WEBVTT - Women’s Anger and the Supreme Court 0:00:05.680 --> 0:00:09.119 Hi, Brian, Hi, Katie. Well, it's been an extraordinary week 0:00:09.200 --> 0:00:12.280 in America. Good day. It is now official, by a 0:00:12.400 --> 0:00:16.360 to vote margin. The Senate has just confirmed Breck Cavanaugh. 0:00:16.400 --> 0:00:19.640 Breck Cavanaugh was sworn in as Supreme Court justice. Has 0:00:19.640 --> 0:00:23.000 a new Supreme Court Brett Kavanaugh will hear his first 0:00:23.079 --> 0:00:26.439 arguments this morning. The confirmation of Bret Kavanaugh to the 0:00:26.480 --> 0:00:30.760 Supreme Court capped off an emotional process that's left scars 0:00:30.800 --> 0:00:34.040 and anchor on both sides of the debate. The already 0:00:34.080 --> 0:00:37.840 deep divide in this country seems to have not only deepened, 0:00:38.200 --> 0:00:42.839 but calcified. The testimony of Dr Christine Blassi Ford unleashed 0:00:42.880 --> 0:00:46.279 a torrent of revelations by women across the country of 0:00:46.360 --> 0:00:51.000 sexual assaults long kept secret. The rage and raw emotion 0:00:51.159 --> 0:00:54.600 exhibited by Judge Kavanaugh seemed to be a vessel for 0:00:54.640 --> 0:00:57.800 those who feel the me too movement has been transformed 0:00:57.800 --> 0:01:01.680 into a political heat seeking missile. Collateral damage be damned. 0:01:02.000 --> 0:01:04.360 And by the time it was over, Americans were at 0:01:04.400 --> 0:01:08.480 each other's throats, both sides vowing to express their fury 0:01:08.520 --> 0:01:12.800 at the voting booth. So what just happened? Well, today 0:01:12.800 --> 0:01:14.600 we're going to try to figure that out, We're gonna 0:01:14.600 --> 0:01:18.160 try to understand what unfolded and why and what impact 0:01:18.280 --> 0:01:20.840 this is likely to have on the court and the country. 0:01:20.959 --> 0:01:23.199 We'll hear from two people who can help us better 0:01:23.280 --> 0:01:27.640 understand this moment in American politics and culture. Lawrence Tribe 0:01:27.640 --> 0:01:30.880 teaches constitutional law at Harvard Law School. He's one of 0:01:30.920 --> 0:01:35.200 the most influential and revered liberal legal scholars in the country. 0:01:35.319 --> 0:01:37.080 And if you're a big fan of this podcast, you 0:01:37.200 --> 0:01:40.120 might remember Rebecca tray Stir. We had her on way 0:01:40.160 --> 0:01:45.400 back in those prehistoric innocent days the summer of and 0:01:45.440 --> 0:01:48.000 we're very happy to have Rebecca back with us today 0:01:48.040 --> 0:01:51.120 because she's out with a brand new book called Good 0:01:51.120 --> 0:01:55.720 and Mad, The Revolutionary Power of Women's Anger, talk about 0:01:55.760 --> 0:01:59.240 timely was oppression title. Anyway, hopefully they can both help 0:01:59.320 --> 0:02:02.080 us make sense of this moment and the Rancor's times 0:02:02.120 --> 0:02:05.080 were living in and what this could all mean in 0:02:05.120 --> 0:02:12.359 our daily lives. So first, here's Rebecca tray Stir. Rebecca, 0:02:12.440 --> 0:02:15.040 welcome back, Thank you. It's always a pleasure to be here. 0:02:15.400 --> 0:02:18.280 So first we want to talk about Judge now Justice 0:02:18.320 --> 0:02:23.560 Brett Havanaugh, and before we even get into the confirmation 0:02:23.639 --> 0:02:27.840 hearings and what unfolded. What one word would you use 0:02:27.960 --> 0:02:33.160 to describe how you felt after this was all over wrecked? 0:02:34.440 --> 0:02:39.640 That's a terrible I felt absolutely wrecked. It has really 0:02:39.680 --> 0:02:47.680 been a traumatic, um enraging, terrifying period from my point 0:02:47.680 --> 0:02:51.280 of view the past few weeks. Can you elaborate on 0:02:51.280 --> 0:02:55.080 on why. Yeah, because the stakes were so high first 0:02:55.080 --> 0:02:57.800 of all, so a lot of When I described the 0:02:57.880 --> 0:03:01.600 horror of what's just happened, I'm not talking just about 0:03:01.720 --> 0:03:04.480 what's just happened over the past few weeks of testimony 0:03:04.520 --> 0:03:08.480 and the coverage of it. I'm also talking about the repercussion. 0:03:09.120 --> 0:03:11.960 He's now going to be a member of the Supreme Court. 