Funding for To The Contrary provided by: This week on To The Contrary: First, political violence and its disproportionate impact on women and people of color.

Then the changing perception of women's roles in society.

Hello, Im Bonnie Erbé.

Welcome to To The Contrary a discussion of news and social trends from different perspectives.

Up first rising concerns over violence.

A series of recent incidents involving the murder of two Minnesotans, including the State House speaker, the murder of two people leaving a U.S. Capitol event hosted by a Jewish group, and other developments have people asking if we are a politically violent nation.

The murder of Minnesota Stat Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband in their home has renewed alarm over political violence in the US.

Studies sho women and people of color face higher rates of threats and even violence, especially when they hold public offic or advocate for social justice.

This could be why the intersecti of race, gender and ideology make civic engagemen more hazardous for these groups.

With us this week are Republican Strategist Ann Stone, Sam Bennett of the New York Amsterdam News, Republican Strategist Whitley Yates and Democratic Strategist Nailah Amaru.

So Sam Bennett, is political violence worse today?

Absolutely.

And I think it's been role modeled from the to and the president that we have.

It's not that violence is worse, although we've had a lot just lately.

It's that we know more about it because of social media.

Absolutely, political violence is wors today than it was a decade ago.

And I think a part of that has to do with the rise of extremist ideologies.

The far right extremist groups have really become organized and emboldened, particularly with the election of Trump.

And also social media has really made its place in serving as a recruitment tool, to make space for more political violence.

I think that the rise of social media platforms have been a sounding board for rhetoric that has had ripples into violence in our political community.

So let's start with who's at risk for greater violence?

Is it women or people of color or some subgroup?

As soon as Trump was elected Pew Research did an exceptional research project that showed that misogyny against women rose 4300% the day he was elected.

This is online misogyny, which I think speaks to all of my colleagues, pointing out the role that social media plays.

But women are uniquely vulnerable.

In fact, AP has just launched a multi-year project because they're finding that their journalists across the world, particularly women, particularly journalists of color, are uniquely vulnerable to this kind of attack.

Well, misogyny doesn't always translate to violence, at least not physical violence.

Mental violence, yes.

But I think if you're talking about a subgroup that is most vulnerable, I think it's all of our elected officials on—in both sides.

And I think more and mor they're having to have private security.

Our cabinet secretaries have all been targeted.

So I think it has become a real problem.

And we know more about it because of social media.

Nailah, what do you think about women versus people of color.

Who's more vulnerable right now and why?

Specifically, women of color are most vulnerable.

Because women of color particularly elected officials, are very visible manifestations that can be perceived as challenge to traditional power structures.

Particularly when women, I mean people of color, but again, specifically women of color come from historically marginalized groups.

And so as more women of color are elected, they gain visibility, they gain power.

There oftentimes is that backlash from those who may feel threatened from those shifting social norms.

We have to be fair and say that the political rhetoric and physical political violence has escalated, not just under Trump.

I mean, Trump was assassinate or there was an assassination, excuse me, attempt on Trump during Biden's term.

And so we've seen this type of violence get carried away and taken out of hand.

You go from online to acting out an outburst of violence against those that are leading in policies, that are leading in political positions.

And so while, you know, Naila says that it is women of color, what we've see is it's just people in positions that are utilizing their platform a lot of times to voice the difference in the status quo, and they're being punished for that.

What about the fact that the media have been saying that President Trump brings— opens up a whole selection of fields of discussion that are now in the public aren that weren't 5 or 10 years ago.

How much of this was prompted by him speaking the way he does?

Your thoughts, Ann?

It's an easy excuse.

But in fact, you know, the rhetoric and the attacks happened under Bush, under Obama, you know, it's been going on for a while.

Wasn't so bad under Clinton.

There was some.

But again, social media does giv sort of the trumpet to all this, and megaphone and makes everything worse.

And also, I'll tell you, you know, the assassinatio attempts, the most visible ones have been against Trump and a lot of his cohorts.

And frankly, there have been elected officials on the Democrat side, as well as people in academia on the Democrat sid and elsewhere that have called for his assassination, which is just outrageous.

And nothing the man ever sai warranted some of the rhetoric that's been directed at him by all levels.

Celebrities, academia, elected officials, all saying he should be killed.

I mean, unbelievable.

That is causing a lot of the, the violence.

What's the best wa for other politicians to respond when he makes comments like this?

Is it to sidestep the issue of violence completely?

Well, he's not calling He's not calling for violence.

No, I'm just saying when—when he talks about violent incidents is—if if people are going to respond to that in the public media arena, should they get away from talking about violence or bring it up?

