This article is going to rub lots of people the wrong way, I suspect, but it's level headed, well reasoned and well written. Although I ultimately disagree with some of the conclusions drawn at the end, (particularly: > Because contemporary moral codes delineate women as vulnerable or marginalised, we stop seeing them as individuals with unique talents and idiosyncrasies, but as representatives of a victimised class.…
The New York times had an interesting take on this in [1]. It argues that what we are seeing now is a resurgence of a victorian view of women as fragile beings that need to be sheltered from any possible harmful situation. This is bullshit; women are as capable as a man of saying no and tactfully pointing out when something emotionally difficult is happening. I think the problem is that we have gone from rightly taki…
Saying that this is from the nyt is misleading. It's an option piece and I doubt it's endorsed.
Second, that article appears to be attacking a strawman. Few, if any, if the feminists I communicate with believe that "believe all women" is an absolute insofar as there should be no further investigation.
It came about because historically, society didn't trust but verify, it ignored and threw under the rug. Believe women was a reaction to "but are you sure you weren't asking for it" and "but you don't remember, so how do you know you didn't consent". It was a call to trust but verify. People who say otherwise are either missing important context, or are pushing a false narrative.