S. Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd was also cleared by a Capitol Police investigation, which found that his actions “potentially saved members and staff from serious injury and possible death from a large crowd of rioters who forced their way into the U.S. Capitol and to the House Chamber where members and staff were steps away.”

One-third of the settlement will go toward the Babbitt family’s lawyers, which include the right-wing legal group Judicial Watch and Richard Driscoll, an attorney in Alexandria, Virginia. Conservatives, led by Trump, have tried to rewrite the narrative of January 6, 2021, minimizing the violence of the rioters, who sought to overturn the results of the 2020 election, and paint them as victims who were unfairly punished by the justice system for supporting Trump.

#Trump #Agrees #Pay #Million #Family #January #Rioter

Thanks to the Team @ The New Republic Source link & Great Job Hafiz Rashid

Putin’s Still In Charge

Today’s phone call between Russian President Vladimir Putin and President Donald Trump was a painful reminder that Trump is the junior partner in the Russian-American relationship and that Putin will continue his mass-murder campaign in Ukraine for as long as he can get away with it. Nothing else of substance emerged from the call. When it comes to Europe’s largest armed conflict since World War II, Putin’s still in charge.

Putin, exuding confidence, got out ahead of Trump just minutes after the call and talked in person to the media, which allowed him the first move in framing the discussion. (Today’s Russian autocrats understand public relations far better than their dour Soviet predecessors.) Putin’s quick, personal readout of the call was a perfect nothingburger:

We have agreed with the president of the United States that Russia will propose and is ready to work with the Ukrainian side on a memorandum on a possible future peace accord, defining a number of positions, such as, for example, the principles of settlement, the timing of a possible peace agreement.

I speak Russian, but no translator is needed here: This is the universal language of political stalling. “Russia will propose” means “We’ll drag our feet and then whip up an unacceptable set of talking points.” “Ready to work on a memorandum” means “We’ll agree in principle to talk about talking about stuff.” “Defining a number of positions” means “We’ll come up with a list of nonstarter conditions.” And “the timing of a possible peace agreement” means “We’ll set up some unattainable schedule date for a cease-fire and then scuttle it.”

The official account of Putin’s remarks, released later by the Russian news service TASS, was even less conciliatory, pointedly excluding the reference to agreeing with the American president. But none of it matters: Trump spent more than two hours on the phone with Putin, and he got exactly nothing.

Trump, of course, doesn’t see things that way. After Putin’s statements were out, the president released his own version of the call on his Truth Social platform (which, one must assume, is more authoritative than anything from the White House press office). “Russia and Ukraine,” Trump wrote, “will immediately start negotiations toward a Ceasefire and, more importantly, an END to the War.” After rhapsodizing about all the money everyone could make if the two sides could end the war, Trump repeated: “Negotiations between Russia and Ukraine will begin immediately.”

The problem, of course, is that nothing Putin said today could be remotely construed as “immediately” starting anything. This is probably why Putin got out in public first; he has long experience managing Trump, and he knows that the American president loves to announce deals even when no deal exists. Putin’s statement, in effect, preemptively undermined anything too positive from Trump. (The Russians also unleashed a massive drone attack against Ukraine last night, which should have been a sign that today’s conversation probably wasn’t going to make much progress.)

Putin, having swatted away Trump’s efforts, will now continue his war, and people will continue to die. Perhaps the only positive sign today is that Trump seems to be giving up on American involvement in peace talks. That’s good, but only because Putin has been using the president’s personal interest in being a peacemaker to string Trump along and prevent the Americans from sending help to Kyiv or imposing more sanctions on Moscow. Trump has now said that the conditions for a cease-fire “will be negotiated between the two parties, as it can only be, because they know details of a negotiation that nobody else would be aware of.” That’s a long way from Trump’s daft campaign promise that he could end the war in a day, perhaps even before taking office, but if it shakes Trump out of his fantasy that he can stop the fighting by just yammering at Putin, so much the better.

Trump’s retreat could also open the door to renewed sanctions. The president doesn’t like looking weak, and if Putin continues his butchery, other Republicans may be able to press Trump to react. In the best outcome, they might even prevail on Trump to help Ukraine with more weapons, but that seems unlikely; Trump has made America functionally an ally of Russia, and Trump seems to personally fear angering Putin.

The other possibility is that an American withdrawal from the peace process could clear the way for other nations to intensify their efforts to pressure Putin, which might be helpful, because American leaders simply do not understand who they’re dealing with, or what’s at stake for Russia.

