Lawfare Daily: Misogyny and Violent Extremism with Cynthia Miller-Idriss

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act turns 40 this year, and it's showing its age. On Friday, March 6th, Lawfare and Georgetown Law are bringing together leading scholars, practitioners, and former government officials for Installing Updates to ECPA, a half-day event on what's broken with the statute and how to fix it. The event is free and open to the public, in person and online. We get it. Making tax digital can sometimes feel daunting, but with Zeroo's HMRC Recognize software, you quickly get to feeling confident. If you're a sole trader or landlord whose income tax is going digital, not only is Zeroo MTD ready, it also gives you better control of your finances, like having the clear financial visibility you need every quarter to avoid end-of-year tax surprises. Change the way you see MTD. Search MTD Ready with Zeroo. Chicago, 2011. A cop is murdered. Police and prosecutors swear they have the trigger man. He swears he didn't do it. How far will each side go to prove their right? Like it's just one bombshell after another, you know, where you're like, what? The story of a PlayStation, a brain-eating amoeba, and the relentless pursuit of justice. Off-duty, out now. Listen wherever you get your podcasts. There are these connections that creates a kind of culture in a community online that is, even if the targets don't end up being women, can also foment and foster violence. And that is pretty well documented in the field. It's really oriented around punishing women for not giving these men what they think they are entitled to. It's the Lawfare Podcast. I'm Daniel Byman, the foreign policy editor of Lawfare, with Cynthia Miller Idris, a professor at American University and the author of Man Up, the New Misogyny and the Rise of Violent Extremism. It's not just men, not just some men who do this, but also women. And women have played a big role in policing boys and also in policing girls with gendered norms and expectations. And then in sometimes promoting and sustaining misogynist systems and white supremacist ones, including in violent ways. Today we're talking about her book and how understanding and exploring different forms of misogyny is vital for understanding violence today. I want to kind of start with what I feel was perhaps most interesting as a reader on this book is that I found it was both familiar and novel. Like most of what I was reading about was like, yeah, I read about that or yeah, I kind of knew about that. But you're taking what I always thought of as very separate events and separate problems and helping me see them through a lens that mixes misogyny and mass shootings and violence. Can you tell me a little bit first of all about why you decided to write this book? Yeah, great question. And I love that you had that experience because it's sort of one of my goals of the way that I wrote the book was I was hoping that people would recognize what I was talking about, but maybe had not yet reflected on it. And that was that sort of experience of, aha, you're right, like this felt so familiar and it should feel familiar to people because I'm not, in many ways, I'm just, I'm putting together things that many other people have said for many years in the domestic and intimate partner violence space. A lot of black feminists have pointed out the intersections of white supremacy and misogyny or sexism, for example, and had had had that experience themselves so much. And so it's not that things I'm saying are new, but they haven't really been heard on the side of the field that I spend most of my time on in national security and prevention. So I wrote the book in part because it started to become glaringly obvious to me. And this is my fourth soul authored book. It's my seventh book overall. I've been in the field for 25 years. I've spent my whole career interviewing boys and men in and around violent scenes. And I had never done, I had never really acknowledged this or seen it even. And so, you know, when I talk about the field having blind spots, I'm part of those blind spots. Like I fully acknowledge that even as a woman, not seeing these connections between gendered violence, misogyny, domestic and intimate partner violence and the histories of perpetrators, relationships with women, especially and the LGBTQ community have just been ignored or not seen or not paid attention to enough. And I think I, it was really around the time of Gretchen Whitmer's kidnapping plot. And the book was originally called Just Grab the Bitch. That's how it went in. It went all the way almost to publication, but the marketing department really dinged it. And I think they were probably right. Maybe, and I'm going to interrupt for a sec. This is reference to the attempted kidnapping of Governor Whitmer in, I forgot which year, I'm sorry. 2020. Yeah, it was during the pandemic. So it was the fall of 2020. And, you know, I remember it so well because I was in isolation, you know, we had decamped to a rental house outside the city and was fielding these sort of interview requests from journalists walking around on the front lawn outside in isolation from everybody else. And they would always ask, like, is there anything that I haven't asked at the end of that interview? And I'd say, like, well, we could maybe talk about the misogyny, you know, that was so present in the way they, the militia members were using language, you know, describing what they would do to her, describing, you know, her as a tyrant bitch. And it just, it really didn't register with most of the bookers. And that, you know, with one exception for Reed Zechariah in the end asked me about it on camera. And we had a discussion at that time about the misogyny. And I thought that was really brave. And, and he was, you know, sort of out on the cutting edge of having that conversation. But still, then you kept seeing things like the Biden administration's new classification system after January 6 came out for domestic extremism that had a bunch of different categories. And in one column of that was something called all other extremisms. And it was everything related to gender, sexuality or religion, like it just didn't fit in the rest of their classification. And even though we were seeing really big increases in anti LGBTQ violence and misogyny and in cell violence, violent incels, which are involuntary celibates. And so it just, I thought if this is going to sit in all other, we can't even center it the same way that we could center race or even animal rights extremism or environmental extremism as an issue, we're just not going to get the kind of resources to attend to it or have hearings to talk about it or anything like that. So I sort