They should be measured and use facts only.

I think in terms of, what does that accountability look like in terms of— or responsibilities, rather, for other elected officials, to, t speak to what the rhetoric is.

I do think it's important to hold peers accountable.

Right.

So when you hear extremist rhetoric coming from within your own party, regardless of party, to be intentional about calling it out, to help avoid, I think, just the amplification of some really dangerous ideologies, which taps into the— the earlier question, of like in the role of media in shaping, you know, the perception of how people think about political violence.

I think, again, you know, media amplification can incite or it can inform.

Right.

And so, like, there's that relationship between, you know, responsive reporting to expose threats that are real and valid and happening, but also to promote accountability, which taps into again, other political leaders and holding their own accountable.

Whitley, what do you think about, you know, public media and not public media in the sense of getting funds from the government, but public media, anybody who broadcasts publicly or is online publicly, stoking violence do you think that is going on?

That's not new where people have created spaces for hate to permeate, that has been seen through history for years and years.

I think we have to be carefu when we say the word violence.

Are we talking about someone hurting your feelings and calling you out of your name?

Or are we talking abou someone showing up to your house and unaliving you?

Those are two very different things, and one may say that one incites the other but there is a clear distinction between having a heated debate with someone and making the decision to then go and be physically violent against them.

And I think that that' what we're talking about here.

So I don't want to conflict the two.

Those that are in—specifically in American politics today, the more visible you are, the more vulnerable you are, because there are people out there that feel like what you're doing in your position of power is detrimentally impacting them, so much so that they, and all of the issues within the mental health of this country, are willing to take it out and or to take you out because they don't like your rhetoric or they don't like what you stand for.

And that to me is a symptom of a greater problem, not just the politics, bu the mental health of the people.

And what's the proper response in what time we have left?

It does seem to be ticking up, I don't know, I don't have data to prove that, but it does seem to be ticking up.

What, and particularly against women and people of color, what should be done to rein it in?

Well, I think we can't underestimate the power— I think we're all alluding t this, all of us as colleagues— never underestimate the power of pushback.

I think if people decry and push back—we found that in our research on a different subject, that the simple act of people stepping forward and saying, no, that's not right against misogyny, against women in politics.

It made this huge impact in how voters voted.

So I think we can't underestimate the power that each one of us have in society, whether in the media like I am or other roles to stand up and be heard.

But there are senators certainly coming out and saying, this is wrong.

This has to stop.

Nobody's listening.

I think if you build a critical mass where it' not just an isolated voice here and there, but rather everyon in a broad base saying, enough, this cannot happen anymore.

Now we don't want to go bac to the 60s, where assassinations were, you know, deadly assassinations were the norm.

But I think we all have a role, each one of us as citizens and people in positions of power or not in power, to push back and say no more.

We do not tolerate this.

Not okay.

How are officials if, if they played a role in it at all, able to curb that trend of violence, Ann, back in the late 60s, early 70s, and could it be used again today?

Well, nobody dared use the kin of rhetoric we're talking here.

And we had a much more united country in terms of sources of media and sources of information.

So everybody had sort of shared vision from that.

The information source are so disparate now, it's hard to get a more unified messag through to the American people.

So it really—it'd be interesting to see if Trump and or the Congress and or the Senate, whomever or the parties would decide to come togethe and maybe have a common ground meeting and have the media cover it and have them talk about the need to tone down the rhetoric and for people to start looking at what each other is reall saying and stop attacking first, and start listening first instead.

That's something I've advocate for years, but it's harder now because of the disparate sources of information, to get this unified message, we've got to try harder.

It can't, it can't go the way it is, can't continue to go the way it is.

I do think that media has shifted, and it has shifted from informing people to engaging peopl and usually engaging with rage and having negative bias is what sells and gets clicks, meaning that there's going to be different news for different views.

And in order to keep that base now that attention is currency, the more that you're looking at a specific site or watching their content, the more money that they're making.

It's what's channeling a lot o this polarization, specifically in political fields.

And I think that if we were able to come back down and have media that informs instead of insights, as Nailah was saying earlier, than we would be in a better place.

But as long as the model specifically with social media and the way that conten is now created in media and news is this way then we will not see a change.

What is it that's different today from, let's say, ten years ago, when the internet was already quite busy and quite popular?

What has changed, and what impact has that had on the level of actual violence perpetrated by members of the public?

So before media advertising and things of that nature, you used to watch ads.

Now the ads watch you and the ads are tracking your every movement, and the algorithm are creating a world that feeds you exactly what you want to hear and exactly what you want to see.

It's you living in a silo o sameness, receiving information that you already agree and align with it.

