#141— Is #MeToo Going Too Far？
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
171.79054
Summary
Rebecca Traister is a writer-at-large for New York Magazine and a contributing editor at Elle. She s written about women in politics, media, and entertainment from a feminist perspective for The New Republic and Salon, and she's also contributed to The Nation, The New York Observer, The Times, The Washington Post, Vogue, and many other magazines. She's the author of All the Single Ladies, Big Girls Don t Cry, and her latest book, Good and Mad: The Revolutionary Power of Women s Anger, which is a memoir of her experience in the wake of the Me Too movement. In this episode, Traister talks with Sam Harris about what it means to be a woke feminist, and why it s important to be woke about Me Too and race. She also talks about her new book and how she s come to understand that she s more woke than she is woke, and what that means to her and to her readers, and how it s made her think about the power of women s anger and her own experience of being a woman in a world that sated by a culture that soured on the idea of women in power. Sam Harris and Rebecca Traister discuss Me Too, race and power, and the power that comes with being woke. This episode was produced and edited by Sam Harris. We don t run ads on the podcast, and we don t charge you for your ad revenue. We do this because we re making sense, not because you re listening to the podcast. We re not a product of your ads, we re we re a company making sense. We re making it, not you listening to us make sense. Thank you for listening, you re making us feel smart, not we re listening, and you re not listening, not watching us make us think we re smart, or you re thinking we re thinking, or we re talking about it? and we re not thinking about it, are you listening, are we listening, or are you watching us making sense of it, or do you re looking at us, or doing it, and it s making us a good thing, or not listening? or are we watching us, thinking it, right, or thinking it s all of this, or aren t listening, right? And we re doing it right, not saying it s a good enough, or it s not enough, right ? Thanks to our sponsor, Sam Harris
Transcript
00:00:10.880
Just a note to say that if you're hearing this, you are not currently on our subscriber
00:00:14.680
feed and will only be hearing the first part of this conversation.
00:00:18.440
In order to access full episodes of the Making Sense Podcast, you'll need to subscribe at
00:00:24.140
There you'll find our private RSS feed to add to your favorite podcatcher, along with
00:00:30.520
We don't run ads on the podcast, and therefore it's made possible entirely through the support
00:00:35.900
So if you enjoy what we're doing here, please consider becoming one.
00:00:49.820
Rebecca is writer-at-large for New York Magazine and a contributing editor at Elle.
00:00:55.060
She's a National Magazine Award finalist, and she's written about women in politics,
00:01:01.020
media, and entertainment from a feminist perspective for the New Republic and Salon.
00:01:06.440
And she's also contributed to The Nation, The New York Observer, The New York Times, The
00:01:11.660
Washington Post, Vogue, and many other magazines.
00:01:15.580
She's the author of All the Single Ladies, Big Girls Don't Cry, and her latest book, which
00:01:22.080
we discuss is Good and Mad, The Revolutionary Power of Women's Anger.
00:01:33.200
This was a conversation that certainly could have gone the way of my conversation with Ezra
00:01:40.380
One technical limitation, which I mentioned at some point, there was a latency problem that
00:01:46.080
sometimes happens in these remote podcasts where I can't interrupt a guest.
00:01:52.580
So when you hear me try and it proves totally ineffectual, that's not Rebecca being especially
00:01:59.040
She literally cannot hear my attempts to interject.
00:02:02.600
So you'll notice that I gradually learned that and, for the most part, stopped trying.
00:02:10.860
We get into the issues of Me Too and race fairly deeply.
00:02:23.040
Anyway, more and more I think it's just important to attempt conversations like this.
00:02:31.000
So, please enjoy my exchange with Rebecca Traister.
00:02:45.580
I think both of us come into this conversation with a little bit of trepidation because we're
00:02:50.180
anticipating not agreeing about a very fraught topic.
00:02:54.280
First, let me just say, I'm a huge fan of yours.
00:02:56.720
I've been trying to get you on the podcast for...
00:02:58.960
In the midst of last fall, I know, was when you first reached out to me.
00:03:08.680
I largely view this as an opportunity for you to educate me.
00:03:15.100
And let me also say that one of the things I write about in the book and that I wrote
00:03:18.240
about, I think, in the midst of last fall, which was the sort of height of the flood of
00:03:24.300
hashtag Me Too stories, was my own ambivalence.
00:03:27.940
And I'm somebody I don't think you could find, by some measures, a stronger proponent of the
00:03:32.900
process we're in the midst of and of coming to terms with the power inequities, sexual
00:03:39.500
power inequities, gendered power inequities, racial power inequities.
