THE UGLY TRUTH

This is a man's world. James Brown said it. We know it. And still, there is something freshly nauseating about watching it play out in real time, again. Sean "Diddy" Combs-a man whose fame is as iconic as the Empire State Building, as brash and recognizable as Trump Tower-is now being dragged, finally, into the legal reckoning his decades of behavior have all but promised. Diddy is, without a doubt, being rightfully charred in the court of public opinion. But the court I'm watching with equal scrutiny is the one full of women-women who are defending him, tearing down his victims, and choosing patriarchy over their own liberation.

To be clear: Diddy is a predator. There is video evidence. Eyewitness accounts. Medical records. A twenty-million-dollar settlement. And a disturbing pattern of behavior spanning decades. The prosecution isn't bluffing. As @b.l.a.c.k.b.o.y.w.r.i.t.e.s pointed out on Threads: "The craziest thing about the Diddy trial is that the biggest evidence of Diddy's wrong doing that WE know of is Cassie and the prosecution called her to the stand at the beginning of the trial. THE BEGINNING. And this trial finna go on for weeks. Which likely means that Cassie is not the most damaging witness they have against him."

This isn't checkers. It's chess. And yet, somehow, the loudest counter-narratives aren't only coming from men in the "manosphere." They're coming from women. **The Defense of Diddy, By Women** It's expected that men would defend him. Men, especially those who worship power and proximity to it, have long struggled to hold other men accountable. They admire dominance to the point of obsequiousness. That's how we got Trump.

Two New York power archetypes-Combs and Trump-cut from the same cloth: arrogant, narcissistic, materialistic, self-anointed family men embroiled in sexual misconduct and criminality.

Two New York power archetypes-Combs and Trump-cut from the same cloth: arrogant, narcissistic, materialistic, self-anointed family men embroiled in sexual misconduct and criminality. Both have benefited from the same broken culture: one that turns a blind eye to male violence when it comes dressed in money, status, and celebrity. In fact, Trump and Diddy are near-perfect reflections of one another. Both crafted media empires that positioned them as aspirational figures for wealth, women, and invincibility. Both masked their abuses behind charisma and commercial success. Both have manipulated the press, brandished their children as evidence of fatherhood, and left a wake of lawsuits, allegations, and silence-money settlements in their trail. They are two sides of the same golden coin-and America has minted them both.

What we are witnessing is the real-time unraveling of a cultural structure in which powerful men are protected by male obsequiousness and elevated by female complicity.

We must thread the needle here: Charisma does not absolve criminality. Charm does not negate harm. What we are witnessing is the real-time unraveling of a cultural structure in which powerful men are protected by male obsequiousness and elevated by female complicity. Men admire other men's power-even when it's abusive-because that power represents the version of manhood they've been taught to pursue. The alpha. The mogul. The mogul who "gets away with it." This is why Trump's grip on his followers remains ironclad, even as he racks up indictments. It's why Diddy, despite video evidence and a paper trail, still enjoys defenders. Because both men have built brands so deeply embedded in American culture that attacking them feels, to some, like attacking a belief system. They've become more than men. They've become avatars of aspiration. And let's be clear-while Trump has long displayed an unsettling, often sexualized fixation on his daughter Ivanka, Combs groomed, seduced, and abused a young woman nearly two decades his junior. Trump's public remarks-referring to Ivanka's body, saying he would date her if she weren't his daughter, and repeatedly emphasizing her appearance-have been widely criticized as inappropriate, if not outright disturbing. These are not offhand jokes; they reveal a deep normalization of men projecting control, desire, and possession over the women in their lives, even their daughters. Meanwhile, Combs's abuse of Cassie Ventura began when she was barely out of her teens, the same age as his three daughters are today. The optics-and ethics-are chilling. According to reports, those daughters left the courtroom in visible disgust after hearing the disturbing testimony, and they were notably absent on the second and third days. Public discourse online has wrestled with this absence. Some have argued that the daughters are too young to hear the full extent of their father's alleged behavior. And yet-this is the bitter contradiction-those same voices online are attacking Cassie for being "old enough to know better." The contradiction is revealing. It shows how deep the cultural conditioning runs. Young women can be viewed as too delicate to hear about abuse, but simultaneously too culpable when they experience it. The difference? One is a daughter, the other is not. But neither should be allowed to hide behind charisma, nor should the cult-like adoration they command excuse the damage they've done. What connects them-beyond ego, excess, and empire-is harm. What props them up-beyond money and media-is loyalty from people who've been conditioned to serve, follow, or fear power.