of wrote the book to put it all together to help understand it myself, these different tactics and strategies of misogyny and how they play out in mobilization of violence. And thinking about maybe there's more upstream ways that we could prevent some of this on an interpersonal level before it escalates to mass violence. One sentence you had in the book that I really like is it's hard to see a problem for which there is no category. And you're giving us a category, I will say it, it complexifies all this because if I read your work correctly, it's not a category that excludes other categories. That's right. It's a connector category, really. It's like a, you know, it's a through line. It's a red thread that cuts across a lot of other types of extremisms across ideologies even. So, you know, and we actually acknowledge this pretty well when it comes to Islamist extremism, as I talk about in the book, there's a lot of public attention, global campaigns on the exploitation of women and the treatment of women by Islamist terrorists, whether you're talking about the Nigerian schoolgirls or the Yatsidi women or the use by al-Shabaab of forced marriage as a tactic of territorial control, right? Like these are the sexual violence perpetrated by Hamas. These are seen as operational financial recruitment tactics, right? Women given to recruits, promises of all the virgins in heaven, right? Like these, all of this stuff is so well acknowledged. There's a dozen reports just at the UN counterterrorism and the International Criminal Court alone talking about it. But we don't talk about it when it comes to domestic extremism or domestic terrorism. I even, and I'll say, there's a German edition of the book coming out. So I'm opening, there's a preface that I will open with this anecdote. I won't name where it was, but I was in a high-level briefing and globally in the fall on the book and there was German delegation there. And at the end, the high level, the highest person in the room from the German delegation said, well, we don't have this problem. And then said, you know, and besides, what are we supposed to do? Dismantle all of patriarchy, right? Like there is a real, even when you're kind of confronted with it, there can be a bit of a dismissal of like, this is just too entrenched. It's too much of a problem. And there's a lot of personal choice involved in patriarchy because women participated as well. There's a lot of, right? And so there's lots of different ways that this starts to come up against people's value systems too. But when you're talking about violence, misogynist violence, domestic intimate partner violence, being, you know, in the 60% of the histories of perpetrators and mass violence or some data point like that, that I talk about in the opening of the book, it's so incontrovertible that I wanted people to have to read it and say at the end of that first chapter, like there's no doubt that these things exist. The data is so clear. Now we can start to talk about what do we do about it, which is a much stickier question. I want to go into the different categories you identify in your book. But before I do that, one thing you note is that, you know, in general, the media doesn't acknowledge this. You talk about your experience with the plot against Governor Whitmer as one example. Do you have a sense of why? Because you would think actually this would be, you know, compelling for the media, right? You know, presumably half their readers or listeners are, you know, are women who might have a personal interest in this. Yeah, it's super interesting question. I mean, I thought about it a lot. I think there's one, I think it's just, it's so common. I mean, it's the same way I think, you know, the Evaldi, Texas shooter who attacked an elementary school was later found out to have been making persistent kidnapping and rape threats against teenage girls online. And when a journalist asked them why they had not reported it, one of the girls said, report it, you know, why would you report it? It's just how online is, right? I think that there is that kind of ethos for a lot of women in particular who see misogyny as the cost of doing business in the workplace or in, you know, you just, everybody has a handful of those stories in their pocket. And I use some of those stories to illustrate in the book, including in the opening, just the stuff that you just, and I have been really lucky that I haven't had to deal with, you know, so much that other women have had to deal with. But the things that women have told me in our field, after this book came out, are so much worse than the little anecdotes that I pepper throughout the book. And so I think, I think to some extent, women also dismiss it as just, you know, even what the defense attorneys in the Michigan case said, big talk are blowing off steam. I think that we also see it as a characteristic that illustrates how these are bad people, but not as a mobilizing factor. So I talked to Amy Spitalnik about this, who was, ran the organization that sued the neo-Nazis in Charlottesville. And she described the fact that at the trials, it came out that every single one of those defendants, and there were dozens of them, had a criminal history of domestic and intimate partner violence, including things like kidnapping their wives or sexual assault, I mean, just terrible things. And, but still that didn't come out, that didn't come out in the reporting of the trial, it never came out. It's just, and I found this in looking at affidavits too, it's sort of descriptors to tell you how bad these people are before you go on to talk about their actual crimes. And I think that's just, it's a real blind spot for the public, for the media, and for the field in general. I hope your book will be part of the change on this. At least now they'll have a go to person who has thought about this seriously. So you note in the book, you know, individual chapters are about each of these, about there are kind of five different approaches that are advancing different forms of male dominance through violence. And I want to kind of discuss, I hope each of these, if we have time. And the first one you talk about is containment. And can you kind of describe what containment is and how this shows up? Yeah, I wanted a chapter that would show how gateways work and how where you could have kind of opening entry points, if you will, to a way of thinking that allows for this kind of violence and power to be intersected both against women and LGBTQ folks in gendered ways, but also that can open up other beliefs, hierarchies of superiority and inferiority, racist white supremacist anti immigrant, etc. That might come out of that that same set of kind of hierarchies of superiority and