00:03:47.220
And yet, as I write in the book, and I think I made clear back then, I also have a whole
00:03:53.120
mess of conflicting feelings about them because this is really hard, discomforting work that
00:03:57.120
we're doing in trying to challenge, you know, systems and rules that have been in place and
00:04:03.060
And it's very painful in many cases, and it's full of contradictions and conflicting
00:04:07.900
feelings, even for somebody who, like me, is an extremely strong proponent of Me Too
00:04:14.520
and addressing sexual harassment and sexual assault as structural, systemic inequities.
00:04:20.700
I think this will be a bit of a tightrope walk, but, you know, I'm just, most of all, I hope
00:04:26.120
Before we dive into the danger zone, let me just tell people who you are.
00:04:31.200
Actually, I'd like you to describe how you see yourself as a journalist, but I'll just
00:04:35.780
remind people that we are talking about your new book, which really could not have come
00:04:40.460
at a better time, and that book is Good and Mad, The Revolutionary Power of Women's
00:04:46.020
And I can only imagine how your publicity team felt when they knew this was dropping, right?
00:04:52.240
It was either the beginning or the middle or just the end of the Kavanaugh hearing.
00:04:55.560
Which must have made someone think that there is a God and he's working for your publisher.
00:05:00.580
What's it been like to jump into the fray at this moment?
00:05:04.980
And I guess before that, just tell people how you view your position and career as a journalist.
00:05:13.420
I am a writer at large for New York Magazine, where I've been for several years.
00:05:17.280
I write about politics, media, and culture from a feminist perspective.
00:05:21.020
I am both a reporter and an opinion writer, which gives me a degree of freedom.
00:05:26.240
I report stories, but it's never a mystery, you know, what my politics are, what my viewpoint
00:05:36.980
And yeah, I mean, I think that you're right that, you know, the book-selling gods were
00:05:46.400
I have to say, in all honesty, and I'm saying this not as somebody, I would never pretend
00:05:50.400
to not be ambitious and not want to sell books.
00:05:53.840
It has been a fraught time to be out here selling books in the midst of national calamity and
00:06:01.780
an extremely, extremely painful and extremely painful chapter in exactly the story that
00:06:08.960
I work at telling about the United States and how power works here.
00:06:13.900
One that is going to have, to my mind and, you know, from from my perspective, very long
00:06:19.800
The appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court is going to have an impact over
00:06:24.380
generations, certainly for the rest of my life, unless surprising things happen.
00:06:29.520
And so there is certainly fraught to be out here, you know, wanting people to read my book,
00:06:34.000
wanting to talk about, you know, the book was finished in June long before I could have
00:06:37.240
anticipated even, you know, Kennedy's retirement.
00:06:40.500
And I have I have very mixed feelings about the news cycle that has made it, you know, everybody
00:06:45.820
says, oh, is the perfect time for it to come out?
00:06:47.620
And I am glad if it was I have heard from some people that it was a useful tool to help
00:06:51.440
them understand what was happening with regard to how Christine Blasey Ford expressed herself,
00:06:55.580
how Brett Kavanaugh expressed himself, how power and anger were being received over the past
00:07:02.880
But it is also it's it's definitely fraught to be out here selling books in the midst of
00:07:08.060
Yeah. Well, so just to give you a little clearer sense of where I'm coming from, I think you
00:07:13.680
and I have political goals that are very close to one another's.
00:07:19.200
I mean, so the narrowest one being that I want almost anyone on earth to win the presidency
00:07:28.020
We are close on that, although my my range, almost anyone else other than Donald Trump,
00:07:37.520
So one of my concerns here is that insofar as your framing of these issues seems likely
00:07:44.420
to increase the chance of Donald Trump being reelected, I begin to worry there and sort of
00:07:52.240
There's also a larger goal, which I'm sure we share, which is to arrive at a society where
00:07:59.580
both real and perceived political equality is maximized.
00:08:04.500
And it's important that it be both real and perceived because I think, you know, real equality
00:08:08.980
isn't good enough if people don't think they have it or they don't recognize they have it.
00:08:14.300
And I think there are situations in which that's already the case.
00:08:18.480
And I think we may disagree about some of that as well.
00:08:21.320
I'm looking forward to hitting these points, but let's start with your book.
00:08:35.400
I tend to use it mostly with regard to second wave because it's become a descriptor.
00:08:39.460
But the way it's used casually is first wave feminism is the sort of suffrage movement,
00:08:46.880
It's coming out of the abolition movement and women who are involved in the abolition
00:08:51.100
movement and some men, including Frederick Douglass, who begin to understand the problems
00:08:55.420
of enfranchisement and full citizenship, you know, fighting for the abolition of slavery,
00:09:02.100
understanding also that the franchise, and this is something Frederick Douglass would later
00:09:05.560
write about with regard to Elizabeth Cady Stanton, that the franchise for women was key.