0:03:12.120 --> 0:03:14.720 He has a lifetime appointment. Um, you know, he's a 0:03:14.840 --> 0:03:18.200 it's a partisan appointment, and to a court that has 0:03:18.280 --> 0:03:21.760 within its power the ability to reverse the progress made 0:03:21.840 --> 0:03:25.760 by previous generations of mass social movements that have worked 0:03:26.480 --> 0:03:30.640 to enact change and increase equality. What that means is 0:03:30.680 --> 0:03:33.320 not just the potential reversal of Row, which is what 0:03:33.320 --> 0:03:35.600 a lot of people have talked about. It means further 0:03:35.680 --> 0:03:38.520 gutting of affirmative action, of the Voting Rights Act, of 0:03:38.520 --> 0:03:42.480 the ability to collectively bargain and organize the Supreme Court 0:03:42.520 --> 0:03:46.400 has an enormous ability to suppress um the liberty and 0:03:46.440 --> 0:03:49.120 freedom of the kinds of masses of people who are 0:03:49.120 --> 0:03:52.880 now angry about power abuses. There there are all kinds 0:03:52.880 --> 0:03:56.000 of mechanisms that are going to change. What a lot 0:03:56.000 --> 0:03:58.840 of people saw when they looked at these hearings was 0:03:59.360 --> 0:04:02.600 a repeat eat or reducts of the Clarence Thomas Anita 0:04:02.680 --> 0:04:05.520 Hill hearings twenty seven years ago. Do you think we've 0:04:05.600 --> 0:04:09.400 learned anything since then? Well, it's funny in some ways. 0:04:09.880 --> 0:04:13.200 We saw the handling of the hearings by the Judiciary Committee, 0:04:13.200 --> 0:04:16.760 and I didn't think it was possible to handle the 0:04:16.839 --> 0:04:20.640 testimony of a woman who was coming forth with allegations 0:04:20.680 --> 0:04:23.640 about a nominee to the Supreme Court any worse than 0:04:24.200 --> 0:04:31.360 the Senate Judiciary Committee handled them in. And somehowen Republican 0:04:31.440 --> 0:04:34.599 led Senate Judiciary Committee managed to do worse. Why do 0:04:34.640 --> 0:04:37.599 you think it was worse? Christine blasi Ford testified that 0:04:37.600 --> 0:04:40.960 there was a witness in Mark Judge. He was never 0:04:41.040 --> 0:04:45.080 even called. We don't know enough about what the eventual 0:04:45.200 --> 0:04:50.359 FBI investigation entailed, but it's certainly left very few people 0:04:50.400 --> 0:04:53.599 who were not Republicans convinced that it had been a 0:04:53.640 --> 0:04:59.080 thorough investigation. Dr Blasi Ford herself wasn't questioned by the FBI. UM, 0:04:59.080 --> 0:05:00.920 we know that there were people who offered to talk 0:05:00.920 --> 0:05:03.200 to the FBI who the FBI did not reach out to. 0:05:04.120 --> 0:05:06.240 Is it worse? The open disdain for Anita Hill was 0:05:06.279 --> 0:05:09.280 so profound, and it was coming in some ways from 0:05:09.800 --> 0:05:12.279 the members of the Republican Party sitting on the Judiciary Committee. 0:05:12.320 --> 0:05:15.800 But she was not defended by those on the Democratic side, 0:05:15.800 --> 0:05:18.920 And in fact, Joe Biden didn't call the women who 0:05:18.920 --> 0:05:23.560 were willing to corroborate her story back. So that is similar, 0:05:24.200 --> 0:05:28.760 But there was more time, there was more investigation. Um, 0:05:28.800 --> 0:05:32.320 there were I think twenty two witnesses called in in 0:05:32.360 --> 0:05:35.120 the Anita Hill hearings. There was none of that here. 0:05:35.240 --> 0:05:38.760 It was just they designed it to be. She said, 0:05:38.960 --> 0:05:42.920 he said, without even calling on the voice. I mean, 0:05:43.160 --> 0:05:46.080 in these kinds of cases, very often, one of the 0:05:46.120 --> 0:05:49.000 reasons that harassment and assault cases are hard to bring, 0:05:49.080 --> 0:05:51.440 and one of the reasons that women often don't tell 0:05:51.480 --> 0:05:53.599 stories is because they know it comes down to he said, 0:05:53.680 --> 0:05:56.599 she said, and the women's voices very rarely trusted. This 0:05:56.680 --> 0:05:58.880 was a case where the woman telling the story claimed 0:05:58.880 --> 0:06:02.440 there was another person in the room and that person 0:06:02.680 --> 0:06:06.880 wasn't called, So you know, in that regard it was worse. 