{"id":67,"date":"2020-05-14T05:15:20","date_gmt":"2020-05-14T05:15:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/falseallegationshub.com\/?p=67"},"modified":"2024-03-12T23:48:45","modified_gmt":"2024-03-12T23:48:45","slug":"tara-reades-dubious-claims-and-shifting-stories-show-the-limits-of-believewomen","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/falseallegationshub.com\/?p=67","title":{"rendered":"Tara Reade’s Dubious Claims and Shifting Stories Show the Limits of #BelieveWomen"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In March, a 56-year-old California woman named Tara Reade publicly accused Joe Biden of sexually assaulting her in 1993. The issue caused an awkward rift among Democrats, one that has only widened since Biden became the party\u2019s presumptive presidential nominee. Many Democrats fear the accusation will weaken their chances of removing Donald Trump from the White House, while others are more worried that dismissing the accusations outright might alienate the party\u2019s base. In April, a number of notable female Democrats<\/a> and feminist progressives who usually align themselves with the #BelieveWomen<\/a> camp declared their support for Biden, and explained<\/a> that \u201cbelieve women\u201d actually means \u201clisten to both sides.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Last week, this theater of the absurd got slightly more surreal when a prominent feminist wrote<\/a> in the New York Times <\/em>that she thinks Biden is a rapist, but will vote for him anyway. Linda Hirshman, a retired professor of women\u2019s studies and philosophy, and a prolific author (most recently of Reckoning: The Epic Battle Against Sexual Abuse and Harassment<\/em><\/a>), explained to Times <\/em>readers that she believes Reade, but also believes that \u201cthe cost of dismissing Tara Reade\u2014and, worse, weakening the voices of future survivors\u201d is justified on purely utilitarian grounds, since (as she sees it) Trump is the greater evil. Hirshman argued that the Democrats\u2019 current strategy of defending Biden\u2019s innocence is both cowardly (since it avoids the \u201chard work of moral analysis\u201d) and harmful, since it means \u201ccasting a reasonably credible complainant as a liar.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n