00:09:09.980
And so the suffrage movement in the form that took it from the 1830s, when the first suffrage
00:09:16.200
meetings came out of the abolition movement through 1848, which was the year of the Seneca
00:09:21.600
Falls Convention and the writing of the Declaration of Sentiments, which riffed on the Declaration
00:09:26.420
of Independence, calling for gender equality and actually calling out all the ways that women
00:09:32.500
have been made dependent on men, moves through the Civil War and the abolition of slavery.
00:09:37.720
And then there is an enormous split within the suffrage movement that turns on real racism.
00:09:44.040
The fury of these allies who'd come together and work together, but when Black men but no
00:09:52.300
women were offered citizenship and the franchise in the wake of abolition, some of the white
00:09:58.300
women, including some of the leaders of the suffrage movement, notably Elizabeth Cady Stanton
00:10:02.160
and Susan B. Anthony, the racism, which has presumably long undergirded even a lot of their progressive
00:10:08.680
activism, they express fury at the idea that Black men would go ahead of them and become enfranchised
00:10:14.240
and they would not. And this finds really racist expressions. Susan B. Anthony writes about the
00:10:20.360
indignity of having Hans and Ungtung vote before, be able to vote and wield kind of electoral power over
00:10:28.800
educated white women like herself and Lucretia Mott is very, very ugly. And that split lasts
00:10:36.020
decades. The groups break into two different, of suffragists break into two different factions,
00:10:43.380
two different organizations. And they do eventually come together. But in fact, a lot of that maneuvering
00:10:49.980
of white supremacy within the campaign to get white women the vote, I mean, it is officially the campaign
00:10:56.440
to get women the vote, is based on an argument that white women's votes, which would be in support of
00:11:03.580
their husband's politics, would cancel out the votes of African-Americans. That's, you know, a lot of the
00:11:09.660
principle in portions of that movement. Even up until, you know, the year of his death, Susan B.
00:11:17.880
Anthony and Frederick Douglass, who are very, very close friends and allies, even through these,
00:11:22.660
some of these horrible splits. You know, she asked him not to come to a suffrage meeting. He remained
00:11:27.980
dedicated to the cause of suffrage throughout his life. She asked him not to come to a suffrage
00:11:31.580
meeting in the South because she was, she didn't want the presence of an African-American, a former
00:11:37.040
slave, to undercut the message that she was sending to white women. The 1913 suffrage parade in
00:11:42.740
Washington, black women were asked to march at the end of the parade. Ida B. Wells insisted on marching
00:11:48.240
with her state's delegation. And so there's one moment of culmination, which is the passage and
00:11:54.120
ratification of the 19th Amendment, which officially guarantees women the right to vote. But of course,
00:11:59.100
it did not apply to black women or at that point, black men in the Jim Crow South. But at that point,
00:12:05.140
up to 1920, you're looking at almost 90 years worth of a movement that has gone through many stages.
00:12:12.020
And that is the thing that's sort of traditionally referred to as first wave. But it's very hard for me to
00:12:16.460
imagine it as a wave because it was almost a century and many of the women who were behind
00:12:21.120
the work of it lived and died without ever seeing any of their work come to fruition. And then,
00:12:26.140
of course, it's another 45 years before the passage of the Voting Rights Act, which theoretically
00:12:30.500
guarantees full enfranchisement for African-Americans as well. So the project of getting that full
00:12:36.200
enfranchisement that the franchise that was sort of conceived of in the 1830s and 1840s by abolitionists
00:12:41.380
and suffragists, that takes, you know, more than a century. So it's very hard for me to conceive of
00:12:46.800
that as a wave. The second wave is something that erupts in a kind of mass way in the 1960s,
00:12:53.880
in part in the wake of the publication of Betty Friedan's Feminine Mystique, and then bubbles and
00:12:59.160
becomes sort of more radical and becomes more tuned to doing the legal and political work of fighting to
00:13:06.220
make new rules in the 1970s. And it sort of hits its height in the 1970s and results in all kinds of
00:13:12.920
changes around hiring practices, professional discrimination, gender discrimination within
00:13:18.160
workplaces, the reimagining of women's educational potential, the admittance of women into colleges and
00:13:25.380
new professions, sexual liberation, the protection of women's reproductive autonomy. There are all these
00:13:30.840
sort of legal and policy changes that are made during that period. Now, that altogether is a fairly
00:13:36.840
short eruption of a women's movement, you know, pretty much within about 20 years. And so to me,
00:13:44.400
second wave is a much more specific. It was kind of a wave. It was a thing that happened
00:13:48.640
in an amount of time we can kind of wrap our heads around. And so I do use the term second wave,
00:13:54.520
but I don't love waves in general, because then it's like, when's the third wave? When's the fourth
00:13:58.400
wave? And that's all, that's far less distinct. So no one's talking about Me Too as third wave
00:14:04.140
feminism? I think there are, but there were third, this is why waves aren't always totally useful.