0:06:06.920 --> 0:06:10.520 I think there are some differences. After the Anita Hill 0:06:10.520 --> 0:06:13.400 Clarence Thomas Herring's public opinion polls showed that the majority 0:06:13.400 --> 0:06:17.160 of Americans believed Clarence Thomas, and now the polls show 0:06:17.240 --> 0:06:20.920 that a majority believe Christine Blasi for right, and so 0:06:21.240 --> 0:06:24.440 through one lens, that reflects a kind of progress that 0:06:24.520 --> 0:06:29.200 I do think twenty seven years of activism and engagement 0:06:29.240 --> 0:06:32.240 on these issues mean that we are taking the stories 0:06:32.240 --> 0:06:34.839 of women more seriously, and so there is some indication 0:06:34.880 --> 0:06:37.599 that maybe we were taking Christine Blasi Ford's story more seriously. 0:06:37.640 --> 0:06:41.360 But we also have to remember she is a white, 0:06:41.440 --> 0:06:47.920 married woman by many measures, um within a government in 0:06:47.960 --> 0:06:50.440 a power structure that is fundamentally a white patriarchy, the 0:06:50.520 --> 0:06:54.240 kind of woman who Americans are more likely to believe. 0:06:54.520 --> 0:06:57.320 Anita Hill wrote at the time after her hearing that 0:06:57.560 --> 0:07:00.200 one of the reasons that she was incomprehensible to the 0:07:00.200 --> 0:07:04.360 Senate Judiciary Committee she was black and she was unmarried, 0:07:04.480 --> 0:07:07.520 and they couldn't square these things with her credentials as 0:07:07.520 --> 0:07:09.880 an ivy educated lawyer and a peer of a Supreme 0:07:09.920 --> 0:07:12.560 Court nominee. So we I think we have to take 0:07:12.600 --> 0:07:17.960 into account, um, some of the racial realities around the 0:07:18.000 --> 0:07:20.520 differences between Christine Blassie Ford and Anita Hill. Though I 0:07:20.560 --> 0:07:23.520 would also argue that it is true, um, that we 0:07:23.600 --> 0:07:26.400 do listen to women's stories differently at this juncture than 0:07:26.480 --> 0:07:30.320 perhaps we did. I was struck by Anita Hill's piece 0:07:30.360 --> 0:07:33.840 in the New York Times after Dr Ford came forward 0:07:34.000 --> 0:07:36.680 bemoaning the fact that there still was not a process 0:07:36.720 --> 0:07:41.200 in place. There isn't a protocol that would make it 0:07:41.280 --> 0:07:44.440 a clear path to how you handle these kinds of 0:07:44.480 --> 0:07:48.120 complaints or issues. Yeah, I I obviously I think that 0:07:48.120 --> 0:07:50.680 that's that's a very fair assessment. I would also say 0:07:50.680 --> 0:07:52.800 that the way that we react to women's stories makes 0:07:52.800 --> 0:07:54.920 it very difficult for there to be a clear protocol. 0:07:54.960 --> 0:07:57.160 You can see the risks involved. I read today that 0:07:57.240 --> 0:07:59.400 Christine Blasi Ford still can't move back into our own 0:07:59.400 --> 0:08:02.160 home because of the incessant death threats, and of course 0:08:02.200 --> 0:08:04.480 that happened to Anita Hill too, terrible death threats and 0:08:04.560 --> 0:08:07.760 rape threats for years afterward, which is a very depressing 0:08:07.800 --> 0:08:11.360 thing and very upsetting to hear Let's talk about the 0:08:11.440 --> 0:08:15.240 hearings themselves. Your new book is about women and anger, 0:08:16.000 --> 0:08:20.240 and I know you were struck by the anger express 0:08:20.360 --> 0:08:23.760 by not only Brett having off, but Lindsey Graham. Let's 0:08:23.800 --> 0:08:28.520 take a listen. This confirmation process has become a national disgrace. 0:08:30.040 --> 0:08:34.920 The Constitution gives the Senate an important role in the 0:08:34.960 --> 0:08:40.079 confirmation process. But you have replaced advice and consent with 0:08:40.200 --> 0:08:44.600 search and destroy. If you wanted an FBI investigation, you 0:08:44.640 --> 0:08:47.080 could have come to us. What you want to do 0:08:47.200 --> 0:08:51.120 is destroy this guy's life, hold this seat open, and 0:08:51.240 --> 0:08:57.440 hope you win. You've said that, not me. Meanwhile, Christine 0:08:57.440 --> 0:09:01.439 blasi Ford really, for the most part, maintained her composure. 0:09:01.880 --> 0:09:05.679 She obviously was nervous and I think a little bit 0:09:05.720 --> 0:09:11.640 weepy at times. Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter, 0:09:12.920 --> 0:09:19.440 the the uproarious laughter between the two and they're having 0:09:19.720 --> 0:09:26.080 fun at my expense. What were your impressions watching the 0:09:26.200 --> 0:09:31.720 two genders react. Well, I don't think that Christine blasi 0:09:31.840 --> 0:09:35.440 Ford could have used anger on her own behalf, although 0:09:35.880 --> 0:09:37.440 in my view she had a lot she could have 0:09:37.440 --> 0:09:40.120 reasonably been angry about, from the assault itself to the 0:09:40.160 --> 0:09:43.120 impact it made on her life, to the kind of 0:09:43.160 --> 0:09:45.920 impact that having been brought into the public eye made 0:09:45.960 --> 0:09:48.600 on her life and her family's life. Um, there was 0:09:48.600 --> 0:09:50.800 plenty that she could have raised her voice about. But 0:09:50.880 --> 0:09:53.560 we can't even begin to imagine a woman in her 0:09:53.600 --> 0:09:58.320 position going in and raging or yelling or speaking in 0:09:58.360 --> 0:10:00.400 loud tones about what had happen, and to her, it 0:10:00.400 --> 0:10:02.920 would be immediately discrediting. People would say she came off 0:10:02.960 --> 0:10:04.960 as crazy, or she was trying to play the victim, 0:10:05.160 --> 0:10:07.480 or she sounded like a lunatic. I mean it just 0:10:08.559 --> 0:10:13.240 I don't think we can fathom it really. Meanwhile, Brett Kavanaugh, 0:10:13.280 --> 0:10:17.560 who is a powerful white man, was able to use 0:10:17.720 --> 0:10:20.959 anger as a rhetorical tool to boost his case. And 0:10:21.000 --> 0:10:24.360 that's the That is the thing. Women are told all 0:10:24.400 --> 0:10:27.160 the time that if they speak in anger, it's not 0:10:27.240 --> 0:10:29.559 just that it's not cute, it's that it will undermine 0:10:29.600 --> 0:10:33.960 their position, it will damage their ability to be taken seriously. 0:10:34.280 --> 0:10:38.720 But for men, anger can be read as fundamentally diagnostic. 0:10:38.760 --> 0:10:41.240 It tells us what's really wrong because they're feeling it 0:10:41.360 --> 0:10:43.480 so deeply that they raised their voice about it in 0:10:43.520 --> 0:10:45.840 a kind of sign of strength and commitment. And it 0:10:45.880 --> 0:10:49.040 worked for Brett Kavanaugh, I think by many measures. Uh, 0:10:49.240 --> 0:10:51.280 You've seen a lot of coverage that has said it 0:10:51.360 --> 0:10:53.920 was his willingness to get angry and Lindsay Graham's willingness 0:10:53.920 --> 0:10:55.800 to get angry, which I think many people agree was 0:10:55.840 --> 0:10:58.160 probably an audition for Donald Trump, who likes to see 0:10:58.200 --> 0:11:01.360 the angry bluster of powerful men um in the face 0:11:01.440 --> 0:11:05.360 of challenge from people who are not powerful white men. Now, 0:11:05.400 --> 0:11:07.240 the women who did speak in anger, and who I 0:11:07.280 --> 0:11:11.720 think did so to powerful effect were the protesters, including Anna, 0:11:11.760 --> 0:11:14.959 Maria Archila, and Maria Gallagher who confronted Jeff Flake in 0:11:15.000 --> 0:11:18.240 the elevator, And that was an incredibly powerful moment of 0:11:18.240 --> 0:11:21.520 of watching and hearing women raise their voices and point 0:11:21.559 --> 0:11:24.559 their fingers and insist that this powerful man look them 0:11:24.559 --> 0:11:27.240 in their eyes. Well, tell me, when I'm talking to you, 0:11:27.240 --> 0:11:30.840 you're telling me that miaself doesn't matter, what happened to 0:11:30.880 --> 0:11:34.720 me doesn't matter. You're gonna let people look do these 0:11:34.720 --> 0:11:40.160 things into power. I found it interesting that Mitch McConnell 0:11:40.400 --> 0:11:46.120 and President Trump both described these groups of protesters as mobs. 0:11:47.600 --> 0:11:49.840 What was your reaction to that? That is the way 0:11:49.880 --> 0:11:53.560 whenever UM a power structure is challenged by the less 0:11:53.600 --> 0:11:58.840 powerful entity. That challenge is um framed by the more 0:11:58.880 --> 0:12:03.640 powerful entity that has and challenged as disruptive, dangerous mob. 0:12:03.720 --> 0:12:05.600 You can see that in the language that people used 0:12:05.640 --> 0:12:07.920 around me too, where the women telling