Earlier today, Vice President J. D. Vance said: “I think honestly that President Putin, he doesn’t quite know how to get out of the war.” Vance has a point: Putin stupidly blundered into this war and now he’s stuck, unable to advance and unwilling to retreat. Vance, however, doesn’t understand what professional diplomats in the United States and other nations know is the fundamental problem: Putin is stuck only because he’s still committed to a set of war aims that include the partition and eventual destruction of the Ukrainian state. If Putin wanted out, he could get out tomorrow, but he won’t accept losing a war after three years that he thought he could win in a week.

Vance and other “both sides” apologists have a shallow understanding of international conflict and almost none of Russia, which is why they seem flummoxed by Putin’s stubbornness. To them, this is just a costly, bogged-down war over land, or churches, or something. For them, it all must end so that Trump doesn’t look like a sap who has yet again been played by the sharpies in the Kremlin. They cannot grasp that Putin, who so far seems to be in no political danger at home from this war, still has the low-cost option of just pulverizing Ukrainian civilian targets while the West dithers.

Putin may well be ready for some kind of cease-fire agreement, if only so that his forces can catch their breath and regroup, his government can cast off some sanctions, and Putin himself can keep his own political house in order in Red Square. He’s done it before in Crimea, playing for time while plotting his next move. But if that happens, it won’t be because of Trump’s efforts—and even the president himself seems to know it now.

#Putins #Charge

Thanks to the Team @ The Atlantic Source link & Great Job Tom Nichols

Alex Jones says Kash Patel and Dan Bongino are “making fools out of themselves” over Jeffrey Epstein

ALEX JONES (HOST): Now that said, it would take hours to go over how ridiculously obvious the murder of Jeffrey Epstein was in that federal jail in New York. I mean, the coroner said his neck was broken in three spots. It would take a gorilla to do that. And the cameras all turned off magically. Now we’re learning that they put nitrous oxide in from good sources and made the guards pass out. This was a state level hit because Epstein was threatening to go public, thought he was getting out soon. And to have Kash and and Bongino — and look, I know I’ve seen Bongino and Kash talk about Epstein and how he didn’t kill himself, and I just got too busy to go find them, but we’ll do it in post.

So we’ll just take those clips and we’ll stick them on the end of here, and then I know they’ll be like, ‘Well, we hadn’t seen the files.’ It’s on record they all disappeared. You’ve seen the files. The files you were given? Give me a break. There’s three things don’t hang themselves: Christmas tree lights, drywall, and Jeffrey Epstein, as Senator Kennedy rightfully said. 

Great Job Media Matters for America & the Team @ Media Matters for America Source link for sharing this story.

Trump’s Lawsuit Could Destroy Journalism

A bogus lawsuit, a media merger, and a newsroom on the brink. Tim and JVL break down Trump’s latest power play.

Leave a comment

As always: Watch, listen, and leave a comment. Bulwark+ Takes is home to short videos, livestreams, and event archives exclusively for Bulwark+ members.

Don’t care for video? Use the controls on the left side of the player to toggle to audio.

Add Bulwark+ Takes feed to your player of choice, here.

Great Job Tim Miller & the Team @ The Bulwark Source link for sharing this story.

The Right Has Embraced the Cancel Culture It Claimed to Hate

Graduating senior Logan Rozos used his commencement speech at New York University (NYU) to speak out against “the atrocities currently happening in Palestine.” The administration reacted with horror, apologizing for the harms Rozos’s words had inflicted on “the audience [that] was subjected to these remarks.” Rozos, they said, had “abused a privilege that was conferred upon him.”

NYU went further than merely offering a verbal condemnation of Rozos — the administration made the decision to withhold his diploma.

If we abstract away from the political specifics of Rozos’s speech, this looks like exactly the kind of campus incident the Right would have been all over a few years ago. A craven university bureaucracy, pandering to easily offended activists, absurdly apologized to an audience for being “subjected” to a point of view they don’t want to hear, as if this young man’s exercise of his free speech rights amounted to an act of violence.

Rozos played by the rules of academia: he paid his tuition fees — currently around $60,000 per year on average — passed all his classes, and even excelled to the point of landing a spot as a graduation speaker. Despite this, NYU has made the decision to punish him for holding opinions unpopular with the government. Truly, the woke mob has gone too far!

The difference between now and, say, 2020 is that the loudest voices in this particular mob are conservatives.

I’m old enough to remember a time when the American right was up in arms about “cancel culture.” Then conservatives worried that good people were being harshly denounced by legions of strangers because of minor (or in some cases imaginary) transgressions and indiscretions. Being hounded by activist mobs was at best an extremely unpleasant experience. At worst, the victims would lose their jobs or face other real-life consequences. Conservatives were particularly concerned that dubious accusations of bigotry, coupled with exaggerated claims about harm caused to members of marginalized minorities, were being weaponized in order to undermine free speech on college campuses.

