Michael Eriksson's Blog

A Swede in Germany

Reply to another post

with 2 comments

I am trying to reply to a post on an other blog, which just swallows my comment without any error message. To work around this, I instead post the comment here.

> The blame for the Duke Lacross team is the prosecutor.

The prosecutor used a false allegation raised by the woman—a woman, who saw the negative effects she was causing and did not back down from her fraudulent claims.

> Nor can one hold up one case & say this is why we can argue “do not believe
> women.”

That is the entire point of the example! You provide a single case and incorrectly argue that we should “Believe women”. I point to the absurdity of such reasoning by providing an opposite case.

> Women’s lack of credibility has a very long history and still continues to
this day.

Women may have lacked credibility in the past, but for at least several decades they have been given too much blanket credibility.

> In family court, for example, women’s allegations are often
> considered to be “vindictive” while research (see
> http://www.leadershipcouncil.org for research citations) proves most
> allegations are based on good faith.
> Moreover, research (see: Bala & Schumann) find men make more false
> allegations in family court – but notice the difference stereotypes have in
> comparison to research/facts.

(Please provide links to your sources—and specific links.)

I assume that you refer to the page

http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/ap.html

Even looking at just [Bala, N. & Schuman, J. (2000). Allegations of sexual abuse when parents have separated. Canadian Family Law Quarterly, 17, 191-241.], which on a cursory inspection appears to be the entry most favourable to your statements, a different story is told.

Yes, intentionally false allegations is considered a minority—but it also says that only 23 % of the allegations are both true and sufficiently well-proved, with a full 30 % of the remaining being based on false accusations. Notably, the majority of the overall number of false accusations (irrespective of good/bad faith) did come from the mothers—and did so with a considerable margin. (Even if every single accusation by someone else was faulty, an extremely unlikely assumption, this would amount to 29 % of 196 ~ 57 cases, to be compared with 89 outright faulty cases overall and an additional 61 potentially faulty cases.)

Most importantly, this study is useless to test the correctness of court decisions, because it has simply gathered the court decisions themselves. Obviously, this entirely undermines the point you try to make: If courts find that only 1.3 % of false accusations by women are in bad faith, compared to 21 % by men, then that is, if anything, a clear indication of pro-woman bias in the courts.

> I’m familiar with many cases involving the family court, but look at Katie
> Tagle for one. She was denied a restraining order 3 TIMES – 3rd judge (Lemkau)
> called her a liar (transcript on Internet). Ex took 9-month-old baby and
> killed him and himself.

You cannot argue based on individual cases: Just like with your original story, it is a trivial exercise to find an opposing case. Aggegrate numbers are what matter.

> For further proof, look at the Innocence Project, a respected organization
> fighting for wrongly imprisoned individuals. On their top 7 list on their
> web site it does NOT list false allegations.

(Please provide links to your sources.)

The absense of false allegations on their top 7 list is not proof of anything.

> Not believing women’s allegations – even when they have proof – leads to
> injuries and deaths.

While that is, at least potentially, true, you make no real connection between proof and believe. On the contrary, the statements in your original post sound more like the sometime feminists claims “A woman would never lie about rape!” or “A woman would never lie about her children being abused!”—claims which are both patently wrong.

> The “rules about credibility” are NOT the same for everyone – that’s the
> problem. She has less credibility.

Again, quite the contrary: Courts do have a long history of believing women even without sufficient proof.

A few links that you should read:

http://peterzohrab.tripod.com/5chdabus.html

http://www.wesh.com/news/23991233/detail.html

http://www.marylandfathers.org/FAQ2.html

http://www.fathermag.com/808/GenderBias.shtml

http://www.tigweb.org/express/panorama/article.html?ContentID=4309

(Note: I normally make references to http://www.mens-links.net/, which contains large collections of articles on various related issues. Unfortunately, this site appears to be down at the moment. The above links have been googled together as a sub-optimal replacement—and will understate the case.)

Advertisements

Written by michaeleriksson

July 21, 2010 at 8:34 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I’ve written a chapter about the Father’s Rights groups, they’re considered to be backlash, anti-feminist, misogynist, and an Abusers Lobby (Dr. Michael Flood lists their charges, convictions on the Internet).

    I listed Katie Tagle as ONE case and mentioned I know of a slew of cases, many are on my blog (remember the one about 44 rapes? there are other posts too).

    I have no time to go thru all your accusations and see no reason to do so. Visit like-minded blogs is what I’d recommend – you’d be wasting your time at my site. And, frankly, I’ve done enough research to go through your “analysis”, so – best wishes to you…

    miss j

    July 22, 2010 at 2:11 am

    • Your claim “Father’s Rights groups […a]re considered to be backlash, anti-feminist, misogynist, and an Abusers Lobby ” severely reduces your credibility: The “Abusers Lobby” part, in particular, is outrageous—you could equally claim that the Republicans are a “White Power lobby” or the Democrats a “Revolutionary Communist lobby”. Calls of “misogynist” are a staple of feminist propaganda: As discussed in previous articles, opponents are called misogynist or sexist as an ipso facto “proof” that their arguments would be evil and faulty—without actually addressing the arguments (nor providing any arguments to actually back up the claim of misogyny).

      As for “backlash” and “anti-feminist”: The former can be, and in this case is, something positive. The question is: Backlash against what? In this case, against gender-feminism, lack of adequat father’s rights, and similar—and that is a good thing. The latter is also a good thing: Feminism has been extremely distorted from its original fight for equal rights, and being anti-feminist is something very, very different from being e.g. anti-equality. On the contrary, with the feminism of the last few decades, it is more or less necessary to be anti-(gender-)feminist in order to be pro-equality.

      I further note that you fail to mention who considers them so: The answer is … gender-feminists. You might as well ask the Hamas for their opinion on Israel or vice versa.

      Your statement (as well as much of feminist propaganda in general) is an excellent example of the unfair argumentation methods I discuss in other posts here.

      As for the rest of your comment, I note that you do not actually bring any additional arguments for your cause, nor counter-arguments to my statements.

      Notably, “a slew” of individual cases is still just individual cases—there is an equal slew of opposing cases: Argue based on actual statistics on aggregate numbers by serious researchers. (And, no, I do not recall the one about 44 rapes—I recall the one about 44 attacks.)

      I did not raise accusations, I brought arguments—if you see no reason to address them, then you forego the opportunity to influence both my and your own stance. (While this is your prerogative, ducking discussions is not a good idea for those who want to change something and/or improve their own understanding.)

      You claim that you have done enough research to go through my analysis—yet you fail to do so. Furthermore, you presume to put the word in quotes—despite the fact that I do provide actual arguments and you do not.

      [Edits to improve language, logic, and politeness were made on 2010-07-23.]

      michaeleriksson

      July 22, 2010 at 3:29 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s