Reply to another post
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
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
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
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:
(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.)