To be sure, this bundle of concerns was often exaggerated to the point of absurdity in right-wing rhetoric. But the phenomenon itself was all too real. Part of the issue had to do with the society-wide trends that the journalist and filmmaker Jon Ronson discussed in his excellent book So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed.

The internet gives everyone an uncomfortable amount of access to what everyone else is doing, and the algorithms of profit-seeking social media companies incentivize petty conflict and hair-trigger denunciation. These larger trends have, myself and others argued at the time, intersected with the culture of recrimination and divisiveness already common on the Left.

This behavior was a product of a political powerlessness that made the Left inward-looking and paranoid, producing counterproductive moralism rather than real politics. If you can’t defeat exploitative bosses and landlords or the military-industrial complex, you can at least have the dubious emotional satisfaction of successfully taking down someone on your side (who you suspect of not being quite enough on your side). As the musician Conan Neutron once put it to me, “If you can’t have justice, you’ll settle for catharsis.”

The Right, of course, had a field day with all of this. In 2021, the official theme of the popular Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) was “America Uncanceled.” Sensing that popular disgust with progressive witch hunts might be a winning issue for them, conservatives started to frame everything they disliked as a form of “cancellation.”

Calls by liberals and leftists to reevaluate the legacy of some previously lionized historical figure were recast as cancellations. It was not uncommon to hear that everyone from Thomas Jefferson to Winston Churchill had been canceled. If some corporation angered the public by polluting water, selling weapons used to kill children, or driving up the cost of pharmaceuticals, right-wingers would talk about how the inanimate brand was being “canceled.” Eventually the whole rhetorical gambit ran out of steam, and the Right moved on to talking nonstop about “wokeness.”

Now the American right increasingly looks like a caricature of a mob of ultra-woke cancelers. It was congressional Republicans who took the lead in hearings about “campus antisemitism” that had nothing to do with actual antisemitism and everything to do with students protesting US foreign policy.

It was conservatives who cheered when college president after college president resigned in the face of this witch hunt. It was the Trump administration that wielded the threat of withholding federal funds from universities, on the grounds that Jewish students felt “unsafe,” to force those universities to adopt ever more sweeping and absurd definitions of “antisemitism” and to implement ever more draconian enforcement mechanisms. (This isn’t even to speak of real horrors like the detention and threatened deportation of legal permanent resident Mahmoud Khalil for exercising his constitutionally protected right to speak out on the issue.)

Of course, Jewish students, like their non-Jewish peers, are deeply divided on the issue of Palestine, and anyone with the slightest acquaintance with the Palestine solidarity movement knows this movement has always been disproportionately Jewish. But this hardly matters to the new woke conservative right. Identity politics of any kind tends to ignore the inconvenient fact that marginalized groups aren’t hive minds.

A standard conservative complaint during the culture war over “wokeness” was that “woke” progressives pushed an absurdly sweeping narrative according to which everything they disliked was attributable to America’s foundational racial sins. Here too, conservative complaints were often overstated, but they contained a germ of truth.

The New York Times Magazine’s “1619 Project” originally claimed that the “real” founding of the United States was not 1776 but the importation of the first group of African slaves to Virginia in 1619. This claim was later deleted without explanation from the digital edition, but the remaining text still said, “Out of slavery — and the anti-Black racism it required — grew nearly everything that has truly made America exceptional.”

This totalizing narrative, according to which racial inequalities aren’t historically contingent and ever-changing results of particular economic and cultural conditions at particular times but an undifferentiated force stretching across centuries and explaining everything, irked many historians across the political spectrum. So, for example, did the highly dubious claim (that later “clarifications” of the project would back away from) that the revolution in 1776 was fought in large part to preserve slavery.

But the 1619 Project was a model of careful historical scholarship compared to the totalizing narrative about a long march of historically undifferentiated evil being used by conservatives to justify their crackdown on free speech on college campuses. It’s not as if slavery and Jim Crow weren’t very real parts of American history. By contrast, the Right’s narrative about “cultural Marxism,” which attempts to put contemporary trends in tepid academic liberalism in continuity with the Bolshevik Revolution, is nonsense through and through.

At the height of the protests against Israel’s atrocities in Gaza last year, Craig DeLuz wrote an op-ed for the Sacramento Observer where he said his “heart ach[ed]” for the Jewish students who are “living on fear on their own campuses.” Like the most deranged “woke” liberal, DeLuz views political disagreement on this issue as disguised bigotry and sees political speech he dislikes as not only misguided but harmful. Nor does the presence of large numbers of members of the harmed group on the other side sway him.