inferiority. And because gender is one of the first social differences we ever come to see as human beings, right in the family and in our relationships in school, this containment is the is the chapter where I start to talk about these ordinary and everyday ways that women in particular and also LGBTQ folks are kind of talked about in ways that try to put them in their place. And I use a lot of anecdotes in the opening, because I started with an analysis of my own hate mail where I had realized that there was this really interesting pattern in the hate mail that I got after hating the homeland, my last book, when the male, you know, there was also sexualized stuff that happened. But when you get rid of that content, like the nasty content or the threats, a lot of what men in particular would write to me about used a language that involved movement, they wanted me to go somewhere, right, get back under the rock, go back in the shithole, jump off a bridge, you know, go rub your hands together elsewhere, right, there'd be all kinds of like other references or stop being front and center, you know, and a lot of it was about not wanting that, not wanting me to be front and center, not wanting and they want and I realized like, send them back and lock her up or get back in the kitchen or get back in the closet. These are all metaphors of containment. And a lot of slurs that are used, gendered slurs, which I also analyze in that chapter, are also metaphors of containment or trying to make women into animals, right, to dehumanize, to make them smaller, to make them less powerful. Bitch, even as a great example of that, it's like, or a castrating bitch, right, you're a masculating bitch, you're so unnaturally aggressive that you can only be compared to a dog, right, it's, it's, so I use that, all this ideas about containment, to think about how a culture and also the policing, I should say, the gender policing of boys in this way too, with homophobic slurs, you throw like a girl or you're sissy or you're a fag, right, all of that kind of language that says you're not doing your gender, right, either, right, you're doing your gender badly, you're not sufficiently masculine enough, you're not sufficiently manly enough. That's also fits within the category of what I call misogyny, which is the law enforcement arm of the patriarchy, it's not just hatred of women, it is a policing of expected norms and behaviors. And those who step out of line are contained with slurs, with words, with actions, with chants at a, you know, at a rally to send them back or lock her up. And that kind of creates a mindset that can lead to a sense that boys or men should be more dominant, and that might make them more vulnerable to some of the pathways I talk about later in that chapter that are ordinary ways, a self-help search or in-game chats and in gaming that have deeply misogynist and racist ideas peppered throughout or means short form videos that tell jokes about, you know, gendered ways of control and containment or arguing for more dominance and violence-oriented way of controlling women, including like Andrew Tate, for example, I talk about in that chapter. Let's go to kind of the much more obvious side of this, which is I think when I cracked open your book thought it was going to be primarily about this, which is, you know, what you call punishment and you discussed, for example, the incel movement. Yes. Talk us through that a bit. Yeah, I put that chapter deliberately in the center of the book, because I think it's the center of what the field already thinks about gender and misogyny, and it's the one area that is pretty well documented. There's a ton of especially doctoral students and younger scholars who are really interested in violent incels. I should say, you know, incels themselves, which is an abbreviation that stands for involuntary celibate, was originally a community created by a woman that was just to support other people who are somehow in a position of involuntarily being able to form intimate relationships or had no success dating, basically. And that it quickly became co-opted by more violent fringe of men who sometimes then refer to them as misogynist incels or violent incels who espouse a complete hatred of women for denying them the sexual attention, but also the kind of affection and love that they feel they are entitled to. So, you know, this is a kind of familiar within some countries, it's actually part of the domestic extremism spectrum seen as a true intersection in Canada and the UK and in Australia, you know, really treated as here not so much, it's addressed within the field, but it's not doesn't get the same kind of attention that something like neo-nazism has gotten or even environmental extremism has gotten, although that's changing. But, you know, we've seen attacks at a Santa Barbara sorority at a Tallahassee yoga studio, van attack in Toronto, but also, you know, a lot of attacks that don't get identified as incel attacks had some connection. So, the Parkland school shooter praised the incel shooter from the Santa Barbara sorority before he began his attack, right? We have a number of those, a lot of other school shootings and university shootings had incel references in Germany as well. One recent terrorist attack that targeted Jews and a Turkish restaurant, he was listening to a song that's known as the incel anthem, right, while he was trying to live stream that attack. So, you know, there are these connections that creates a kind of culture in a community online that is, even if the targets don't end up being women, can also foment and foster violence. And that is pretty well documented in the field. It's really oriented around punishing women for not giving these men what they think they are entitled to. The next category you talk about is exploitation. Yeah. And that to me was something I actually hadn't thought about in any serious way. And again, please talk to us. I hadn't really thought about it either, and I have to say this was the hardest chapter to write. It's still the hardest chapter to even think about. I thought it was just brutal. Once I started looking into it, it talks about both the disproportionate evidence that neo-Nazis and white supremacists are harboring child sexual abuse material on their computers, but also the 764 networks, the exploitation of, so not only in far right circles here, this is just a broader form of... I think many of our listeners know what 764 is, but if you don't mind, just... Yeah. I mean, 764 is a code name. I mean, it's a word that comes originally from somebody's area code for their phone number, and it's morphed into lots of different... We still think of them as 764 networks, even though it's not just 764. They're sadistic