the stories of 0:12:07.960 --> 0:12:10.360 sexual harassment were described as part of a witch hunt 0:12:10.600 --> 0:12:13.640 or part of mob justice, and where the men, some 0:12:13.760 --> 0:12:17.640 of whom lost their jobs powerful jobs after accusations that 0:12:17.679 --> 0:12:20.640 they had harassed or assaulted people, were described as having 0:12:20.720 --> 0:12:23.440 had their lives ruined. In many cases, people talked about 0:12:23.440 --> 0:12:25.160 them as if they had been killed or murdered, that 0:12:25.200 --> 0:12:28.800 they had ceased to exist. The kind of disruption that 0:12:28.880 --> 0:12:31.520 happens when power moves in the opposite way that it 0:12:31.600 --> 0:12:35.400 usually does, when the less powerful make a challenge to 0:12:35.440 --> 0:12:41.880 the powerful, that gets rendered as troublesome, disruptive, worrisome. Whereas 0:12:41.960 --> 0:12:44.680 when the power moves the way it's supposed to move 0:12:45.280 --> 0:12:48.679 um with any kind of violence or aggression coming from 0:12:48.679 --> 0:12:50.920 the more powerful to less powerful, often we don't even 0:12:50.960 --> 0:12:54.520 notice that it's not disruption. You know, the angry mobs 0:12:54.520 --> 0:12:58.679 were the protesters, not the angry group of Republicans who 0:12:58.679 --> 0:13:01.920 are having fits. A few jury in the Senate Judiciary Committee. 0:13:01.920 --> 0:13:05.560 They were just as mad and cruel Donald Trump's mocking 0:13:05.559 --> 0:13:10.080 of Dr Christine blasi Ford cruel and vitriolic and loud 0:13:10.160 --> 0:13:13.320 and screaming in their anger on behalf of Brett Kavanaugh. 0:13:13.400 --> 0:13:17.400 And yet they're not the angry mobs, even though they're 0:13:17.440 --> 0:13:21.000 expressing anger that's just as intense. One thing that really 0:13:21.040 --> 0:13:25.000 struck me over the weekend was Senator Susan Collins, obviously 0:13:25.040 --> 0:13:29.760 a woman the deciding vote here, defended Brett Kavanaugh's anger 0:13:30.200 --> 0:13:32.960 on one of the Sunday shows. She said she was 0:13:33.040 --> 0:13:36.840 glad that Kavanaugh apologized to Amy Klobuchar, but beyond that, 0:13:37.000 --> 0:13:40.439 she said, you know, if you're wrongfully accused of something 0:13:40.520 --> 0:13:43.360 like this, I can understand why you'd be angry. What 0:13:43.440 --> 0:13:46.920 was your reaction to that? Well, this is what I 0:13:47.000 --> 0:13:50.439 was saying before about white men's powerful. White men's anger 0:13:51.240 --> 0:13:54.080 is often a tool that they can use to make themselves, 0:13:54.080 --> 0:13:58.040 in their case, more appealing and attractive and moving to 0:13:58.120 --> 0:14:01.360 those who might be willing to support them, and Susan 0:14:01.400 --> 0:14:04.840 Collins is one of those people. Susan Collins very clearly 0:14:04.880 --> 0:14:07.320 wanted to support Brett Kavanaugh, and she found in his 0:14:07.400 --> 0:14:12.520 anger a communicative strategy that worked to affirm her positive 0:14:12.559 --> 0:14:14.680 feelings about him, and that's what she's giving voice to. 0:14:15.280 --> 0:14:17.959 Anger really does have an ability to work for powerful 0:14:18.000 --> 0:14:19.520 white men in a way that it doesn't from many 0:14:19.560 --> 0:14:22.400 other kinds of people. Do you have any kind of 0:14:22.920 --> 0:14:27.280 sympathy for what Kavanaugh's family has been through or Kavanaugh himself? 0:14:27.320 --> 0:14:29.240 And do you have any doubt at all that he 0:14:29.960 --> 0:14:34.560 sexually assaulted Dr? Ford? No, I don't. I believe Christine 0:14:34.600 --> 0:14:37.240 Blassi Ford. Um, that doesn't mean that I don't have 0:14:37.280 --> 0:14:41.200 sympathy for human beings, and certainly for a family. One 0:14:41.200 --> 0:14:45.000 of the realities about the ubiquity of power abuse, you know, 0:14:45.080 --> 0:14:47.440 gendered and racial, is that the people who have power 0:14:47.520 --> 0:14:51.040 have lots of people who are dependent on them. And Um, 0:14:51.200 --> 0:14:57.160 do I have sympathy for Kavanaugh's family, Sure, But like 0:14:57.240 --> 0:14:59.640 the fact that our attention is drawn to that as 0:14:59.680 --> 0:15:02.920 the ard party, rather than not only