======== Continued From Previous Message ==========

t the man. So it's the man who
has the better case.


 By the same
> token, among the divorcing wives who file sexual molestation charges
against
> their husbands are some who have been coached by self-serving lawyers.
> Columnist Barbara Amiel (1989) stated that "a lawyer is coming close to
> negligence if he does not advise a client that in child custody cases and
> property disputes, the mere mention of a child abuse allegation is a
> significant asset" (p.25).
>
> In The Morning After, Katie Roiphe (1993) reported still another cause of
> false allegations: political passions generated by activities such as the
> "Take Back the Night" marches.  She tells about
"Mindy" who so wanted to
be
> a "part of this blanket warmth, this woman-centered nonhierarchical
> empowered notion" that she was "willing to lie" (pp.
40-41).  A similar
> story was told by a Stanford University professor whose daughter was, he
> claimed, behind a conspiracy to murder him.  He testified that he had had
a
> good relationship with her until she attended an anti-rape rally.  "She
> appeared to have gotten swept up ... and was experiencing great emotional
> distress" (Wykes, 1993).
>
> These mitigating circumstances have often softened the judgment of
> authorities who confront women guilty of misrepresentation.  In the
> Washington D.C. area, for example, police send women who lied about rape
not
> to the court room but to a counseling center.

The woman should be imprisoned.



  The Princeton woman who
> accused a fellow student suffered no more than an obligation to write a
> public apology.  Because of these sometimes compelling reasons for a
> departure from the truth, many officials hesitate to call a woman a liar.
>
> But it appears, some women with little or no evidence do not hesitate to
> call a man a rapist.  It also appears that more than a few of them have in
> fact knowingly and willfully lied.  Regardless of the influences working
on
> Ericka Ingram, for example, there came a point when the evidence openly
> confounded her story, leaving her with the choice either to persist or
> recant.  Because she not only persisted but further embellished her story,
> Richard Ofshe called her an "habitual liar" (Wright, 1993,
p.69).  Whether
> Anita Hill lied about Clarence Thomas still cannot be determined, but
David
> Brock demonstrated that in several other matters she had indeed lied.  And
> as Charles P. McDowell and other rape allegation researchers have
> discovered, at least one out of four women in their study population have
> openly admitted to having lied.
>
> Such disclosures should encourage skepticism toward the now widely held
> belief that, in accusations of sexual misconduct, women never lie.  The
same
> skepticism should be activated when we hear its supporting explanation:
that
> filing such a charge is so painful that only a truthful woman would
proceed.

It's only painful if you have nothing to gain.



> That belief, although equally strong, is equally suspect.  The research
that
> revealed how many sexual misconduct allegations are false has also
revealed
> how often these unfounded accusations are strongly motivated.
>
> The clearest example of compelling motive can be found in the Sexual
> Allegation in Divorce (S.A.I.D.) syndrome.  In such cases questionable
> allegations multiply because the accuser has far more to gain than to
lose.
> Simply charging a divorcing spouse with child molestation - or wife
> battering or spousal rape - can turn a hot but evenly balanced custody
> battle into a rout.  In many cases, the accused husband must vacate what
had
> been the "family" home and submit to prolonged alienation from his
children.
> He also finds himself ensnared by both the criminal justice and the social
> service bureaucracies whose conflicting rules of evidence can deny him the
> presumption of innocence.

I was just wondering if any Mafia member had to endure this :o) You get the
idea.




  In a process that only a Kafka can describe, he
> must then devote his resources to defending himself rather than pursuing
the
> original divorce litigation.
>
> Even then he may find himself in jail or in court ordered therapy while
his
> accuser has won de facto custody not only of the children but of the
house.
> Should he eventually win vindication, a process which can literally take
> years, he may enjoy at best a hollow victory which leaves him financially
> and emotionally drained, nursing a permanently injured reputation and
> functioning as an "absent" father with a sparse schedule of controlled
> visits.  It is no wonder, then, that to express the reality commentators
> have sometimes used dramatic language, such as "the ultimate
weapon" or
the
> "atom bomb."