exploitation networks that basically blackmail kids, typically into harming other kids, both sexually, but also physical abuse, harming themselves with self-harm and harming animals, and enacting other horrific things on video, and then they blackmail them for lots of different reasons. And sometimes it's just exploitation in terms of cash or money, and other times it's grooming them toward neo-Nazi attacks or other mass nihilistic attacks. And it's part of what's known as nihilistic violent extremism, a new classification from the FBI. It's rapidly growing estimates of tens of thousands of victims. There are 500 open investigations in the U.S. alone, and so the number of victims, and part of what's so horrific about it is that victims and the perpetrators are children in many cases, but at the hands directed by adults. And so that's a horrific thing to talk about. The FBI have issued several warnings about it, and so have our Canadian colleagues and others. We in the lab are working on resources for parents and schools who are dealing and grappling with the mental health effects and then the real effects of the harms that are being done. And then I also talk about the sexual exploitation historically, for example, under the Nazis who ran brothels, but also there's pretty good evidence. A journalist turned over some reporting that he was unable to figure out how to report on while protecting the women, but I was able to look at his notes in the affidavits of an investigation of a neo-Nazi group that did get broken up here in the U.S. And in the affidavits, they were keeping women for, for sale at a, that's the description in the affidavit, at a property where they would, you know, both, you know, the prostitution, but also forced prostitution, but also the sale of assaults on the dark web as video. And then they were using that money to finance their neo-Nazi operations. So that's what I mean by thinking about some of this exploitation in the ways that we think about it easily when it comes to terrorists who are somewhere else, you know, in other parts of the world, but we haven't really looked at it in the U.S. And part of that is because we have, typically when neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups are broken up in the U.S., they're arrested on one of sets of three charges, usually together, drug trafficking, weapons trafficking, and racketeering charges. It's the fastest way to put them away or child sexual abuse material. And you get the same amount of sentencing as you would if you include the sex trafficking charges. The DEA themselves have said basically where there is drug trafficking, there is sex trafficking. It's like a 97% overlap. They're almost always together. And so you end up with these situations like in Los Angeles a couple of years ago, 63 neo-Nazis were arrested, a big ring broken up, a varying brotherhood groups, they're arrested on drug trafficking, weapons trafficking, racketeering charges, that trifecta is always there. And there's a little line in the AP reporting about it. And all it says is the hostage negotiation team was also on hand to assist. And so I'm thinking like, well, who do you think the hostages were? We know that where there is drug trafficking, there is sex trafficking. We know that these things go hand in hand. We know that they're financing operations off of this. But we don't do it. And so one of the things I've been talking to Attorney Generals about is the possibility of adding an enhancement charge to help local law enforcement, to incentivize them to at least get the data, you know, at least we would know how often these crimes are there. Because if they're not getting any extra years on sentencing, why would you do it, right? You have victims who are vulnerable, who may at one time have consented to their situation, there may be drugs involved. And, you know, they could be harmed with any kind of testifying that has to be done. And so they just look away. And I think that invisibility contributes to the fact that we don't see the problem in the field, even though once you start to look at it, it's there. We get it. Making tax digital can sometimes feel daunting. But with Zeros HMRC recognized software, you quickly get to feeling confident. If you're a sole trader or landlord whose income tax is going digital, not only is Zeros MTD ready, it also gives you better control of your finances, like having the clear financial visibility you need every quarter to avoid end of year tax surprises. Change the way you see MTD. Search MTD ready with zero. In a world of noise and uncertainty, IG is the investment platform that backs you. Take a reflexable stocks, ISA, which gives you the freedom to withdraw funds anytime and replace them in the same tax year, all without losing your £20,000 tax-free allowance. And if that's not enough, pay no commission on your stock shares and ETFs when you invest with IG. IG, trade, invest, progress. Your capital is at risk, other fees may apply, tax treatment depends on individual circumstances and is subject to change. Hi, it's Liz Earle from Age Better with Liz Earle and we're sponsored by Ben and Health. Now I know what you're thinking, private healthcare sounds expensive, but this is different. Ben and Health isn't traditional insurance. It's a monthly membership designed to be more accessible than standard private medical insurance. Now we talk a lot about aging well and life doesn't slow down when our bodies surprise us. With 24-7 GP and mental health helplines and support with diagnostics and selected surgical treatment, they can help you press play on your health. Anyone can join, regardless of age or medical history, for less than £16 per person per month. So press play on your health and search Ben and Health. UK residents only fee reviewed periodically limits exclusions and wait periods apply to some services. Limited surgical procedures only available after six months membership, 24 months Northern Ireland. Full details at benandand.co.uk For those interested, I'd also highlight some a lot of the significant law for reporting on sexploitation, which is something that we've covered for some time. It's kind of once you go down that road, it's impossible to see the world the same way. It's shattering. Let's go now to your fourth category, which is erasure. Yeah. Help us out with that. Yeah. So erasure here, I'm primarily talking about the LGBTQ community, but in looking at both kind of mainstream legislative efforts to erase bodies like gender affirming care, but also the attacks on trans athletes and trans rights and bathrooms, all of that kind of stuff, the quick mobilization that happened there, but also around knowledge. So erasing of bodies and erasing of knowledge through the