00:14:08.960
There was a group of women who in the 90s called themselves third wave. They, they wanted to give,
00:14:14.840
they, they were bringing forth what they felt was a new generation of feminism. Rebecca Walker,
00:14:20.260
Jennifer Baumgartner, they wrote a book called third wave. But then there was a sort of sense
00:14:28.120
that slut walks, which really erupted far more recently was a third wave. The, the sort of
00:14:34.540
eruption of a, of a feminist internet, a feminist media, which happened, you know, in the years sort
00:14:39.160
of around 2004, 2005, was that the third wave of feminism? One of the problems with waves is that
00:14:44.300
you're always kind of looking to see when's the next wave starting. And often social movements
00:14:47.800
aren't really discernible as contiguous projects until they're over. And you're looking at them in
00:14:52.060
retrospect or until they've paused, because again, many of them have gone on not just for decades,
00:14:57.280
but for centuries. And you're able to sort of see more clearly in retrospect, the, the path and
00:15:03.400
pattern that they took. So that is one of the reasons that I tend not to use wave language to
00:15:08.440
describe every iteration of a, of a women's movement. I do think that the period that we're in
00:15:13.840
is an eruption that depending on what happens moving forward, we may look back on as, you know,
00:15:22.220
the moment of commencement or perhaps a peak of what I hope will be a movement to alter gender
00:15:34.220
And Me Too, as a hashtag, is not that recent. Isn't it like 10 or 12 years old?
00:15:40.680
Well, it wasn't a hashtag. In 2006, Tarana Burke founded the Me Too movement.
00:15:44.920
It was specifically aimed to make clear the ubiquity of, of sexual assault, sexual violence,
00:15:56.000
and especially in communities for women and girls of color. And that was in 2006. Now,
00:16:03.040
the term Me Too was appropriated in October of 2017 in the weeks after the publication of the stories
00:16:11.660
about Harvey Weinstein's predatory, violent, predatory behavior against so many women.
00:16:17.480
And I believe it was the actress Alyssa Milano who maybe first used the hashtag Me Too as a way
00:16:26.600
to try to get personal narratives of having experienced sexual assault or harassment, you know,
00:16:35.580
on the internet. And she very quickly, I think, was told about, you know, in some cases,
00:16:41.180
his appropriation of the work of those who've come before and have had less power, you know,
00:16:47.940
can be unconscious or something that they haven't learned. And Alyssa Milano was told about Tarana
00:16:52.940
Burke and learned about Tarana Burke's leadership and very quickly made sure that everybody, that she
00:16:59.820
was very public in saying, look, this is actually work that was pioneered by and led by Tarana Burke,
00:17:05.000
who should be leading us now. And so it is now better understood that the hashtag Me Too movement
00:17:11.100
is a descendant, comes out of Tarana Burke's movement, which she is still leading. I would say
00:17:19.300
that the hashtag Me Too movement, it is in part in response to the stories of not women and girls of
00:17:27.300
color, but in many cases, the origins of it were with stories being told by very powerful white women,
00:17:34.660
actresses and performers who've made some of the first allegations against Harvey Weinstein.
00:17:40.700
And also, under the umbrella of the hashtag Me Too movement, the conversation has broadened to not
00:17:47.680
just be about sexual violence and assault, but about workplace harassment and discrimination.
00:17:53.000
Right, right. I think one place to start here is just with the mental state of anger,
00:17:58.660
which you defend really at great length throughout your book. We all have this sense that anger is an
00:18:06.500
unreliable guide to action. I mean, obviously, it can get you started doing something, but I think many of us
00:18:14.120
worry that, you know, it's often not informed by a lot of wisdom or careful thinking and is just by its
00:18:23.460
very nature hostile to those things. I think you start your book with a reference to the philosopher
00:18:30.300
Martha Nussbaum, who's written about the disutility of anger. And I must say, I share that bias. It's not
00:18:39.000
to say that I haven't found anger useful, but I feel that I've experienced its limitations just as a
00:18:46.240
source of creative urgency. And I do perceive it a little differently than I think you do in public.
