View Comments |
Print This Post
|
by Gordon E. Finley |
June 19th, 2006
The Duke University case essentially boils down to One Woman’s Word vs. the available scientific evidence and the statements obtained immediately after the alleged rape.
It once was taken for granted that a man’s word was his bond and carried great weight. Today, however, a man’s word carries but little weight and it is a woman’s word that not only is beyond reproach but is also her meal-ticket. Even more critically, the bearing of false witness by a woman only rarely bears consequences for her (as it once did — and continues to do — for men) but can be of horrific consequence to those against whom false witness is borne. Two cases, one specific and one general, make the point.
The currently breaking Duke University case essentially boils down to One Woman’s Word vs. the available scientific evidence (including DNA evidence) and the testimony obtained immediately surrounding the alleged rape. So far, One Woman’s Word trumps all.
The consequences in this case include: Duke University has lost its pristine reputation; one Coach has lost his job; all members of the Lacrosse team live under a cloud of suspicion; and three members have lost their freedom and face criminal charges. All consequences flow directly from One Woman’s Word flying incredibly in the face of the available scientific evidence and testimony. Can Americans continue to believe that the woman holding the scales of justice in every American courtroom truly is blindfolded?
The second case in point is the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). As one nation under VAWA, One Woman’s Word in an ex parte civil hearing (where one party is excluded from the hearing — virtually always the father/husband) carries substantial criminal consequences which not only are the norm but are built into the law. One Woman’s Word in such hearings violates the man’s right to present his side of the case, violates his civil rights, and ensures injustice through the complete absence of due process protections. As enshrined in law, the consequences of One Woman’s Word under VAWA are such that a Civil Court Judge can strip a man of his home, remove his children from him, require him to immediately support the woman and children who just have been stripped from him, or face debtors prison should he fail to comply with the Judge’s orders. Most critically, these consequences are criminal consequences in a Civil Court where One Woman’s Word serves as judge, jury, and executioner.
These two cases represent but the tip of the iceberg in a society governed by a simple mantra: woman good, man bad. As seen in the light of day, the inequality of this mantra must be replaced by a mantra of equality.
One Woman’s Word must be made exactly equal to One Man’s Word – nothing more and nothing less. Equality in bond and sanction is the only inherently defensible position.
adoptaowl@aol.com
Visit their website at: http://psych.fiu.edu/Faculty&StaffPages2/Finley/Finley.htm
Responses to "One Woman’s Word"
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Prof. Finley writes: "It once was taken for granted that a man’s word was his bond and carried great weight."
There was also a time when sexual adventurism, of the kind we now take for granted, was itself subject to censure, even trial and imprisonment.
Although we want to continue to pretend that "prudery" is just another lifestyle choice, the fact is that debauchery and a general disregard for the morals that used to underpin society, have consequences.
Although I am disgusted with this woman's apparent lack of integrity in putting forth what look to be fabricated allegations, the fact is that these young men put themselves in this position because the society in which they live no longer finds it scandalous for them to have booze-and-sex parties, and they eagerly go to with gusto. There really is no moral high-ground here at all, just a bunch of people using one another for sex and money.
The young men and the women they hired for that evening are just parts of a rotten whole. We will just continue to pretend that sexual mores don't really matter, that they're just quaint relics of the Victorian era of sexual repression.
And we'll keep having the consequences hit us in the face time after time.
Comment by B. P. | June 19, 2006
Men should take better care when dealing with women.
Comment by Rose | June 19, 2006
The case you make relates to what has been called the feminization of America, an evolving situation Philip Wylie warned about fifty years or more ago. This Duke rape case is an exercise in absurdity and should have never made it to the grand jury.
Comment by Bill White | June 19, 2006
Just more evidence that political amateurs can violate all laws of common sense and get away with it - for the time being, at least.
Comment by Bill Ferguson | June 19, 2006
"Men should take better care when dealing with women"
The woman is equally at fault for selecting a career field that put her alone at a house party with a bunch of young drunken men.
If either the stripper or the players had stopped and thought "Wait, this doesn't seem particularly bright.." then this whole sorbid affair would have never happened.
Comment by curtis walston | June 19, 2006
First there was the doctrine of separate but equal. Then we had the concept that some are more equal than others. Now we have the doctrine of equal but special: Women are equal, but special.
Comment by G of Sedona | June 19, 2006
RE # 5
Yes indeed the woman is equally at fault, but, if men didn't put forth the market for such
antics, then women would find other career fields.
Comment by Rose | June 20, 2006
How was it Ann Coulter put it? Oh yes, "if there is anything that won't be learned from the Duke University scandal it is this: There is one sure fire way to not be falsely accused of rape….Don't hire strange women to come into your house andtake off their clothes for money."
Quite simply, if you put yourself in a bad situation, bad things tend to happen. There are things that you don't do out of sheer common sense: walk down the street counting hundred dollar bills, as a woman walk down the street naked, etc. Dumb actions have consequences, and innocent or not, we at least need to realize that these guys put themselves in harm's way by being fools.
Comment by Kenny | June 20, 2006
Yes, don't put yourself in bad situations: don't ever go home with a strange girl, including your girlfriend, and maybe your wife when she is on the rag. Because she could get mad enough at you and being hormonally challenged and accuse you of rape. Then you are stuck because you put yourself in a bad situation guys trying to have sex with a spoiled rotten woman of the US. No the solution isn't "to not put yourself in a bad situation. Its punishing and treating rape like every other assault. Its also punishing those who bring false charges even if they are poor ol' defenseless ho's.
Comment by Dean | June 21, 2006
"Yes, don’t put yourself in bad situations: don’t ever go home with a strange girl, including your girlfriend, and maybe your wife when she is on the rag."
Yah. THERE'S a leap in logic worth of the Daily Kos.
Comment by B. P. | June 22, 2006
RE: Above:
"Worthy."
Comment by B. P. | June 22, 2006
Re: Rose's Comments
It does not matter if you feel that men having strippers come and dance for them is moral or not. It does not matter if you feel that women stripping is men degrading them or vice versa. Both situations are legal in this country.
The problem here is that someone on one side or the other broke the law. If the men sexually assaulted her, they are criminals and should be punished. If she is lying, she is a criminal and should be punished..
The facts of THIS case, as described above, show no proof of anything less than the woman has lied and destroyed the lives of three men. We won't know for sure until a trial (if one ever happens), but the scientific evidence certainly supports the three men (as distasteful at this is to some women).
Comment by Tom | July 12, 2006