Where did this alleged wave of campus antisemitism come from? DeLuz has an explanation at the ready. Students had been taught an “oppressed vs. oppressor” narrative by their professors. And this in turn was part of “a long-standing trend towards Marxist indoctrination within our universities.”

Similarly, just a few weeks ago Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, in response to a Fox News host’s question about President Trump’s effort to “deal with these universities,” said, “We need to focus on engineering, math, science, the classics. And instead they are training not the next generation of leaders, but the next generation of Marxists.”

Commenting on these and similar claims, Current Affairs editor Nathan Robinson makes some straightforward but important points. For one thing, while there isn’t a lot of polling on this, the data we do have suggests that only a tiny minority of university professors would describe themselves as Marxists. For another, even many members of that tiny minority are likely thinking of Marxism as an explanatory historical or sociological framework rather than anything that has much to do with their practical political commitments. And radical socialist commitments certainly aren’t common among the 97 percent of professors who don’t call themselves Marxists.

What’s more, Robinson points out, by far the most popular college major is business. Does anyone think business majors are being indoctrinated in Marxism? It’s true that conservatives are a distinct minority on campus, but there’s a lot of political space between conservatives and Marxists. You can, Robinson argues, “make a case that the academy leans Marxist if you redefine ‘Marxist’ to mean ‘center-left liberal.’” But if you have even minimal standards of intellectual integrity, the case falls apart pretty quickly.

What’s most insidious about this narrative is that, in practice, the definition of Marxism is whittled down to the point that any sort of claim about “oppressor vs. oppressed” dynamics is definitionally “Marxist.” This is a bizarre way to think about the history of ideas.

It’s true enough that, if you squint hard, you can make any claim about oppression and domination sound a little bit like any other claim about oppression and domination. If you replace “women” with “workers” and “men” with “capitalists,” for example, standard-issue feminism starts to sound a little bit like Marxism.

But of course if you go through libertarian writings changing every mention of “taxpayers” to “workers” and “government bureaucrat” to “capitalists,” those ideas too start to sound a bit Marxist. As the philosopher Walter Kaufmann once pointed out in a different context, if you go through the New Testament changing every mention of “God” to “the Aryan race,” Jesus starts to sound like Adolf Hitler, but it’s hard to say what this is supposed to prove.

Taken seriously, the belief that all narratives about oppressed and oppressor groups are “Marxist” would mean that Marxism predated the birth of Karl Marx by thousands of years. But the truly insidious part is that the effect of all of this is to make any instance of noticing and objecting to societal injustice an instance of the totalizing historical evil at the heart of this narrative.

In other words, the Right’s versions of wokeness and cancel culture share everything that was worst about the progressive versions. The hostility to free speech norms, for example, is an important point of continuity between the two, although far more dangerous in this version because the new cancelers have so much more power and so many fewer scruples.

Activists who mocked liberal defenses of free speech were never in a position to throw their political enemies into Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention. But where the progressive versions of wokeness and cancel culture were at least tied to a morally admirable aspiration to reduce prejudice and discrimination, this new version demonizes the very act of noticing and objecting to any form of oppression. In this case, Marx’s formulation about how history repeats itself get things exactly backward. The farce came first. Now we’re facing real tragedy.

Great Job Ben Burgis & the Team @ Jacobin Source link for sharing this story.

What the Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs Trial Reveals About Credibility and Consent in Sex Crime Cases

The courtroom becomes a stage for the oldest stories we tell about women and truth.

Douglas Wigdor, attorney for Cassie Ventura, arrives for the trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs at Manhattan Federal Court on May 13, 2025, in New York City. Combs, 55, has pleaded not guilty on all counts, which include a racketeering charge alleging Combs was the leader of a sex crime ring that included drug-fueled sex parties by use of force, threats and violence. (Michael M. Santiago / Getty Images)

With the federal sex-trafficking trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs now underway, the prosecution’s star witness has taken the stand. Casandra Elizabeth Ventura, known by the stage name Cassie, has described years of alleged physical and sexual abuse at the hands of the music mogul. Her testimony, along with that of at least one other woman, lies at the heart of the government’s theory that Combs and his associates engaged in a decades-long criminal enterprise. According to the government, this enterprise included arson, bribery and obstruction of justice—but the accusations of sexual violence and the pattern of control underlying them are central to the prosecution’s case.