the family of 0:15:03.000 --> 0:15:06.120 Dr Christine Blassie Ford who can't live in their own home, 0:15:07.280 --> 0:15:11.240 rather than the families of the hundreds or thousands of 0:15:11.400 --> 0:15:15.040 people who were there protesting telling their own stories of 0:15:15.120 --> 0:15:20.160 having been assaulted or harassed or aggressed upon, whose families 0:15:20.280 --> 0:15:24.040 also live with the kind of suffering that they've gone through, 0:15:24.080 --> 0:15:27.920 not only via harassment, but then having their voices silenced, ignored, 0:15:28.040 --> 0:15:31.960 and dismissed as a mob of loudmouths. I feel sympathy 0:15:32.000 --> 0:15:35.320 for those families too. The Me Too movement is one 0:15:35.400 --> 0:15:40.080 year old, right, and we've seen powerful man after powerful 0:15:40.160 --> 0:15:45.000 man fall from grace. It seems to me that there 0:15:45.000 --> 0:15:48.680 has been increasing sort of discomfort with this, not just 0:15:48.880 --> 0:15:52.960 from powerful men or men in general, but I think 0:15:53.080 --> 0:15:58.440 from other people who feel that perhaps it's being weaponized 0:15:59.000 --> 0:16:03.080 and that, uh, it's overused, this kind of claim. And 0:16:03.120 --> 0:16:06.240 then when you have an allegation that's thirty six years old, 0:16:06.280 --> 0:16:10.320 no matter how credible, people are wondering, gosh, has it 0:16:10.440 --> 0:16:13.680 gone too far? So I would argue this seems to 0:16:13.720 --> 0:16:18.440 be a specific backlash against this reckoning we've witnessed over 0:16:18.440 --> 0:16:21.680 the last year. Well, I think that the rhetoric used 0:16:21.720 --> 0:16:24.920 about it, and this the arguments that you're citing that's 0:16:24.960 --> 0:16:27.760 been in the culture for a while. I mean that 0:16:27.840 --> 0:16:30.320 was that was Donald Trump was elected to the presidency 0:16:30.360 --> 0:16:33.080 after having admitted on tape to grabbing women against their will. 0:16:33.560 --> 0:16:36.560 I don't think that this Yes, there's a backlash, but 0:16:36.600 --> 0:16:38.400 I also want to. I'm curious about whether it would 0:16:38.440 --> 0:16:43.240 be popularly decided had we voted on Brett Kavanaugh. I mean, 0:16:43.400 --> 0:16:46.680 polls that I've seen show that the majority of Americans 0:16:47.200 --> 0:16:51.120 believed Christine Blasi Ford and that he had extraordinarily low 0:16:51.160 --> 0:16:56.040 approval ratings that only dropped during his confirmation hearings. Yes, 0:16:56.080 --> 0:16:59.720 the intensity of his defense amongst his right wing defenders 0:17:00.200 --> 0:17:03.720 grew in in defensive response, and that's surely part of 0:17:03.760 --> 0:17:08.240 that backlash mentality. But it was a fundamentally minority power 0:17:08.359 --> 0:17:11.280 that installed him. But I think for some people who 0:17:11.359 --> 0:17:13.800 are you know, just read my Instagram feed and you'll 0:17:13.840 --> 0:17:18.320 see what I mean my Instagram comments. But but I 0:17:18.359 --> 0:17:20.840 feel like I feel like it it reached a zenith 0:17:20.920 --> 0:17:25.240 though with this, with with these Kavanaugh hearings, that somehow 0:17:25.359 --> 0:17:29.000 people were like, enough is enough? You know, these crazy 0:17:29.080 --> 0:17:32.399 women making these claims, and now you go back to 0:17:32.480 --> 0:17:36.359 what a kid did at seventeen years old and saying, 0:17:36.359 --> 0:17:38.919 what's going to happen to our sons and brothers? So 0:17:39.080 --> 0:17:41.199 I feel I feel like, I don't know, for me 0:17:41.280 --> 0:17:44.040 as an observer, and of course you're much more entrenched 0:17:44.080 --> 0:17:47.199 in this than I am. Rebecca, this feels to me 0:17:47.680 --> 0:17:51.919 like the moment, the backlash was heard loud and clear 0:17:52.040 --> 0:17:55.120 across the country. But what does it mean that more 0:17:55.160 --> 0:17:58.520 people believed her? Is that indicative of a mass backlash 0:17:58.640 --> 0:18:01.800 or is that the rhetoric of back clash being weaponized 0:18:01.840 --> 0:18:05.440 by a right wing that wanted to install their justice. Well, 0:18:05.440 --> 0:18:07.640 that's fair enough, I mean, yeah, I can see that too. 0:18:07.680 --> 0:18:10.679 And maybe mass isn't the right word, but allowed and 0:18:11.560 --> 0:18:16.159 exploitive reaction to this movement, well on a faction of 0:18:16.200 --> 0:18:19.439 the country that doesn't represent a majority, But that's pretty big, 0:18:20.560 --> 0:18:22.840 just deciding, you know, I'm fed up and we're not 0:18:22.880 --> 0:18:25.280 gonna We're not gonna take this anymore in a sense. 