Not if he drops it first:o)



>
> The impressive results that are so often easily achieved with false
> allegations in custody disputes suggest the kind of temptations women may
> feel in other situations.  Among those found to have lied about rape or
> sexual harassment, for example, a number of motivations have been
> identified.  The McDowell report listed those they uncovered in declining
> order of appearance.  "Spite or revenge" and "to
compensate for feelings
of
> guilt or shame" accounted for 40% of such allegations (Farrell, 1993, p.
> 325).  A small percentage were attributed to "mental/emotional disorder or
> attempted extortion."  In all cases, then, the falsely alleging woman had
> any of several strong motives to lie.  But, as with the S.A.I.D. syndrome,
> the most common motive was anger, an emotion which prompts more than a few
> embattled women to reach for "the ultimate weapon.
>
> Although money gained through extortion ranked low among the motives for
> false rape allegations, it appears to rank higher when sexual harassment
> claims prove to be unfounded.  A casual survey of some of the suits that
> have been filed suggests why.  In the eighties, successful claims often
> brought damages in the $50,000 to $100,000 range.  After the explosion
> ignited by the Hill/Thomas case, not only the number of claims but damage
> awards have skyrocketed.  A clothing store cashier successfully sued her
> employer for $500,000.  Employees of Stroh's Brewery claimed that the
> company's commercials, which showed the "Swedish Bikini
Team," constituted
> harassment and sued for damages ranging between $350,000 and $550,000.  In
> the famous locker room harassment case, Lisa Olson was reported to have
> received a settlement ranging between $250,00 and $700,000.  Damage
claims -
> and awards - in the millions are becoming more common.

Don't count on it. Insurance companies are really fighting these things
today. The 90's are over:o)
>
> In some cases which were later proved to be false, the financial stakes
were
> particularly high.  One lawyer was charged with coaching six of his
clients
> to "embellish or lie" about some of the incidents on which
they based a
> sexual harassment case.  They had asked for $487,000 (Gonzales, 1993).
> Eleven women from the Miss Black America Pageant, after claiming that Mike
> Tyson had touched them on their rears, filed a $607 million lawsuit
against
> him.  Several of the contestants later admitted they had lied in the hope
of
> getting publicity and cashing in on the award money which would have given
> them around $20 million each (Farrell, 1993, p.328).

The rape charges against Tyson were completely false. He was a victim of
sexism AND racism.


>
> But where extortion does appear, the motivation may be political as well
as
> monetary not only in particular cases but in the growth of the entire
sexual
> misconduct crisis.  Whether it is rape or sexual harassment or
> divorce-related child molestation or recovered incest memory, many of the
> investigators eventually mention the influence of ideological feminism.
> Katie Roiphe, for example, found feminist politics at work in the phony
rape
> story invented by Mindy, the imaginative Princeton co-ed.  Norman
Podhoretz,
> who wrote about "Rape in Feminist Eyes," attributes the current
> over-publicized obsession with rape to "the influence of man-hating
elements
> within the (women's) movement (which) has grown so powerful as to have
swept
> all before it" (1992, p.29).  As far back as 1985 John Sullivan attributed
> the overheated denial of false accusation to attempts to defend the
> "feminist theory of rape."  And Philip Jenkins (1993), who
reported the
> trend toward automatically-assumed female credibility, stated that it was
> part of a larger campaign to establish "feminist jurisprudence."

That's all over with the insane Clinton 90's.


>
> Whatever their motivations in particular cases, there is little doubt that
> ideological feminists have achieved significant political gains from
> publicizing the sexual misconduct crisis.  Lisa Olson's feelings of
> harassment may for example have been genuine, but as the focus for a
> prolonged media event that established for female reporters an access to
> locker rooms it was as unpopular with the general public as it was with
male
> athletes.  The real Anita Hill may or may not have been lying, but the
> Hill/Thomas affair propelled sexual harassment into a hot issue that
rapidly
> generated a subindustry of scholars, consultants, and bureaucrats,
prompted
> a "Year of the Woman" campaign that helped several women
into congress,
and
> revived a flagging women's movement.
>
> The same spectacular results may follow from the Tailhook Scandal, which,
> like Hill/Thomas, is raising serious questions about motive and
credibility.
> Whether Paula Coughlin's testimony will become as clouded as Anita Hill's,
> her whistle-blowing has already scuttled the careers of a still growing
> number of naval officers, not to mention the Secretary of the Navy
himself,
> intensified in-service anti-sexual harassment campaigns, reinforced an
> already strong feminist presence in the armed forces, and helped soften
the
> military's granitic opposition to women in combat.  These incidents also
> helped to power a "Violence Against Women"