curriculum bands and the protests, the attacks that have been happening on library. And so I trace the those two types of erasure of knowledge and the bodies, but then I also try to connect it showing how it connects as a mobilizer of violence. So where we've had neo-nazi groups or proud boy groups engaged in protests that are, you know, I mean, one of the most absurd ones, I think I opened the chapter with is the neo-nazi protest outside of Disney, right? And you just like it just wasn't on my bingo card that year. Like what, you know, like a neo-nazi anti-pedophile protest outside of Disney, you know, how those, how this kind of opportunistic, I would say, use by extremist groups of this quick mainstream conservative mobilization around anti-LGBTQ sentiment and attacks on kind of gender studies in universities and in schools, how that kind of mobilized and where there's been some real violence, not just sort of attacks on homes that and businesses that have waived pride flags, but the shooting of a woman who was an ally in California, for example, in some other cases like that. So really trying to show how that erasure can play a role in a gendered way and in a way that is part of a tactic of how misogyny links different forms of extremism and the potential for mobilization to mass violence. So your last category is enabling and I will say after being thoroughly depressed as I was reading along, this depressed me in a completely different way. So again, please talk us through this. Yeah, this is actually the first chapter I wrote for the book because I started, you know, thinking about you have to look at the role of women and white women in particular in creating and contributing to some of the conditions that support this either deliberately or inadvertently. And so I start with this, what I really liked as a story arc for that chapter, looking at the killing of Vicki Weaver, you know, 30 years ago and Ashley Babbitt, both were white women who were shot through a door by federal law enforcement agents. But Vicki Weaver was in a white supremacist family at the siege at Ruby Ridge and was holding a baby and was shot accidentally through a door. She was sort of wearing a flowy sundress and she used to pick berries and sell them at a local farmer's market like she was, you know, a martyr, an absolute martyr for the movement immediately with signs that said, you know, your family could be next. This is what the government can do to you. So this anti-government and white supremacist intersection. Ashley Babbitt was shot at the US Capitol as she was trying to break down a door. So 30 years later, you can kind of see this arc of, and she's a veteran, she's not a mother, right? Vicki Weaver is very much martyred in the movement through her role as a mother. This mother was shot holding her baby. Ashley Babbitt, the veteran who was breaking down, trying to break down the door in the Capitol because she was mobilized by conspiracy theory around QAnon. So, you know, it kind of tells the story of this mobilization of women from, through the roles as mothers initially and then eventually you kind of get to a place where they don't even have to be mothers to get mobilized. They're not only being mobilized as mothers who are defending their families or their children, but they're just violent actors in and of themselves. So one, we've seen more violent engagement from women in these movements. And January 6th was a good example of that, but there have been other cases. And then also social media, as I talk about in the, in that chapter, really opened up a whole new realm for women who had taken a backstage in domestic and white supremacist nanti government movements, in part because of the misogyny that they faced there, like in the real person meetings. And we would regularly hear about that, that they, in fact, some women I know who we've worked with as formers left those scenes because of the misogyny, they experienced the harassment, sexual harassment from other men. So the misogyny was a problem for them in the movement, but social media allows them to suddenly be super engaged as leaders in a safer way, right? So ironically, becoming leaders who have called on white women to have, you know, the six baby challenge, right? So to have as many white babies, the white baby challenge, to have six white babies to help counter demographic change or to get involved as QMOMs, you know, this whole movement to support QAnon as again, through your role as a mother and defend and rescue children who are supposedly being trafficked. So that was the point of that chapter was to show first of all, it's not just men, not just some men who do this, but also women and women have played a big role in policing boys and also in policing girls with gender norms and expectations and then in sometimes promoting and sustaining misogynist systems and white supremacist ones, including in violent ways. Let me ask you in here to be clear, I'm kind of drawing on my own current research. So it's there's a strong bias in this about what I felt was perhaps either a missing category or a past category that no longer exists. And I'm going to call this protective. So when you look at white supremacist groups in the past, right, you have the image they tried to portray was we are effectively knights, right? And there are these often virginal white women that we are protecting. And they are helpless. And if we are not there, then, you know, usually black, but savages in general are going to attack and rape them. And you as a man need to act and one group, V. Dare, used to take an oath over a white baby girl, right? It was very, very kind of liberal, literal. And you know this much better than I, but the rhetoric seems to have shifted from women on a pedestal who are kind of helpless and must be protected to, you know, bitches and hoes. Yeah, right. And is it is that protection still a thing? It's still a thing. Or is it really kind of not part of the movement in the same? Yeah, I think I think it's still very much a thing. And I talk a little bit about it in the chapter on exploitation, I think, toward the end around the ideological. I like the idea of having had a chapter on protection, though, that'd be really interesting. And is like, it's another example of how you can just, you know, you take these different slices through a story arc and there's whole categories, I'm sure that I missed. I also felt this way in Hating the Homeland where I could have written a whole thing about, you know, totally different chapters. These were, each one is sort of illustrative. And yes, I think, I think, you know, there's always been this kind of Madonna, like the Madonna whore contrast, right? So women are either virginal on a pedestal to be