If you don’t move out of the way for men, your commute changes. For one thing – I’m not going to lie about this – you do collide with a lot of men. This is where the name of the game comes from. You need to really commit to Patriarchy Chicken: don’t let your social instinct to step to the side kick in. Men are going to walk into you: that isn’t your fault.

Some men don’t walk straight into you, of course. Some men find their brains overridden by the unfamiliar experience of a woman refusing to give way. Last week, on a busy train platform, a man was so confused by my trajectory towards him that he stopped dead in front of me, holding eye contact, and flapped his mouth like a fish. You will find that a lot of men just… stop. It is up to you to decide how to react to this.

It’s also important to note that Patriarchy Chicken isn’t about anger. Of course, you can put your head down, square your shoulders, glower, and power through. But in my opinion, the best way to play the game is cheerfully. Smile! Make eye contact! But never, ever give way.

The point of Patriarchy Chicken is not just that you get where you’re going marginally faster (although you do) or that you irritate a number of men (which you also do). The point is that men have been socialised, for their entire lives, to take up space. Men who would never express these thoughts out loud have nevertheless been brought up to believe that their right to occupy space takes precedent over anyone else’s right to be there. They spread their legs on tubes and trains, they bellow across coffee shops and guffaw in pubs, and they never, ever give way.

Women have not been socialised to take up space. Women have been socialised to give way, to alleviate, to conciliate, and to step to the side.

Donald Trump Jr has hinted he could run for president in 2024.

The incumbent US leader’s eldest son posted an Instagram story showing another user mentioning his name in answer to a question about potential Republican candidates in five years’ time.

Mr Trump made no additional comment indicating his opinion, but it follows increasing speculation that he is planning to follow in his father's footsteps by entering US politics.

GOD: "I just told Donald Trump, Jr. that I want him to be President."

ME: "Whaaaaaaaat?"

GOD: "Oh, trust Me, Betty. It's going to be HILARIOUS!"

After giving three interviews, a specialist officer said she had to hand in her mobile phone.

“She said there was a new rule that with all rape cases, the victim has to hand their phone to the police so that all the detail on it can be downloaded – social media messages, photos everything – to make sure nothing comes out as a surprise in the investigation that would bring down the case,” Sarah added.

When she asked what would happen if she did not hand over her phone, the officer “just said that the case couldn’t go ahead”.

In the 2016 primary, Democratic voters were presented with a choice: Sanders, who represented the potential of redistributive policy, and Clinton, who represented the possibility of shattering, as she put it, the last, highest glass ceiling. She dismissed his ideas as impractical; his supporters attacked her with a virulent misogyny that belied their nominal commitments to equality. For leftist women, to express enthusiasm for Sanders’ policy proposals was seen as condoning the sexist attacks on Clinton. To defend Clinton from sexism meant that we would be accused of condoning the worst choices of her history. This choice, between Sanders and Clinton, redistribution and representation, has been the central conflict of American progressive politics in the years since. You can have either redistribution or representation, the thinking goes, but not both.
-----------
Why would Democratic voters choose Sanders when Warren is running? The two are not ideologically identical, but the differences between their major policy stances, on regulation of financial services and the need to extend the welfare state, are relatively minor, especially compared to the rest of the field. Warren calls herself a capitalist, the Sanders partisans point out, while Sanders is unafraid of the label “socialist”. That’s one thing. But this point has the quality of a post-hoc rationalization. It is cited by those seeking a politically acceptable reason to vote for a man and not for a woman – those who would vote for this man, and perhaps not any woman, no matter what.
----------
But Warren’s primary virtue over Sanders is that she seems to understand the inextricable binds between racial and gender discrimination and the economic injustice that both candidates abhor. She has made statements about the reality of racial discrimination, how it compounds with economic injustice to keep people of color from entering and staying in the middle class.

Sanders, meanwhile, speaks about the struggles of the working class in reductionist and retro ways; he seems to hold an anachronistic understanding of the American worker as white and male, oppressed only by his bosses and not at the same time by the structures of racism and sexism.

White evangelicals rationalizing Trump:

“God used...
Saul, who persecuted Christians
David, who was an adulterer Rahab, who was a prostitute
Moses, who was a murderer
Noah, who was a drunkard...
... so God can use Trump”

Same white evangelicals on Obama:

“He’s the antichrist”