Combs has denied the charges, insisting that the sex acts were consensual. The women’s credibility is therefore critical to the trial’s outcome. As Combs’ lawyer already previewed, his team will endeavor to convince the jury that the accusers are lying when they say they were coerced.

Combs and his lifestyle are far from ordinary, as are the alleged “freak-offs” that invariably generate headlines. But at bottom, his prosecution is typical of most sex crime prosecutions, which hinge on a credibility contest over consent.

When jurors—like the rest of us—decide what to believe, our judgments are often skewed by longstanding biases against women who allege sexual violence. In my book, Credible: Why We Doubt Accusers and Protect Abusers, I show how our culture casts accusers as unreliable sources of information. Certain stock representations of lying women are commonplace, predisposing us to disbelieve. Whether expressly invoked or not, these caricatures may well inflect the jurors’ credibility determinations.

Consider, for instance, the “gold digger,” who desires fortune above all; if need be, she will even concoct an allegation of abuse.

The “gold digger” trope has already made an appearance at Combs’ trial. His lawyer said this in the opening statement: “So when you hear from the witnesses who testify here who will tell you they were victimized, and you ask yourself, ‘What is their motive?’ For many of them, the answer is simple: money.” Referring to Cassie’s civil suit seeking damages against Combs as a “money grab,” the defense lawyer then put this question to the jury: “How many millions of reasons does this witness swearing to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth, have to lie?”

Sex crimes prosecutors routinely contend with the gold digger stereotype. At Bill Cosby’s retrial on sexual assault charges after his first trial ended in a hung jury, Cosby’s lawyer remarked of the accuser, “What does she want from Bill Cosby? Money, money, and lots more money.”

Defense attorneys deploy this stereotype precisely because it resonates with how laypeople tend to dismiss accusers: One study of how Twitter users responded to sexual assault accusations against high-profile men found that users frequently selected the hashtag “#golddigger” to digest their reactions.

Apart from the gold digger, my book describes several other caricatures of accusers that distort our judgments about whether to believe. The “woman scorned” seeks revenge on the man who rejected her. The “regretful woman” rues consensual sex. The “political tool” is willing to be used to advance a partisan agenda or an agenda of her own—including, in recent years, the #MeToo movement. The “attention seeker” craves the spotlight. Rather than intentionally deceiving anyone, the “mistaken woman” is confusing what really happened.

While many people would disavow belief in these caricatures, they nevertheless remain in widespread circulation throughout our culture. Even today, in the aftermath of #MeToo, we may absorb the message that women can’t be trusted when they recount sexual violation. This orientation often leads us to misjudge those who allege abuse, resulting in what I call the “credibility discount.”

Cassie attends a music video premiere on Oct. 5, 2017, in New York City. (Shareif Ziyadat / Getty Images)

Cassie has endured a grueling cross-examination. Combs’ legal team did their best to portray her as a woman who made, as they put it, “voluntary, adult choices.” In the defense’s telling, Cassie is lying when she says that what might look like consent was, in fact, the result of the control and coercion. We can expect much the same when the anonymous Jane testifies in the weeks ahead.

In the end, it will fall to the jurors to weigh these competing narratives, and to use their common sense—however flawed—to assess age-old attacks on the accusers’ credibility. This makes the Combs trial sadly unexceptional.  

Great Job Deborah Tuerkheimer & the Team @ Ms. Magazine Source link for sharing this story.

Bill Kristol: A New Gilded Age

No, the Trump administration is not focused on the forgotten man or bringing industrial jobs back. Instead, the real estate developer is handing out threats left and right—fresh off his Middle East trip, where he scored numerous deals with Islamofascists for himself, his family, and his cronies. And no matter what he says, the ‘Palace in the Sky’ is for him, once taxpayers pony up all the funds for retrofitting. Meanwhile, House Republicans are attempting to ram through their reconciliation bill—which is a huge debt bomb and is a big reason why Moody’s downgraded the credit rating of the United States. Plus, Biden’s cancer diagnosis, Epstein’s ‘absolutely crystal-clear’ suicide, Trump proves Springsteen’s point, and the administration gladly takes some of Mexico’s worst.

Bill Kristol joins Tim Miller.

Leave a comment

show notes

The Bulwark Podcast is available wherever you get your podcasts and on YouTube. Follow, leave us a review and wherever you tune in. Add the show to your player of choice, here.

As always: Watch, listen, and leave a comment.

Don’t care for video? Use the controls on the left-hand side of the player to toggle to the audio edition.

Ad-free editions of The Bulwark Podcast are available exclusively for Bulwark+ members.

Great Job Tim Miller & the Team @ The Bulwark Source link for sharing this story.

Secret Link