Any time you are confronte with something that is different on your algorithm it a lot of times incites hate because you've been sitting in that silo of sameness.

And so what you have created for people are these alternate realities, and their reality is what is on their feed.

And so as they're feeding their minds, they're looking, they're reading and they're consuming, that becomes their then reality.

Where befor when the news was more objective and it was in prin and people could at least trust there weren't different news for different views.

It was just the truth of what was happening.

But now that we have all of these different echo chambers, people are kind of forced to stay in their own corners.

And when they're confronte with something that's different, it can cause some cognitive dissonance.

You know, coming from the most influential, oldest continuously published black newspaper in America, we hold ourselves to the very highest standards of accuracy and truth.

So I think what we're finding right now is to what you, our colleagues, are pointing to, this increased polarization caused by that algorithmic narrow-ization, right, of a voice.

But I think it is a tim where it's important for America to subscribe and liste to those verified news sources that have been there, and even the new ones that can have the highest standard of truth telling.

Not all of them can be substantiated, not all of them can be trusted, but many can.

And I thin that's an important distinction.

But I do agre with what you're saying, I do.

But Whitley said something very important where she said attention is currency, and in order to overcome that, you're going to have to have something concerted, organized from the top, and it's going to have to be the White House, the Congress, the Senate, both parties decidin that they want to join together and have some public forums and have—and engage the media and say, listen, guys, you know, you're contributing to this, you're shaping this.

You've got to stop.

We've got to work together to change the discourse level and to change where this country is going.

It has to be concerted.

And we've done it before.

We did it before with the FEC hearings way back in the 50s.

We're ready to go there again.

We need it.

Boy, would I love to be a fly on the wall of that meeting.

Because you know what?

It's never going to take place.

It's just too big a topic with too many sides.

Let us know what you think.

Please follow me on Twitter @BonnieErbe.

From dangers and threat to changing views of women.

It's not just in party leadershi where you see a shift in views.

The New York Times reports that in 2022, fewer than 30% of Republican men believed, “Women should return to thei traditional roles in society”, end quote.

Two years later, that number of Republican men rose to 48%.

Republican women change their views on that topic, too.

In 2022, only 23% of Republican women agreed that women should return to traditional roles, but two years later, that number rose to 37%.

Today, 79% of Republican men and 67% of Republican women say they believe American society has gotten, quote, “too soft and feminine”, end quote.

These trends emerge, while gender attitudes are also shifting politically and culturally, with a rising backlash against women's rights.

So Ann again, what do we do with this?

And how do we curb reaction so it doesn't provoke violenc or for that matter, even anger?

Well, a big part of that is driven by the fact people are kind of freaked ou by the declining birth rate now.

And there is more discussion of having to have, you know, more cooperation, s to speak, between men and women to sort of raise the birth rates.

So that's driving part of it, where they're starting to look at more traditional roles.

But the rest of it is, it isn't so much that they think women should be back in the kitchen, per se, but the pendulum swung from being all, you know, male chauvinism to being almost extreme female chauvinism.

I happen to be a female chauvinist, even though I'm a Republican.

And now the pendulum is going to swing back a little bit more towards the middle.

Not all of this is ba as long as women are not denied access to you know, equal ability to work or do whatever but they should have the right to make a choic within a wide range of options.

But the declining birth rate is part o what is driving that perception.

If we're going to refuse to censor media, and that could be anything from TikTok to chit chat to whatever, whatever platform you want to use.

But if we're not going to do that how do we possibly get a handle on all the violence that's become the fabric of international conversation?

Well, I'm going to say this, and I know you're going to say, here she goes again.

But I truly—I truly believ the teaching of women's history helps all this.

It certainly helps create a greater partnership between men and women.

And I think it does change the fabric of society.

I've told you before, when I give speeches before men and women, adult me and women about women's history, the men come up and say, oh my God, I could never look at a woman the same way again.

Those with daughters come up and say, oh my God, my daughter's life is going to be so much better now.

But men are really moved by finding out that it wasn't just a disparate woman here or there, but in fact, throughout history there were thousands and thousands of women, sometimes alone, sometimes in partnership with men, that really helped achieve some of the greatest things in society.

And those stories have been hidden.

But when they're revealed, men do react well.

All of that has a ripple effect, and I believe— I know it will affect things like domestic violence.

And overall, I think it will have an effect on violence because of the way we'll start to look at each other, maybe more as partners instead of enemies.

Yeah, I think that this issue has been framed incorrectly, and it's usually progress versus tradition when it should be agency versus expectation.

And I'm pretty passionate about this.