We must stop it. Call your Congressmen in Washington and tell of your
opposition.


 bill through congress which will
> channel still more millions of government money into women's programs, not
> to mention winning congressional validation of feminist jurisprudence.
> That's a lot of political gain achieved by the words of a few women who
> suffered little more than an affront to their sensibilities.
>
>
> Conclusions
>
> This growing gap - between the anguish suffered by the victims of
> traditionally-defined sex crimes and what is suffered by victims of
> ideologically-defined crimes - suggests that the crisis we face is not the
> result of a sexual misconduct epidemic but of the crisis mentality itself,
> an ever more hysterical vision of a "rape culture."  It has
a foundation
in
> reality.  In what has become a ritual disclaimer, those who have exposed
the
> surprising number of false allegations of sexual misconduct have also
> admitted the appalling number of genuine accusations.  And those who have
> attacked the incompetence, self-interest, and zealotry that has denied the
> extent of false allegation have also recognized the courage and energy
that
> has exposed the problem of honest allegation begging vainly for belief.
> They have therefore applauded the effort to seek for this long ignored
> injustice both social and legal remediation.
>
> But that effort, carried too far and exploited too often, has generated
> another gap: between our awareness of the now highly visible victims of
> sexual misconduct and the almost invisible victims of false allegation.
The
> lesser known victims have their own stories to tell, enough to reveal
> another long ignored injustice that demands remediation.  False
allegations
> of sexual misconduct have deprived a rapidly growing number of men and
women
> of their reputations, their fortunes, their children, their livelihood,
and
> their freedom; have wasted the time and money of countless tax-supported
> agencies; have destroyed not only individuals but entire families and
> communities; and have left some so desperate that they have taken their
> lives.
>
> For that reason, in the current revision of our sexual misconduct code, we
> must retain as a guiding premise the realization that women can lie
because
> we know that, for several reasons, more than a few women have lied, more
> often than researchers into false allegation had expected, far more often
> than "rape culture" ideologues have admitted ... too often,
in any event,
to
> be ignored by our jurisprudence, feminist or otherwise.
>
>
> Endnote
>       1. These assertions are themselves widely disputed.  However, one of
> the most extensive studies on the subject, by Strauss and Gelles (1990)
> reports that for physical abuse, the rate is higher for mothers than for
> fathers: 17.7% for mothers vs. 10.1% for fathers.  They found that preteen
> boys are slightly more likely to be abused than their sisters but that the
> pattern changes alter puberty.  Strauss and Gelles, however, also refer to
> some contravening studies that show higher rates for fathers.
>
>       Susan Steinmetz (1977/78) who has collaborated with Strauss and
> Gelles, reported independently that "mothers abused children 62% more
often
> than fathers, and that male children were more than twice as likely to
> suffer physical injury" (p.499).
>
>       David C. Morrow (1993) reports: "Drawing upon reports of the
American
> Humane Association, the Association of Juvenile Courts, the National
Center
> for the Prevention of Child Abuse, and the FBI's 1978 crime report, John
> Rossler of Equal Rights for Fathers of New York State estimated that
mothers
> commit over two-thirds of all child abuse, 80% of it in sole custody and
> none in joint custody situations, while boyfriends and new husbands
> perpetrate most of the rest.  A similar study conducted a few years
earlier
> in Utah by Ken Pangborn showed abuse 37% higher among single mothers than
> the general population and 67% of all abuse in the doing of women of whom
> 80% are single mothers."
>
>       Diane Russell (1986) reports that of adult women in San Francisco
who
> reported one or more experiences of incestuous abuse, overall 4.5% were
> abused by a father (biological, step, foster or adoptive).  But the abuse
> was much more likely to occur with a stepfather.  Russell reports that 17%
> of the women who were raised by a stepfather were abused by him compared
to
> 2% of the women who were raised by a biological father.  This indicates
the
> greater risk to a girl of growing up in a household without her biological
> father.
>
>       Thomas Fleming (1986) cites a Canadian study that concluded that
> preschoolers were 40 times as likely to be abused in broken and
illegitimate
> families as compared to those in intact two-parent families.
>
>       The consensus thus appears to support the assertion that child abuse
> is much more common in single parent families or families missing the
> biological father, that women are more often the abusers, and that male
> children are more often the victims.
>
>
>
> --
> Men are everywhere that matters!
>
>
>




--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/16/05 9:24:28 PM ---