The contradiction is revealing. It shows how deep the cultural conditioning runs. Young women can be viewed as too delicate to hear about abuse, but simultaneously too culpable when they experience it.

If male deference to male power is old news, the spectacle of women defending that power feels like a knife to the gut. Scroll X, TikTok, Threads or comment sections and you’ll find women labeling Cassie a “gold digger,” insisting she “knew what she signed up for.” In one TikTok clip viewed more than 700,000 times, the creator shrugs, “She digging dollars, sis—play stupid games, win rich prizes.” TikTok The video’s author is female, her ring-light glow underscoring a grim reality: internalized misogyny is having a viral moment.

Academics define internalized misogyny as the adoption of sexist beliefs by women against themselves or other women, reinforcing the very hierarchy that oppresses them. It can be loud—public slut-shaming—or quiet: the raised eyebrow when a woman negotiates her salary, the instant assumption that a female accuser must be lying for profit. Either way, it functions as patriarchy’s volunteer police force.

Why volunteer? Some women see proximity to male power as protection in a world where power skews male. Others are chasing validation in a dating economy warped by what talking heads like Scott Galloway, who uses carefully articulated language to placate and point the finger at the “male loneliness crisis.” Pew’s latest numbers complicate that panic: 16%of men say they feel lonely “all or most of the time,” but so do 15% percent of women. Loneliness is real; it is not, however, a hall pass for abuse. Yet the narrative that men are the aggrieved party fuels an online “competition scramble,” where some women audition as the most compliant, least confrontational choice—Pick me, choose me, see how I’ll never hold you accountable.

Some women are intent on demonizing Cassie Ventura because they feel threatened—by her beauty, her autonomy, and a lifestyle they can only imagine and will never access. This hostility, rooted in insecurity, envy, and jealousy, exposes a willingness to sacrifice morals, integrity, and values to curry favor with a powerful man—often one who would never even notice them. Operating from ignorance and envy, they become invisible to the very man they idolize.

The truth is searing: these women are seething with hate, their misogyny deeply internalized. Sometimes it is loud and declarative online; other times it surfaces as micro-aggressions, snide comments, or withheld opportunities. Since time immemorial, women have been conditioned to compete for male approval—to appeal, to please, even to degrade or sexualize themselves to be chosen.

Women have always been tasked with tending the wounds patriarchy leaves on other women. When marriages collapse under the weight of “married single motherhood,” it is usually sisters and aunties who step in. If liberation is collective, then solidarity must be, too. That means rejecting the pick-me impulse, the urge to measure our worth by a man’s favor, the fear that safety lies only in defending predators.

Where Does the Misogyny End?

It ends when a courtroom video of a punch is not weighed against a celebrity’s Versace tux. It ends when the first question about an accuser is What does the evidence show?—not What did she gain? It ends when sisterhood outpaces scarcity, when power is no longer a zero-sum game.

The Combs trial is a referendum on more than one man. It is a stress test on whether America can recognize that charisma and cruelty often share a penthouse. It challenges men to confront the mirror: Admire brilliance, yes, but not at the cost of conscience. It challenges women—including those persuading themselves that Cassie’s pain is exaggerated—to ask why they find comfort in another woman’s discrediting.

If we fail this test, we will continue to produce Trumps and Combses faster than we can litigate them. But if we pass—if we listen, scrutinize, and break ranks with power for power’s sake—we edge closer to a culture where testimony wins over celebrity, where justice can finally hold the mic.