00:18:55.580
Because one point you make repeatedly in the book is that anger tends to look great on men and terrible
00:19:02.160
on women, and that this reveals a double standard that we have that we shouldn't have. And the examples
00:19:09.000
you use of it looking great on men, I just don't perceive the men that way. I mean, I think, you know,
00:19:15.300
for instance, like, you know, Kavanaugh, I think it was in some of your press, you talk about his anger
00:19:21.300
working for him, but Blossie Ford was just totally measured. And had she erupted in anger, it would
00:19:27.660
have been a disaster. But I mean, I just thought Kavanaugh's anger looked terrible and almost derailed
00:19:33.640
him. And, you know, I thought Lindsey Graham's anger looked just, I mean, he became this absolutely
00:19:39.480
repellent character the moment he erupted in an arguably totally disingenuous way. And I mean,
00:19:46.760
conversely, the video of the women getting both angry and upset in other registers with Jeff Flake
00:19:55.180
and the elevator, that played very well for those women. I mean, I thought that worked. And it wouldn't
00:19:59.880
have worked, frankly, for a man. Had Jeff Flake been cornered in an elevator by angry men,
00:20:05.080
and the threat of violence would have been so salient that it just would have seemed totally
00:20:10.900
uncivil. I view anger a little differently here. I just put that out to you. I don't actually think
00:20:14.980
you do. I don't think your points, your points actually echo some of the things that I have
00:20:19.440
been saying. In my, again, the book doesn't deal with Kavanaugh because it was published just a few
00:20:25.020
days after Christine Blossie Ford's testimony. And one of the things I've been remarking on
00:20:29.920
is pretty close to what you just said, that in this particular political moment, where in fact,
00:20:37.200
we are adjusting our ears and eyes to broader ranges of expression from a broader range of
00:20:44.280
people, it's a long process, that the example of the two different kinds of anger, the people
00:20:50.760
speaking to the Judiciary Committee, to the powerful people in the room, and specifically to the Republicans
00:20:55.960
on the Judiciary Committee, who are the ones who had the power in that instance, were very traditional
00:20:59.880
forms of anger. We knew that Christine Blossie Ford could not be angry because it would have
00:21:03.960
undercut her point, right? And one of the things I've been saying is that Kavanaugh could, as a
00:21:10.380
powerful white man, and this has to do with who's presumed to be irrational to begin with. You were
00:21:15.140
describing how you view anger as fundamentally unstable in some way. Women begin with a presumption that
00:21:22.160
there's something emotional or irrational in them. You know, this is attached to notions of what
00:21:27.980
femininity entails. And white men in particular are presumed to begin with a measure of rationality,
00:21:35.140
right? They are normative citizens, are normative leaders, are normative human beings, are white men
00:21:39.920
in the popular consciousness and politics. And so historically, their expression, women's expression
00:21:45.680
of anger only serves to amplify the notion that she is fundamentally unstable or irrational, that she
00:21:50.720
shouldn't be believed, that this is coming out of a place of instability and therefore sort of
00:21:55.680
unreliable or not credible. Whereas for men, the expression of anger can amplify their rationality to
00:22:01.840
show that they're extra passionate about whatever it is they're presumed to be telling you information
00:22:06.680
about. And when I first saw that night, when I went home after the testimony, based on these
00:22:12.800
presumptions of how anger can work for a man like Brett Kavanaugh, but would never have worked for
00:22:17.500
Christine Blasey Ford, I felt like, oh my God, it's over. He's going to be, this is going to work
00:22:23.140
in his favor. It is going to be what the committee needs. And based on Lindsey Graham's own response,
00:22:27.860
I felt like it's clearly what the committee wanted to see, what the powerful people who are going to
00:22:32.000
make this decision, the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, you know, the president to the degree that
00:22:38.040
he has power over his party. It's going to please them. And I felt like it did. But then there were
00:22:44.580
these days where some things happened that showed me that things were changing a little bit. That
00:22:49.800
anger, which I agree with you, I saw it as fucking irrational. And all the things, all the attributes
00:22:55.500
that people historically have tied to women's anger, I thought it was infantile, tantrum, hysterical.
00:23:03.220
To me, it was completely out of place. It was deeply irrational, Kavanaugh's expressions of
00:23:07.980
anger. He looked like a fool. But the thing that I felt was that for the powerful people he was
00:23:12.900
addressing, moving up, you know, up in power, the people who are going to make the decision about
00:23:16.980
his lifetime appointment, it would be effective. But then there was, it turned out after, you know,
00:23:22.520
people thought about it for 12 hours, that it was kind of mocked Saturn in it live, mocked it in a
00:23:28.660
way that matched the way that I'd seen it and that you just said that you saw it, you know?
00:23:33.420
As funny, as undermining, as, you know. And I thought, oh my God, this is interesting because
00:23:40.060
this tells me that there's something in how we're receiving this powerful white man's anger
00:23:44.660
that is different from how, from what historical models would tell us. And at the same time,
00:23:50.940
Ana Maria Archila and Maria Gallagher yelling in that elevator was so powerful for so many people.
