On "believe the women"

First, before you all trash me - I am a lesbian-feminist who was a founding member of Santa Cruz Women Against Rape in 1972. I wrote my thesis on rape in 1976. I have studied the issues of accusations - and false accusations - for over four decades. Originally, I totally bought into the "believe the women" or "believe the children" mantra as so many women and children were not heard or believed when they reported sexual assault. But, then, I kept reading. And realized that the attitude of belief without proof was leading us down a horrible, unjust path for many accused people (generally men, but sometimes women).

My conclusion: there has to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or we feminists are THE problem. And the longer the time between the event and the accusations, the more we need to be skeptical of the accusation due to the reality of memory science, and the inability of the accused to fairly defend themselves.

First, do no harm. I knew I did harm when I "believed the children" without critical thinking when I read an article in the now-defunct New West magazine about the McMartin case - how the children were led through manipulation to develop false memories of bizarre sexual and other acts. The manipulator, the unrepentant Kee McFarlane, did the deed. I realized my world view was tilted against justice at that moment in time. It was a life-changer. So I start to think more critically.

Believe the women. Except for the many black men lynched due to false accusations of rape - dozens if not hundreds of them, such as the Scottsboro boys or the alleged rape that led to the Rosewood massacre. Or, in more modern times, the Duke lacrosse case or Rolling Stone's recent Jackie Coakley bogus accusations. 

There are many more, of course. One just has to read individual cases of what happened when the Obama administration created new campus rules re Title IX - the accusations of sexual assault came pouring in. I read about many mouth-gaping Kafkaesque injustices to guys (or, sometimes, accused women). If you don't have knowledge of this problem, a good starting place is to read Emily Yoffe's three-part series in the Atlantic.  You remember the mattress woman at Columbia? I don't believe her; I believe the guy - as did the school, rightly.  If you want to know exactly how this mess happened, this excellent law review article from UC Berkeley "Sex Bureaucracy" explains it very well.

Believe the children. Except for the accusations in the McMartin case, or Country Walk, or Wenatchee, or against Bee Baran, or Kelly Michaels or the San Antonio Four and many more. Virtually all the day care abuse cases of that era were based on false accusations, which became clear to many, and the courts, only with time. 

Believe the women. Except for the many completely unproven charges that women leveled at their fathers or brothers and others under therapist guidance of "recovered memories". I have read extensively on these cases, and many of the charges were later retracted. Basically, our memories are very easy to manipulate. Here is just one article, but there are a library of false accusations from recovered memory, and there are several well-researched books on the subject.

So, I don't. I don't believe the children. I don't believe the women. Except with proof - clear evidence that the accusation happened. And, yes, this equally applies to Kavanaugh as well as Biden.

Women, men and children who accuse someone of sexual assault should not be disbelieved.  This has been the historical - and often current - problem.  The wonderful, three-part Netflix series Unbelievable (based on a true event) shows how that presumption can twist the investigative process. But each accusation has to be compassionately vetted if we care about justice for both the accuser and the accused. 

The statute of limitations exist because it is virtually impossible to prove your innocence from a person-on-person crime (sexual assault being the clearest example) past a reasonable time frame. I believe it is essential protection for an accused person. Therefore, that alone, makes me give Biden the benefit of the doubt.

If the accusation had been within the statute of limitations, presumably there would be a date and time attached. Then, given that he was a Senator, it would be fairly easy to prove if he wasn't there at that date and time, or if others were with him then. He can't do that now. There is nothing he can do except to say "it didn't happen". You tell me - how can he prove the event didn't even happen now or, if some version did, it wasn't as she now recounts??

Whether she is telling the truth or not, I am saying I don't trust her memory (or anyones from 27 years ago - brains don't work that well!!) and I can never know Biden's side of the story because it is lost to history.

The problem with the discourse on accusations is that the assumption is one person is lying, while the other is telling the truth. Reality can be so much more complicated than that. Women often say that they had signaled or said that they were not interested when a man made a sexually aggressive move, while men retort that they were absolutely encouraged. Both could be - some certainly are - telling the truth as they remember it. Now, of course, many men are perfectly well-aware that the woman isn't interested and ignores the lack of consent (Weinstein, Cosby, et. al.) and they are lying.  But some men truly just misunderstood.  It happens all the time and is the reason for the evolution of the "yes means yes" consent standard that is now the law in some states. (Not that I am for that - but it's beyond the scope of this post.)

Then there are just false memories. Again no liar. I think Dylan Farrow is an example of a case in which she believes a false memory. You just needed to read about the case when it was current as I did, and the evidence was all there. It certainly helps to understand memory science and to understand how suggestible kid's (and adults) memories are to realize she was coached into her memories by Mia Farrow, as the investigations concluded. The trouble is - the memories remain (for Dylan and any other such kid whose memory has been tainted in this way, such as the McMartin, et. al. kids).  

And then there are just liars. People like the aforementioned Jackie Coakley. I am not positive about Tara - but I lean to that she is probably telling "her truth" as she remembers at this moment in time.  (Edited to note - time has passed, more evidence has come to light, and I no longer lean to the feeling like she is telling the truth.) Though, she may have made up - or exaggerated something - from the get-go or later as well. I am troubled by various things in her life. Like the fact that she continually praised Biden over the years - on his actions against sexual assault notably - which is just damn odd. I am most troubled by her accusation timing.  So, why not have done this at the beginning of the primaries when it really mattered? Why lie just months earlier, and say there was no sexualization of anything Biden did?

If you believe her and loathe him for this or anything else - just remember he is a tourniquet. Maybe, not the best tourniquet ever. But he will stop the bleeding.  There will be no recovery in our lifetime, if ever, from four more years of Trump.

But, again, since it is impossible for Biden to "prove the truth",  I think in matters of justice, he has to be assumed to be innocent without far more definitive proof.