They're coming from Dolores Huerta. I can't really imagine her making this up, knowing the impact it would have on the movement. It's also not hard to that men in positions of power are likely to abuse people in exactly this way.
this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2026
16 points (94.4% liked)
askchapo
23249 readers
96 users here now
Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.
Rules:
-
Posts must ask a question.
-
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
-
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
-
Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Agreed. I don't see any good reason to doubt it.
We either believe women or we don't, turning a blind eye because it's "your guy" is liberalism
No gods means no gods
I don't know anything about it. I'm asking the question because I want honest opinions not spun by corporate media. I don't have enough knowledge of Chavez to call him "my guy" in the first place, but when I do dig into his history, I want to do so with clear eyes
Sorry didn't mean to offend. The reason I put "your guy" in quotes was to separate the concept from this specific example. It didn't come across clearly.
Caesar Chavez is not was was never "our guy". Union leaders don't automatically deserve leftist loyalty and in fact leftists should be especially critical of these "leaders" and what they do with their influence over the proletariat. Chavez wasn't even close to leftism and Communists should feel zero loyalty to this pos
Exactly. Unionism isn't the end all be all, especially under a liberal society, it's just an important tool to push for better working conditions and to spread class consciousness. In fact, unionism can very often be counter revolutionary or reactionary, because they can be easily hijacked/compromised by said forces. Also, a union can be created by reactionaries and used to make themselves look like they legitimately care about working conditions and rights.
It's a good way to look at them that I often forget (although I shouldn't considering people that look like me were kept out of the original trade unions in the US).
Unions are just a tool, another way to organize the working class. They are just like tenant unions or political parties, or any other organizational thing, they can be good or bad.
Yes, and they are unfortunately not surprising. he moved the ufw leadership to a compound in tehachapi (it was previously in Delano, a town with a lot of ufw rank and file members, esp grape workers whereas tehachapi was ranch country with very few) and ran it essentially as a cult. I recommend Frank Bardakes book on the subject if you want a vast amount of detail on the subject
You may want to specify which Chavez you're talking about 
Yeah I'm lost
Sorry I mis-typed. Cesar Chavez the union leader allegedly groomed and removed children/girls and Dolores Huerta.
yeesh, what a shithead
Sexual misconduct (assault?) allegations directed at Caeser Chavez.
SA and CSA.
Oof
Well known for a long time that Chavez was a PoS
I 100% believe them. Chavez was always a conservative unionist, he lacked intersectionality and solidarity with other workers and now it is more clear than ever that his union work was for is own self interest. He was happy to throw immigrant workers other the bus for "undermining" his union, and now it seems he also didn't give a shit about women and girls either. He is not and was never a leftist, he was a yellow unionist who wanted to get paid more and that was about the extent of his participation with class struggle. Why do you think the amerikkkian empire threw up so many statues of him? he was the perfect "acceptable" worker leader for liberals to diffuse communist tendencies and I'm not surprised he was also aremoved.
i think they're another reason in an almost infinitely long list of reasons to never trust men with power
you can tell me anything bad about an important or powerful man and i'll probably believe you based on all the other examples.
I don’t really understand what “believe women” means (explain it to me pls)
I for sure as hell ain’t believing an Israeli woman and when I look at history it’s not really a good thing if you remember how many black people (men and women) suffered from the bs that white women spewed
But from what I’ve seen the allegation looks quite damming and the people accusing him seem legit
This about Caesar Chavez (Union guy?) not our boy Hugo
I don’t really understand what “believe women” means (explain it to me pls)
I for sure as hell ain’t believing an Israeli woman and when I look at history it’s not really a good thing if you remember how many black people (men and women) suffered from the bs that white women spewed
It's not that women are magical creatures that can't lie, but that there's a history going back the full length of history more or less of women being dismissed out of hand when they speak up about being abused. The slogan is basically just trying to convey that we shouldn't do that and should instead take such claims seriously.
I think it's a bad slogan because the wording does carry a connotation of being uncritical (in the sense that if you investigate the claim and find it doesn't make sense, you're not "believing women" anymore), but that's not what the slogan is supposed to mean.
Thank you
Almost certainly true, but I also don't trust Delores Huerta ever since she accused Bernie supporters of being racist at a caucus back in the 2016 primaries. She kinda sits in my head right next to CIA asset Gloria "the boys are with Bernie" Steinem.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/20/politics/dolores-huerta-english-only-sanders-organizers