00:23:57.000
Now, I would argue, and did then, that in part, that anger was powerful because it was communicative
00:24:04.620
and connective and expressive for millions of people who didn't have power in that instance,
00:24:10.000
who were not on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who were not powerful members of the Republican
00:24:13.500
Party in the position of deciding how they were going to vote. That anger was the expression of and
00:24:19.540
cathartic and communicative, you know, for so many people who weren't in that elevator,
00:24:25.020
who weren't in that Senate chamber, and that that was a power that is key to some, to the potential
00:24:31.020
social and political power of a mass movement that is looking for people to give voice to their
00:24:37.280
frustration and their dissent. And that's part of why those women in the elevator played such a
00:24:42.780
powerful role. But what was the result? The result was that his anger did do what it needed to do
00:24:51.740
for the powerful people who were able to make the decision. And they made very clear that that
00:24:57.100
anger, which was designed to amplify the point that he had been wronged, was the communicative force
00:25:03.560
that was going to undercut their assertions that he'd been wronged. These are the Republicans who
00:25:07.760
have since talked about how he was the victim of a mob, how he was, we feel, you know, Donald Trump
00:25:12.920
saying I feel so sorry for his family. That is all, all of those are cues that came out of his angry
00:25:21.620
display on his own behalf. So you, I agree with you that the sort of precarity with which I felt
00:25:27.940
for a couple days his anger might not have worked for him was symptomatic to me of the fact that we
00:25:34.420
are in the process of hearing different people's anger differently. And I agree. But ultimately,
00:25:40.900
it served its purpose, which was to persuade the people who had the power to appoint him to the
00:25:48.780
Supreme Court of the United States to do so, and then to take his angry model for what had happened
00:25:54.320
to him and repeat it to the world and affirm that as the story of what had happened, which was that
00:26:00.160
Brett Kavanaugh had been attacked and that it was his anger that was righteous in the end. And those who
00:26:05.520
had stood in the way of his further accumulation of power had aggressed upon him.
00:26:11.600
I wonder if there's a difference in the way feminine anger can play on both sides of the aisle
00:26:18.000
politically. So I'm thinking of Sarah Palin, who, I don't know that she actually ever communicated
00:26:24.840
raw anger, but she was definitely put forward. I'm thinking of her appearance at the Republican
00:26:30.520
National Convention. This is before she had been discredited in all those sit-down interviews
00:26:36.720
with people like Katie Couric. But it was really the apogee of her political fame. And I remember
00:26:44.080
being, frankly, terrified by that performance because I thought it was so good and effective
00:26:48.840
for her crowd. I mean, I thought this is how right-wing Christian theocracy starts. But one thing that was
00:26:56.360
interesting to spectate on there is that, especially in light of what we're talking about, is that there
00:27:02.860
seemed to be an immense hunger for a woman in that role to take a very hard swing at the left and
00:27:13.840
communicate a wrathful, triumphant, but feminine war cry against liberalism and everything else that she
00:27:22.700
was castigating. Is that not in any way a counterpoint to this perception that women can never
00:27:31.080
No. The way that they are encouraged to strike it has always been when they are striking it
00:27:36.400
fundamentally in defense of white patriarchal power, which is what Sarah Palin was doing. It's what
00:27:41.420
Phyllis Schlafly was doing. It's what the angry women who opposed school segregation in the South,
00:27:47.040
This is one of the only ways in which women's anger and ferocity on a public stage is, in fact,
00:27:54.680
fetishized by the powerful. Because if it is on behalf of that power, and in fact, a power that,
00:28:01.200
you know, via its policy and ideology seeks to subjugate or oppress women, it's very useful to
00:28:06.380
have a woman going out there and making the case for it. And you'll note that the way they make the
00:28:10.460
case for it, Sarah Palin's anger was always expressed in maternal terms, which hearkened back to the
00:28:15.760
traditional valuation of a traditional white femininity as a mother. So she was the pitbull
00:28:21.460
hockey mom. And she led the Mama Grizzlies during the Tea Party move, which was a hard right move for
00:28:28.360
the Republican Party, rooted in an enormous amount of misogyny. And so much of what drove the Tea Party
00:28:33.480
once in Congress was, you know, shutting down Planned Parenthood. And Sarah Palin gave, you know,
00:28:39.220
ferocious voice to this right-wing faction. But she did it using terms and, you know, in a style that
00:28:49.460
affirmed her as she wasn't threatening the power structure. Women who are angry on behalf of left
00:28:55.680
politics and left policy that aims to alter who has power in this country are inherently a threat,
00:29:03.280
and thus their anger is immediately marginalized and vilified. Whereas women whose anger is on
00:29:09.680
behalf of a power structure are very valuable to that power structure. There are rewards on offer
00:29:14.480
to them. There are vice presidencies on offer to them. You know, Phyllis Schlafly wrote a book called,
00:29:20.780
in her, she led an army of angry white women, angry about the alterations to a patriarchal power
00:29:28.340
structure that had been made by those feminists in this during the second wave. She led an army
00:29:34.100
of women who were angry about those changed rules and expectations and opportunities in an incredibly
00:29:39.960
successful, incredibly canny, tactically brilliant move against the ratification of the ERA. And she
00:29:47.560
won in 1982. And in doing so, she and that army are the ones who dealt that second wave feminism,
00:29:55.240
its kind of symbolic final blow. And she did that while angry, but also her book was The Power of
00:30:02.920
the Positive Woman. And if you listen to people who worked with Phyllis Schlafly, she, you know,
00:30:07.180
said we always had to smile. You know, we were doing this with smiles on our faces, again, kind of
00:30:12.600
reaffirming. And she herself, as a woman who was constantly out on the road, was also affirming the
00:30:17.520
values of traditional stay-at-home maternity, right? This was the figure that she embodied. And if you're
00:30:24.440
embodying that figure, if you're embodying that figure of the woman who is valued on traditional
00:30:31.440
patriarchal scales, and your anger is on behalf of those traditional patriarchal powers, then that
00:30:39.680
anger is not going to be viewed or treated as the same kind of threat to that power as if you're
00:30:45.180
Flo Kennedy or Fannie Lou Hamer or Bella Abzug or Hillary Clinton.