Whether a woman wants to lead a Fortune 500 company and run the entire world, or she wants to stay home and take care of her kids, it's her decision to make.

And I think that the pressure that society places on women to choose either one or the other is limiting, and it doesn't give the women the freedom that they truly deserve.

So it doesn't matter whether or not they choos to stay at home, have children, take care of the household, or raise their husband or they want to be boss babes, never have any children and run companies.

It's her decision.

And when we as a society realize that and give women the freedom to be whatever it is that they so desire, I think that we'll have a better, more equal—equilibrium community.

It's been going on now for some three or more decades that women should not be held back by any laws that favor men in the workplace.

They should be given the same freedoms.

They should be hired and fired for the same reasons.

And still, I mean, we've— there' been some progress, certainly, but we're not anywhere near the point wher men and women are almost equal.

So what's—what' keeping us from that final goal?

I think about this in two ways, right.

So one I think the most common framing, is the masculinity crisis, right?

The political lens and also the media rhetoric, it increasingly, I think, frames gender inclusivity, women's empowerment, pick your buzzword, as a threat, right?

To traditional concepts and practices of masculinity and how that translates t perception of national strength, which is really important, again, to the point I was raising earlier about this perception of American society being too soft and feminine, as if those are inherently weak characteristics.

The other thing that has been interesting, I think just to kind of recognize is that the more that we have inclusion of different identities, through the lens of feminism or the LGBTQ plus movement, the more inclusive that we are of diverse identities, are oftentimes misinterpreted as a loss, right, as a loss of weakness.

Particularly by, again, the traditional norm of, you know, rugged, rugged masculinity, I think is a really important point, to consider in this conversation.

How should this all be thrown out there?

And in a way that will lead to constructive discussion, not criticism of the individual making a point?

I guess I would agai go back and say women's history.

I know again, sound like Johnny One Note or Joe One Note.

The point is, men have been beaten for 30 years to say, you've got to accept women.

You got to accept women.

Women are as good, women are as good, and you can make them do it through laws and through cultural pressure.

But are they thinking it?

And the way you affect their thinking is to make them uncomfortabl on what they know about women.

And again, the storie of real women of accomplishment helps do that.

When they find out women were the one that developed nuclear fission, the one, you know, the ones that developed all sorts of things that, you know, run airplanes and developed a technology that allows cellphones, etc.

when they learn those things, their mind changes and then accepting women becomes easier for them.

And I think Anns 100% correct on this one, Bonnie, but I also think it's very easy to think that the natural expansion of civil rights, including women, right, is a natural, organic, to be relied on thing, that nothing could be further from the truth.

Just think of this, To The Contrary.

This wonderful show was founde in 1992, the year of the woman when we all thought we had it all made.

We had a historic number of women that got elected, and the world was going to be a wonderful place.

And what did we find?

We plateaued, and no we find ourselves sliding back.

And each decade has a challenge, each— My daughters have a challenge.

My granddaughter has a challenge in front of her to make sure that we're unwavering, to make sure that women's rights continues to advance.

But I couldn't agree with Ann more, in the context of what women have contributed to our society from the very beginning, including the Founding Fathers, which I can guarantee you there were some Founding Mothers nobody talks about.

Nailah, your thoughts, your thoughts on the best way to rein this in peacefully as opposed to sparking more calls for violence?

Well I think it's a combination of a cultural shift and a political shift.

Right.

So there's that, framing o just policy reinforced culture, or does culture lead to shifts in policy, which has, again, another impact on, again, like our broader frameworks and ideologies that we all live under, regardless of our identities.

So, you know the role of media again, also, I think helps drive that political belief.

Folk who have high follower counts, conversations that we have online shapes how people understand, you know, the role of impact of masculinity and femininity and women's equality, and how we perceive tha as society, and how we perceive that as whethe that's beneficial to ourselves, or if that is potentially taking away something from, from ourselves, our family.

So I think it's a combination of both cultural and political shift, which can be a really messy process.

And one last thing I'd like to note, which is accounting for the number of mentally unstable people who are out there in the population and before the entry of medi going into everybody's computer.

I mean, you don't even need a TV set or a pair of antennas.

You just need to be able to get to sites where there are publi discussions of various things, and you don't know who is reading what you're saying and how they will be inflamed by it.

So it's, you know, a good idea to keep that in mind, too.

That's it for this edition of To The Contrary.

Keep the conversation going on our social media platforms Instagram, Facebook, X and TikTok.

Reach out to us @tothecontrary and visit our website.

The address is on the screen and whether you agree or think to the contrary, see you next time.

Funding for To the Contrary provided by: You're watching PBS.