0:18:25.400 --> 0:18:27.520 But but I want to talk about the subject of 0:18:27.560 --> 0:18:32.800 your book, which is obviously connected to this conversation, women's anger. So, Rebecca, 0:18:33.000 --> 0:18:35.080 a lot of the anger that you describe in your 0:18:35.080 --> 0:18:38.000 book is directed at white men, but some of it 0:18:38.080 --> 0:18:42.159 is directed at women themselves, specifically white women, you know, 0:18:42.240 --> 0:18:46.080 many of whom supported Trump supported Kavanaugh. How do you 0:18:46.359 --> 0:18:50.000 explain that, Well, inequity takes all kinds of forms in 0:18:50.040 --> 0:18:51.960 this country. The country was built on all kinds of 0:18:51.960 --> 0:18:55.160 forms of in equity. So there's racial inequity, gender inequity, 0:18:55.520 --> 0:19:00.480 class inequality. So within coalitions that may exist um as 0:19:00.520 --> 0:19:02.880 mass social movements, whether you're talking about the civil rights 0:19:02.880 --> 0:19:07.280 movement or the women's movement, there are divergent opinions. There 0:19:07.359 --> 0:19:09.960 is inequality, and women are angry at each other. Within 0:19:10.000 --> 0:19:12.680 the movement, allies are angry at allies. This has always 0:19:12.680 --> 0:19:16.960 been true. How do you explain white women's supporting Trump, 0:19:17.359 --> 0:19:20.639 supporting Kavanaugh and turning their backs on these other women 0:19:20.680 --> 0:19:23.440 who have been victims of sexual assault and who tell 0:19:23.480 --> 0:19:28.760 these unbelievably herroin emotionally difficult stories. It's hard for me 0:19:28.880 --> 0:19:31.199 to understand how they can just turn their back on 0:19:31.280 --> 0:19:35.159 these other women. Well, there's a long history of white 0:19:35.359 --> 0:19:39.400 women supporting the white men to whom they are most 0:19:39.440 --> 0:19:43.679 closely connected by marriage, by social circles within their families, 0:19:44.280 --> 0:19:49.440 um against critique or challenge. White women in this country 0:19:49.480 --> 0:19:53.280 have um always voted Republican as long as as long 0:19:53.320 --> 0:19:55.600 as they've been keeping track, except for two elections in 0:19:56.000 --> 0:19:58.480 two and ninety six, And it's one of the things 0:19:58.520 --> 0:20:02.800 that has created dissonance and um resentments within a women's 0:20:02.840 --> 0:20:08.480 movement because there are all kinds of incentives offered to 0:20:08.520 --> 0:20:10.879 white women who are willing to support white men and 0:20:10.920 --> 0:20:14.840 their continued power, but that does set them at odds 0:20:15.720 --> 0:20:19.920 with other women, some of whom are trying to challenge 0:20:20.800 --> 0:20:24.399 the power of those white men, and it works to 0:20:24.600 --> 0:20:28.280 divide women against each other. It's it's a very difficult 0:20:28.359 --> 0:20:32.840 dynamic within a women's movement, and it's and race and um. 0:20:32.960 --> 0:20:36.080 Racial inequality has been used to sort of cut off 0:20:36.520 --> 0:20:39.359 a percentage of white women who are more invested in 0:20:39.440 --> 0:20:42.320 supporting the continued power of white men than they are 0:20:42.440 --> 0:20:46.320 in finding affiliation with other women. Where does the Me 0:20:46.480 --> 0:20:49.960 Too movement go from here? Do you think this is 0:20:50.000 --> 0:20:54.639 a setback or do you think it will galvanize the 0:20:54.720 --> 0:20:59.320 participants of this movement? Well, you know, I have been, 0:20:59.359 --> 0:21:01.800 actually for somebody who writes a lot about me Too, 0:21:01.800 --> 0:21:04.840 I've been notoriously bad at predicting what's going to happen next. 0:21:04.920 --> 0:21:08.040 It surprised me right from the start. I assumed that 0:21:08.080 --> 0:21:10.560 the story