00:30:52.440
All right. So you mentioned a Clinton. I want to talk about both Clintons, because I think
00:30:56.620
so much of the current moment can be interpreted in light of their influence. But let's start with
00:31:04.660
Bill Clinton, because it seems to me that he hangs over the whole Me Too moment, like some kind of
00:31:11.540
toxic waste that you keep finding where you don't expect to find it. He's the quintessential example
00:31:17.500
of the problem, right? So you're talking about male entitlement and bad behavior. He checks all
00:31:23.480
those boxes. Whatever you want to say about Donald Trump in that area, Bill Clinton can ride alongside
00:31:29.440
him all the way. And some of the leading feminists of the time proved, I don't think hypocrites is too
00:31:37.260
strong a word to describe how they took his side against his legitimate accusers. And to some degree,
00:31:45.860
this continues to this day, although I think opinions are probably changing quickly.
00:31:50.560
It does continue to this day in the sense that, I mean, I know Monica, I don't know her well,
00:31:55.120
but we've met a few times. And I noticed in the news probably not more than a year ago that she got
00:32:01.800
disinvited at a conference that she'd been asked to speak at because then they've later secured Bill
00:32:07.080
Clinton. They didn't want to put Bill in an awkward situation.
00:32:13.120
But that's different from leading feminists supporting Bill Clinton, which is part of what
00:32:17.040
was happening in the 90s that you're pointing to. Let's say that, you know, I think it was a
00:32:20.020
magazine. You know, they're very different scales of the kind of thing you're talking about,
00:32:26.000
Let me just add one more piece here, Rebecca. The response to him
00:32:29.120
was certainly problematic from a feminist point of view. And most consequentially, in the 2016
00:32:37.880
election, because of how Hillary had played that political moment when she was first lady and
00:32:45.040
defending her Lothario husband from, you know, all of his legitimate accusers, I mean, she had,
00:32:51.760
you know, I don't think this is debatable. I mean, she had bullied these women. She had lied about,
00:32:56.860
you know, or certainly seemed to have lied about things she must have known were true.
00:33:01.400
And in large measure, this is, I mean, I think her failure to become president was probably
00:33:06.500
overdetermined. But this has got to be one of the reasons why she's not president. Because,
00:33:11.640
I mean, at that moment in that debate with Trump, where she was there on the stage going up against
00:33:18.500
one of the most unethical people on earth. And she couldn't make a peep about it because of how badly
00:33:26.040
her husband had behaved and how badly she had behaved in defending him. You know, to some degree,
00:33:32.980
we have to perform an exorcism on the Clintons to get to a reset with respect to the current moment
00:33:40.960
politically. Sure. I think that we have to perform an exorcism on a lot of, you know, we have to
00:33:47.420
perform an exorcism on the way patriarchal power has left, again, systemically women dependent on
00:33:54.320
men in all kinds of ways. So not just as husbands, but as leaders of political parties, as, you know,
00:34:01.840
part of what happened. I very much agree with a portion of what you, the story you just told,
00:34:06.540
right? So the way that I have long understood what happened during Bill Clinton's administration
00:34:13.060
with regard to the, you know, and for me, the big way in which it was deeply problematic from a
00:34:21.200
feminist point of view is that Bill Clinton gets elected the year after Anita Hill's testimony.
00:34:27.780
And Anita Hill's testimony against Clarence Thomas is such an important point in feminist history.