protected, particularly white women in this case, or they are devious, manipulative, you know, transactional, and not to be trusted. And that those two tropes have always been there as this sort of catch 22 for many women in these movements and as depicted by these movements. And I think we still see very much both things alive today. You have the bitches and baby makers terminology that gets thrown about on social media, the your body, my choice chanting the, you know, this kind of reclaiming of ownership over women's bodies, including through the election and the idea that reproductive rights are at risk. And the celebration of that the glee of that the including, you know, the killing of a Vrenane Nicole Good and the words of the ICE agent afterwards saying fucking bitch, right, this idea and what happened afterward in the days that came with reports of other agents telling women, didn't you learn your lesson? You know, I think that same kind of who are protesting the same kind of message of punishment of anger and of, you know, putting women in their place. But we also see, and I'm writing about this right now for an op ed that's due in three hours. So I will finish it on the misogyny and what's happening in Minnesota and with ICE agents. But that, you know, we also see this protection narrative coming out very strongly in the justification, for example, of state sponsored violence in Minnesota with, you know, false crime statistics that depict white women as as more at risk from immigrants than they are from from men who are citizens, which is just not true. I mean, there are of course cases where undocumented immigrants or immigrants have harmed women. But women are more at risk from their own, you know, communities of of men who are citizens who are born here, including from their own partners, than they are statistically from an undocumented immigrant. So who have lower crime rates. So it's, you know, that but that protection narrative and you sort of see that coming out of the Trump administration referring to suburban women at risk, or repeatedly calling out the names of particular individual handful of cherry picked cases of women, one young white women who have tragically died at the hands of a sexual assault or rape or or murder from an undocumented immigrant, but not not actually expressing concern about those things happening to women when it when it's not a non documented immigrant. So I think that pretend and then calling on, you know, the imagery of protecting, defending or homeland that language that language coming out for the administration, I think in advertisements right now is very much evoking that same kind of sense of threat of invasion of incursion. And gender is a part of that. And so I think you still see both narratives. You're just seeing on the fringe, a little more of the anger narrative that and I think from the mainstream now a little more of the protectionist narrative. Thank you. I want to shift gears a little bit and go through a couple. I'll say, you know, possible say counter arguments or questions that people might have as they read your work. And to be clear, you address these in the book, but I think it might be good for listeners to hear them directly. One is the question of the visibility of rhetoric versus are we actually seeing things getting worse? Yeah. Right. So, you know, just to make a comparison with race, you know, if you track, you know, X or other sites, you'll find a huge amount of racist content. But a lot of indicators on racial relations in the United States are actually quite positive. If you look at something like acceptance of your marriage, you know, it's gone from almost none to almost universal, right? And there are a lot of very positive things. So how much can we trust the visibility of rhetoric to be a measure for how strong the hatred is? Yeah, I think that we're seeing, I mean, there's some things that are like pretty clear in the data, like online misogyny documented in online spaces surges starting in 2011, which is pretty not unexpected given the way social media platforms took prominence, you know, became much more popular starting around 2009, 2010. So it is, you know, it's amplifying. It's not that this is new, but there are new channels and forms to express it. And that makes it so much more normalized, so much more legitimized and so much more common that again, this sort of what women often describe as the cost of being online is this, you're going to get rape threats, you're going to get sexist attacks, misogynist attacks, hate mail that comes at you in ways that would have been harder a generation ago if people had to actually like send you a letter in the mail, right, you just don't get as much easier to do it. And so you get more of it, right? So it doesn't mean that it's new or novel, and it's just, there's just more of it, and that can make it feel like there's more and then but an online context that also contributes to the disinhibition effect, which is the effect that people feel more empowered to say awful things. And when more people are saying awful things, it can kind of, you know, spiral in that way. So I think there's that kind of stuff, the online stuff is pretty well documented and we see it. And there's definitely more of it. I think what we're seeing in the cultural shift with the rhetoric is a very clear resurgence or re, you know, kind of reclaiming of male power in official spaces. So you see things like Mark Zuckerberg calling for masculine energy in the corporate sector as what we really need or Pete Hegseth saying, you know, we're going to have male standards in the military. So this kind of establishment of a hierarchy of superiority and inferiority and a call for that, you see the data pretty clearly showing now trends among Gen Z men agreeing more highly than older men with things like feminism has gone too far, or our society has become more too feminine and needs more masculine emphasis, right? Those those data points, I just saw some of it from the more in common surveys last week, are really clear and depressing. And, you know, 26% of younger Trump voters saying they agree with the statement, men should lead and women should follow, but only 10% of older male Trump voters agreeing with that statement. So it's not just that it's increasing, but it's increasing in a really specific demographic way among a younger generation of men and Gen Z men in particular, who are embracing a more traditional conservative and anti feminist kind of stance based on I think the content of online worlds, compared to older generations of men. So it's not moving in the direction that people typically expect change to happen. It's a retrenchment. And so that's a kind of pretty, pretty well documented