about Harvey Weinstein would pass over within a 0:21:10.600 --> 0:21:13.840 week or two, and instead it kept going, more stories 0:21:13.880 --> 0:21:15.720 being told, and then I thought, oh my god, it's 0:21:15.760 --> 0:21:17.520 been a month, and then it's been two months, and 0:21:17.520 --> 0:21:19.680 then three months, and then four months, which was really 0:21:19.720 --> 0:21:23.960 that peak in the fall of seventeen, and I couldn't believe, 0:21:24.480 --> 0:21:27.879 as a person who studies women's anger, that it was 0:21:28.040 --> 0:21:30.760 sustaining itself for four months. And it showed me the 0:21:30.760 --> 0:21:33.520 intensity and the passion that was there and the desperation 0:21:33.560 --> 0:21:36.800 to get these stories out. And then I sort of thought, Okay, well, 0:21:36.800 --> 0:21:40.400 now it's receded. But then there were other iterations. There 0:21:40.480 --> 0:21:44.800 was the revelation about Eric schneiderman Um just recently prior 0:21:44.840 --> 0:21:47.359 to Kavanaugh. There were the stories about less Moon vest 0:21:47.440 --> 0:21:51.560 which were just absolutely devastating, and the revelation that this 0:21:51.680 --> 0:21:54.760 very powerful man is alleged to have committed kind of 0:21:54.760 --> 0:21:59.840 Weinstein level assaults um throughout his career. Now, the question 0:22:00.080 --> 0:22:05.159 whether what has just happened around Kavanaugh will be further 0:22:05.359 --> 0:22:09.800 energizing or whether it will be deadening. I could see 0:22:09.840 --> 0:22:13.600 it going either way. My My best guess is that 0:22:13.640 --> 0:22:17.000 it will be ultimately energizing, that it will motivate that 0:22:17.119 --> 0:22:21.000 women are angry, and while they may feel briefly defeated, 0:22:21.160 --> 0:22:24.639 that their anger will propel them into continuing to be 0:22:24.760 --> 0:22:28.359 determined to make to make these realities clear. I'm not 0:22:28.440 --> 0:22:31.000 going to ask you to predict how this will play 0:22:31.040 --> 0:22:34.119 out in the mid terms. But it is interesting that, 0:22:34.840 --> 0:22:37.720 you know, the Republicans seem to be convinced that this 0:22:37.840 --> 0:22:41.080 is really energized their base in a way that nothing 0:22:41.119 --> 0:22:43.919 else has over the last couple of years. And the 0:22:44.000 --> 0:22:46.359 Democrats are also convinced that this is going to energize 0:22:46.720 --> 0:22:49.879 their base. I mean, how do you assess that? And 0:22:50.200 --> 0:22:52.280 who do you think is going to prevail in this 0:22:52.320 --> 0:22:55.120 sort of fight. I think there are two different factors 0:22:55.160 --> 0:22:58.320 that complicate both of those claims. I think Republicans are 0:22:58.320 --> 0:23:00.760 probably right that it is energized their base, but the 0:23:00.840 --> 0:23:03.360 issue is that the Republican base is in fact smaller 0:23:03.359 --> 0:23:06.280 than a Democratic base, and so it may have increased 0:23:06.320 --> 0:23:10.320 intensity amongst the Trump base. But that Trump base, first 0:23:10.359 --> 0:23:14.560 of all, was always smaller statistically than the Democratic base. 0:23:14.640 --> 0:23:17.840 Remember he did not win the popular vote. So it 0:23:18.040 --> 0:23:22.800 may well have increased the intensity and excitement amongst the 0:23:22.800 --> 0:23:25.760 Trump base, But the question is isn't big enough? And 0:23:26.200 --> 0:23:29.919 in that regard, I would say energy favors the Democrats. 0:23:29.960 --> 0:23:32.560 But here's what doesn't favor the Democrats the way the 0:23:32.640 --> 0:23:36.560 system is designed, and that's from jerrymandering and voter suppression efforts, 0:23:36.600 --> 0:23:41.159 which have already been successful in many states. UM to 0:23:41.720 --> 0:23:45.240 the basic ways that you know that that we apportioned 0:23:45.359 --> 0:23:47.879 political power. I mean, one thing that's really notable, and 0:23:47.920 --> 0:23:50.399 several people have have made mention of it, is that 0:23:50.440 --> 0:23:55.080 the senators who voted against Kavanaugh represent millions of more 0:23:55.160 --> 0:23:58.800 Americans because of the way the Senate is designed than 0:23:58.840 --> 0:24:02.919