00:34:33.080
It's coming. It is coming on the heels of the 1986 Supreme Court decision that finds sexual
00:34:38.160
harassment in the workplace to be a form of sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights
00:34:43.460
Act. This is after more than a decade in the courts, you know, starting in the mid-70s where women of
00:34:49.400
color filed some of the first suits, Michelle Vinson, Carmina Wood, about sexual harassment they'd
00:34:54.580
sustain in the workplace. They're borrowing from civil rights laws and discrimination law that's just
00:34:59.220
been made in the wake of the civil rights movement, applying it to their own harassment,
00:35:02.760
within their workplaces. Those cases work their way up through the court. In 1986, you have the
00:35:09.180
Supreme Court decision. And then five years later, Anita Hill testifies. And the power of Anita Hill's
00:35:15.800
testimony on our view of gendered and racial power in this country was enormous. And we know one version
00:35:23.800
of it, which is that the next year, after a view of the whiteness and the maleness of the Senate
00:35:30.540
Judiciary Committee, then on both sides of the aisle, right, Democrats and Republicans who just had
00:35:35.940
white men listening to and treating this woman of color with disrespect, scorn, disbelief, that view of
00:35:47.220
our representative and governing body, you know, was part of what enraged a generation of women,
00:35:56.500
what propelled a lot of them to seek elected office the next year. We got the year of the woman.
00:36:00.940
In retrospect, it seems very small, but in fact, it was four women elected to the Senate, including the
00:36:06.140
first African-American woman ever elected to the Senate in the history of the country, Carol Moseley
00:36:10.660
Brown. You can draw direct lines. You know, Carol Moseley Brown held a seat that later Barack Obama
00:36:15.060
held. He later became our first black president. It was the year that Dianne Feinstein was elected.
00:36:20.020
She, of course, was the ranking Democrat during the Kavanaugh hearings on a Senate Judiciary Committee.
00:36:24.760
You know, Barbara Boxer was elected. Kamala Harris now holds Barbara Boxer's seat. Kamala Harris was on
00:36:29.460
the Senate Judiciary Committee. Patty Murray, who has talked sort of most vocally about how anger at the
00:36:35.280
Hill hearings in part motivated her run for the Senate. You know, this was a this was a change with long
00:36:40.700
lasting effect. I would also say that it was the cusp of sort of hammering home what sexual harassment
00:36:48.200
meant, what it was, what it entailed, how it was a form of discrimination which had been decided by
00:36:55.820
the Supreme Court but hadn't really been made clear. It was a form of power abuse, of gendered and sexual
00:37:01.280
power abuse. And that conversation was really crucial. And then the next year we elected a
00:37:11.080
president who was the first Democratic president in 12 years and on whom all kinds of people on the
00:37:17.200
left, on the Democratic side, however you want to describe the politics at the time, were dependent.
00:37:23.940
He was it had been 12 years of Reagan and Bush. And here was the guy who was our first Democratic
00:37:29.500
president. And his behavior was in line with old expectations and mores about how men behaved with
00:37:38.940
regard to women. Right. This is part of look, Ted Kennedy during the Anita Hill hearings was also
00:37:44.700
silenced in part because of his history. Yeah. Or did his nephew, wasn't his nephew being
00:37:50.320
prosecuted for rape? His nephew was on trial, I believe, at the exact same time as the Hill hearings
00:37:54.320
for rape. And Ted Kennedy himself, of course, had left a woman to die in Chappaquiddick and had a
00:37:59.520
terrible reputation for womanizing. So many of our leaders left and right. I mean, this was part of
00:38:03.800
the association of male sexual power and power abuse with public and political power is really deep and
00:38:09.900
long lasting. Bill Clinton happened to become president at a time exactly post Anita Hill hearings
00:38:15.460
when those when our expectations and the rules were changing and that was being hammered home to us.
00:38:20.580
That was I mean, this is a man, you know, who had he served as president 20 years earlier,
00:38:26.300
probably wouldn't have been called out for any of this behavior because it was presumed to be part
00:38:31.440
of how power worked and how patriarchal power worked. As it was, he was called out. And many of the people
00:38:41.520
who, including some prominent feminists now, some feminists, I want to point out,
00:38:46.000
Andrea Dworkin was incredibly critical of Bill Clinton, right? There were feminists who were
00:38:50.220
furious and who were very clear that Bill Clinton had abused power in his relationship with Monica
00:38:57.240
Lewinsky. And there were feminists who believed the other women who told stories about him. But many
00:39:03.380
mainstream feminists did defend him. And part of how we get there is looking at these these the
00:39:09.540
realities of dependency when you have men who have white men who have disproportionate shares of power,
00:39:14.500
including political power, so that they are disproportionately the leaders of their party.
00:39:19.620
If you'd like to continue listening to this conversation, you'll need to subscribe at
00:39:23.560
samharris.org. Once you do, you'll get access to all full length episodes of the Making Sense podcast,
00:39:29.240
along with other subscriber only content, including bonus episodes and AMAs and the conversations I've
00:39:35.200
been having on the Waking Up app. The Making Sense podcast is ad free and relies entirely on listener
00:39:40.740
support. And you can subscribe now at samharris.org.