shift that I think is also spurred, I will say on the other side of it, a huge interest in a huge growth in men's wellness communities that are focusing on men's health and well being as a concern around reducing both gender based violence, misogyny, but also other outcomes like loneliness and isolation, and the deaths of despair and all the other outcomes that are very bad for men right now that I talk about in the book that create vulnerabilities. So, you know, that's one thing I'll say is when I talk about my complaints about the field, not doing a good job of all this, we do have much more interest from like just in the Ardern's Christ Church Call Foundation, who's doing a massive project that we're a part of on gender based violence and violent extremism. You have Australia, the UK, Canada all doing major initiatives now on gender based violence and violent extremism or violent incels or really drawing out these connections. So it's not that no one is doing it, it's that the US isn't doing it and Germany isn't doing it, which is part of why I think given that I spent the first 15 years of my career working in Germany, I probably contributed to my blind spots as well. Let me ask you another kind of question that came up, which is how much of this is really about the violence is caused by these kind of extreme interpretations of gender roles versus it's simply a broader mental health crisis and that people who have more extreme mental health issues will almost look for hateful ideologies as a way of kind of expressing themselves. And we see this, you mentioned, you know, people online, you know, we of course see, you know, lots of online activity actually is often associated with a lot of negative mental health outcomes. So how do we think about that intersection, especially with your professor head on with regard to causality? I mean, what I, the way I thought about it is that, you know, we do have a well documented crisis among men, however you want to define that, right? Loneliness isolation, I mean, loneliness data is also high among women, but it's more problematic for men in terms of the outcomes of scapegoating that, you know, that it can lead to the vulnerabilities to online influencers. So, you know, it's not that they're more lonely in the data, but their loneliness creates more vulnerabilities for them into bad trajectories, but also higher suicide rates now and among a younger generation of men. And, and again, what we call the deaths of despair, which are drug overdoses, alcohol, fuel deaths, suicides, those men have three quarters of those at this point. So, you know, they're not doing great. And so I think, I think it's fair to talk about a crisis of men and boys, but there's no reason why a crisis of men and boys should have become a crisis of misogyny. But that's what happened, I think, because of when you look at, you know, what you look at with online worlds and how so many influencers have converted very real or some perceived grievances into narratives of blame and of scapegoating. And they scapegoat feminists and women and depict women and feminists as, you know, transactional and devious and out to get you and taking your opportunities and it's gone too far. And so I think that's, that's the way I would describe it, not quite as a causal line, the way a quantitative scholar would maybe do it. But with my professor out, I would say like there's a model here with some squares and some boxes with arrows that show that there's some relationships here that still need to be disentangled. And that's part of what I hope the book will do is inspire a bunch of research that can start to look at these relationships. I think when you have such a blind spot, a lot of the data is just not there, because we're not looking enough at the problem. Let's go to your concluding parts of the book, which is the what is to be done section. You have a lot of ideas and I'll also highlight for those listing. There are also a lot of resources listed, which is I think very helpful. But pick a few. What are kind of, you know, a few things you think people should know that that might be done to reduce this problem? So I think we know one of the things I often talk to parents about is just understanding that the online worlds that their kids inhabit are highly gendered. And a lot of the solutions that we're that we're hearing and being offered right now are just about banning or creating cell to, you know, bell to bell bands or social media bands like Australia has just done and the UK is debating now, like that just walling off the content is not enough. When you have, I talk a little bit about violent porn in the, you know, in the book and I have a separate piece coming out on that, the impacts on choking, you know, the UK banning choking as one option because stroke rates are so high now among young women under 40. Like how the consumption of violent content online can contribute to behavioral changes that are not in anybody's interest or might not reflect healthy relationships moving forward. And so just understanding the content of what kids in particular are exposed to, how early they are, and that banning alone doesn't create a solution. You know, I'm not opposed to bans entirely, but I just don't like the idea that that's all we need to do is like build bigger fences the same way that we have, you know, build bigger fences to create ourselves, you know, to try to create more safety from terror attacks, teach synagogues to lock the doors before services is important. And also like, I don't really want that to be our best measure of how successful we are at preventing terrorist attacks. So I think understanding the content and how we can talk to kids about gender and talk to kids about the gender content they see, and start to understand how they might be receiving information that can create these openings to influencers that are really trying to profit off of them, but maybe don't have their lifelong healthy relationships and futures in their own interest, right? They're not that's not where they're coming at it from. So that's one thing I think that everybody should know. I think there are resources we have a guide that I put in the back of the book that was produced in conjunction with the Southern Property Law Center that helps parents and teachers understand some of the things that kids might be encountering or saying. Feminism is a cancer, right? Or, you know, slang words that that tell boys their simps or their two like they're too sympathetic to girls or they're too soft, you know, that that kind of language can indicate exposure to toxic or harmful environments that might warrant a conversation. And these are, you know, I've had a conversation with a lot of parents when I