At the peak of the Me Too movement, “believe women” became a rallying cry. The message was simple: Our default reaction when a woman comes forward with allegations of harassment or abuse should be to believe them. I stand by that idea. Statistically, it’s more likely that a woman is telling the truth, which makes believing what she says—or at least not disbelieving her—the most logical, reasonable, and compassionate response to allegations.
However, like many catchy sayings, “believe women” can be oversimplified, not just by detractors but by supporters as well. I’ve recently seen it simplified and clung to by fellow feminists in a way that doesn’t actually serve women. When we shift believing women from a default response to a dogmatic rule, it actually dehumanizes women, making it wholly counterproductive to the goals it’s supposed to support.
Let’s be clear about what ‘believe women’ was meant to do
Believing women as the default doesn’t mean believing every woman in every instance, regardless of the circumstances. And it certainly doesn’t mean continuing to believe a woman’s version of a story when actual evidence to the contrary comes to light.
The reason for “believe women” is that the automatic response has historically been not to believe women. Too often, women’s feelings have been brushed off as an overreaction, and their experiences get diminished or doubted. Automatically assuming women are lying or exaggerating when they come forward with allegations of harassment or abuse is wrong.
But “believe women” is really about numbers, not the inherent nature of women. According to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, the research puts false sexual violence allegations at somewhere between 2% and 10%. Those numbers are likely inflated because of inconsistent criteria, but they’re what we have to work with. Even if we take those percentages at face value, false accusations are far rarer than real ones, which is why it makes sense to believe women who come forward with allegations.
But rare doesn’t mean never, and that’s where turning “believe women” into dogma becomes a problem.
Real-life examples of what I’m talking about
A couple I know were going through an ugly divorce. One night, the police showed up at the husband’s door and said the estranged wife had told them he’d threatened her with a shotgun. Of course, the police had to investigate the allegation. The default response should be to take the allegation seriously and not assume the woman was making it up.
However, I knew both of these people well. The husband has never owned a shotgun, or any kind of gun for that matter, and wasn’t someone who would ever make a threat like that. The woman genuinely dealt with a mental health disorder that caused delusions. The police determined that the threat wasn’t real, but an oversimplified version of “believe women” would hold her story up as true when all we have is he said/she said. Statistically, believing her makes sense. But every case has its own reality that needs to be taken as a whole.
I also know a man who was publicly accused of and taken to court for sexual harassment. Evidence in the case made it clear that the woman accusing him misrepresented, mischaracterized, and exaggerated real-life events to paint them as something they weren’t and blatantly lied about other events. In the end, the man was not found liable for any of her accusations, and the evidence showed that she herself was a bully. And yet I have seen people use “believe women” in defense of the woman, continuing to vilify the man despite a spate of evidence that disproved her narrative. That’s not equality, that’s injustice.
Again, every case has its own reality. Believe women (or any alleged victim) should be the initial, default response in the absence of any other information. But that initial response is where the generalization ends, and investigation of the individual situation begins.
How a well-intentioned idea can end up dehumanizing women
I know some will say, “‘Believe women’ never meant ‘believe all women!’” But I’ve seen people speak of “believe women” as if it’s a commandment never to be broken, with some explicitly saying they mean all women. As a woman, that doesn’t sit well with me.
The goal of feminism is the equality of women and men. Full equality requires acknowledging the full humanity of both men and women, which includes both the positive and negative qualities of being human. When we only accept women as victims and refuse to believe women can be villains, we place women into a smaller box than full humanity demands.
Women can lie, exaggerate, manipulate, misrepresent reality, and otherwise be dishonest. Women can be narcissists who engage in gaslighting and DARVO (Deny, Accuse, Reverse Victim and Offender) tactics. We can make things up and gather flying monkeys to destroy another person. Most women don’t do those things, but we are perfectly capable of it. We can be bullies, predators, abusers. Men are perpetrators more often, but that doesn’t mean women never are.
When we refuse to acknowledge that fact, we risk painting a damsel-in-distress caricature of every woman who comes forward with allegations. That’s not equality, nor is it feminism. That’s patriarchy dressed in different clothing.
Believing women is simply about giving women the benefit of the doubt as a default, first response. It doesn’t mean believing that a woman would never make dishonest allegations. And it definitely doesn’t mean continuing to believe them no matter what evidence comes to light. That kind of denial only hurts women in the long run, painting us with too narrow a brush and glossing over the full range of what we’re capable of, good and bad.