talk about the book, inevitably, whether it's the FBI or like counterterrorism officials in Australia as I was in this fall or to a university audience, I guarantee almost every time the first hand up is a personal question. It's often from a parent who will say like, I know I have professional questions too, but let me tell you what this what this thing that my 12 year old said to me last night, right? What do I do? And so, you know, 12 year old comes to a mom and says, mom, what does the phrase submissive and breathable mean, right? Which is like, I mean, doesn't even have a phone yet and heard it from a friend. It's in a meme. It's like, you know, and so those kind of, you know, just that level of not knowing how to grapple with the kinds of things that your kids are hearing. And someone tells your 12 year old they're supposed to be submissive and breathable, you know, or 17 year old who suddenly a parent said, I realize now he's in the gym all the time. And, you know, so if he's following fitness influencers online, that might create vulnerabilities to exposure to people who are trying to, you know, lead them down different pathways. So I think just understanding how online worlds work and what are some strategies to talk to your kids with curiosity rather than judgment is sort of the two major pieces of advice that I have on the interpersonal side on the thing that any person can do. Thank you. I want to end our discussion really where your book ends, which is one of the few times I laughed. Good. I'm glad you laughed because people never know if they should laugh at that story and they should. Okay, good. I thought you meant was there to laugh. So I'll use the phrase and turn it over to you. It is, oh, sorry, ma'am. Yes. So can you describe the story and then why you think it's useful for this project? It's such a good story. So I was telling my editor this story and she said, you have to put it in the book, like we have to. She told her friends and they laughed so hard. And it is the story that produces the most laughter among my friends. But it's funny because I tell that story sometimes in public in talks and it's clear people aren't sure if we're supposed to laugh or not. And so yes, you are supposed to laugh because I thought it was hilarious and also sobering. So I was jogging in my neighborhood a couple of years ago and I got cat called from behind. And when I turned around to look at the guy over my shoulder and he saw how old I am, he saw my face, he took a step back and put his two hands up and said, oh, sorry, ma'am. And so it was just such a funny experience. And every woman I know who's my age, you know, in my early fifties, like has had an experience like this now of realizing you're crossing over suddenly and out of an age you maybe had forgotten you were in to begin with this age of objectification, this whole era where you're so used to having cat call experiences or comments or slight safety concerns walking around and then you're suddenly more invisible. And so what was interesting to me about it was one that I'm like, oh, I'm crossing over into this era of more invisibility where I warrant some kind of respect from this cat caller now, right? Like he's, he wasn't apologizing, though, for cat calling. He was apologizing for cat calling a woman who was presumably old enough to be his mother. And I think that's where the rub is, right? It's like it didn't, it's not that cat calling itself was something offensive anymore to him or he doesn't see it as wrong in any way. This casual everyday form of objectification that, you know, every parent I know of daughters has had to like help them understand if they especially if they live in a place where they walk home from school, that starts happening at 11 or 12. And so you have to have these conversations about, well, what do you do? What's the right way to react? How do you not make this guy matter? Because then they'll say like, why aren't you smiling, right? There's all this, it's just such a ubiquitous part of life for a lot of women. And, and I think crossing over and out of that, but realizing younger women are still facing it just as much made me feel like, okay, this maybe this is actually why I was able to write the book at this moment in time, because there's more cognitive dissonance for me, because I'm not really going to experiencing as much as, you know, a younger generation of women are. And yet that means like this is a time to kind of use my voice. And I know that sounds like a lot of hubris, but it's a it's a chance to kind of try to draw attention to something that I now have a little bit more power to talk about and a little bit more resilience, because I'm not dealing with it as much. So that's kind of where that anecdote fits in. And it was a call to women like me to not just slip into a visibility. But then I also, you know, had to add, because I sent it to a reviewer, several people to review it. And I sent it to a friend who said, why does your epilogue only have things that women can do, things that women are age can do. I was like, oh my god, here I go again, like I just missed it myself. So I then had to add a whole section in which I asked a lot of men for advice to friends and my husband and others like, what do you think men should actually be doing about this on an everyday level. And so that paragraph or two in the epilogue is also kind of like a call to men to speak up to stand up and to not and to pay attention as well. Cynthia Miller Idris, thank you very much. Please have you on the show. Thanks for having me, Dan. You can get ad free versions of this and other Lawfare podcasts by becoming a Lawfare material supporter at our website, Lawfaremedia.org slash support. You'll also get access to special events and other content available only to our supporters. Please rate and review us wherever you get your podcasts. Look out for other podcasts, including Rational Security, Allies, The Aftermath, and Escalation, our latest Lawfare Presents podcast series about the war in Ukraine. Check out our written work as well at Lawfaremedia.org. The podcast is edited by Jen Pacha and our audio engineer this episode was GoldGrodeo. Our theme song is from Alibi Music. As always, thank you for listening. In a world of noise and uncertainty, IG is the investment platform that backs you. Take a reflexable stock size, which gives you the freedom to withdraw funds anytime and replace them in the same tax year, all without losing your £20,000 tax-free allowance. And if that's not enough, pay no commission on your stock shares and ETFs when you invest with IG. IG. Trade. Invest. Progress. Your capital's at risk. Other fees may apply. Tax treatment depends on individual circumstances and is subject to change.