	Generational Dynamics
	Forecasting America's Destiny ... and the World's

\| HOME \| WEB LOG \| COUNTRY WIKI \| COMMENT \| FORUM \| DOWNLOADS \| ABOUT \|

Generational Dynamics Web Log for 22-Apr-07
Collapse of Duke rape case represents cultural change

Web Log - April, 2007

Collapse of Duke rape case represents cultural change

False accusations against men are likely to occur less often now.

District attorney Mike Nifong is facing ethics charges and possible disbarment after North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper criticized Nifong as a "rogue prosecutor" for pursuing unjustified rape charges against members of the Duke lacrosse team. Cooper also announced, based on the findings of his investigators, that the alleged March, 2006, attack never occurred, and that the players were "innocent." The alleged victim, who evidently lied repeatedly in making the rape accusations, will not be charged with anything.

The ethics charges being leveled at Nifong relate to his behavior throughout the case. He never spoke to the alleged victim, a stripper named Crystal Gail Mangum, alias Janette Rivers, a black single mother with two children.

He withheld DNA evidence from the defense that showed that the Janette Rivers had sex with several males on the day of the alleged rape, and that the DNA didn't include any of the members of the lacrosse team. Nifong violated the law by purposely withholding this evidence from the defense, since the evidence supports the players' claims of innocence. In a newspaper interview, Nifong called the entire team "a bunch of hooligans." Rivers was asked to identify her attackers from a photo lineup that included only photos of team members.

As the months went by, and it became clear to everyone that there was no evidence supporting the accusations, Nifong refused to drop the case. In December, after Rivers had changed her story several times, Nifong was forced to drop the rape charges, but kept the case alive by charging the students with kidnapping and sexual offense. Numerous analysts at the time indicated that it would be almost impossible to prove these charges.

In the end, Nifong has been totally humiliated. The ethics charges could lead to his losing his job and even his law license.

It's also clear that these college students would be in jail right now if they hadn't had to resources to hire top-notch attorneys. There are estimates that each of the charged students had to pay a million dollars in legal fees to fight the rape charges. If you or I or any man were the victim of phony rape charges by some woman, we'd be locked up for life. When a district attorney is willing to lie and selectively withhold evidence, then any of us could be a victim.

The question that I want to explore is this: How could Nifong, a district attorney with long experience, have done this? How could he have risked his entire career and all his credibility on this case?

I've discussed this kind of insanity many times on this web site. Investors today are pursuing a scenario of total mania, similar to the mania that investors showed just prior to the the crash of the Tulipomania bubble and the the Panic of 1857.

The mania has also occurred in the political arena, as shown by the intense fury of Senator Ted Kennedy screaming angrily at the top of his lungs in February, and NBC reporter Chris Matthews was screaming hysterically in January. As I discussed, this is caused by "cognitive dissonance," as Boomers' fundamental beliefs, developed when they were college kids burning their draft cards while their girlfriends were burning their bras, are now being challenged by intractable events in Iraq. The result is hysteria, paralysis, and a collection of idiotic proposals emanating from pundits and Congress.

Even worse, in a series of disgraceful actions and statements, many Democratic party politicians have risked their careers and credibility on America's loss and humiliation in Iraq. The same is true of many journalists and media outlets, including CNN and the New York Times.

So, when you compare Nifong's actions to those of today's politicians and investors, there are great similarities. They're all still living in the 60s and 70s, and they can't believe how things have changed today. (This is what happened to the survivors of World War II in the 1960s -- they couldn't believe that the American public would turn against their fight against Communism.)

The New York Times has been fully in bed in Nifong. According to an analysis by Stuart Taylor in Slate in August, the Times repeatedly joined Nifong in making false accusations against the students. Perhaps the Times' most misleading paragraph was this: "By disclosing pieces of evidence favorable to the defendants, the defense has created an image of a case heading for the rocks. But an examination of the entire 1,850 pages of evidence gathered by the prosecution in the four months after the accusation yields a more ambiguous picture. It shows that while there are big weaknesses in Mr. Nifong's case, there is also a body of evidence to support his decision to take the matter to a jury." But when the evidence became public, Taylor also reviewed it, and found no such thing. Furthermore, there's some question as to whether the Times reporter even saw the evidence while it was still secret.

Last week's story about Don Imus provides some additional insight. The joke he told was incredibly stupid, offensive and insensitive. But it was still a joke, and he's apologized for it repeatedly. He deserved some consequences, but it seems excessive that he lost his entire career, as it now appears, since his radio and TV shows have all been canceled.

What I've particularly focused on was a statement by Jesse Jackson that I can only quote approximately, since I heard it quickly on the news. He said (paraphrasing), "This is just the first of many similar actions that will restore the power and influence of the Rainbow Coalition." I doubt that Jesse Jackson cares a hoot about Imus one way or the other, except that the case gives him a political platform.

What all three of these separate events have in common is that they represent Boomers reliving the 1970s and 80s, when the organizations they represent had a great deal of power and influence. These are all attempts to recapture that power and influence for their favored constituencies.

I don't know the ins and outs of racial organizations, so I won't comment further on the Imus case.

But as for the feminists, I did spend ten years writing a book called Fraternizing with the Enemy: A book on gender issues for men ... and for women who care about men. I interviewed thousands of men and women as well as numerous experts, and I reviewed hundreds of research papers on gender issues, including rape, divorce, custody, domestic violence, battering, sexual harassment, and other gender issues. I normally quote various experts when I write articles for this web site, but on this subject I'm the expert, and I'm pretty sure I have some insight into what happened in the Nifong case.

With regard to rape, feminists have enormously inflated the figures, making rape seem like a common occurrence. A 1985 woman's magazine claimed that over 25% of all college girls are raped in college, and feminist organizations have repeated this figure for fund-raising purposes. It's perfectly obvious that the figure is nonsense and not believable, since no father would ever send his daughter to a college if he thought she had a 1 in 4 chance of being raped. As it turns out, the actual figure is approximately Ŋ% (i.e., 0.005 or 0.5%).

It also turns out that false accusations of rape aren't that rare. When stranger rape is occurs, the chances are 25-30% that the alleged victim will accuse the wrong person as a rapist. In about 6% of rape accusations the rape never occurred at all; it was simply a completely false accusation. Janette Rivers must have assumed that she could take advantage of the Duke lacrosse players and make a lot of money, one way or another.

When you look at Nifong's behavior over the entire year, you have to assume either that Nifong was unbelievably stupid and naīve, or that he was perfectly well aware, right from the the beginning, that the Duke lacrosse students were innocent. Since Nifong is clearly not stupid or naīve, my belief is that he was lying, almost from the beginning, and that he was determined to convict students that he knew to be innocent, in order to help himself politically and financially.

In today's world, men have no defense to even the most frivolous charges by a woman. Nifong must have been expected an easy ride: Rich, vulnerable young college men facing a young black woman claiming rape. What could be easier? But once the DNA evidence was in, at that point Nifong must have known that Duke players were innocent, but dismissing the charges would have made him political anathema. So he hid the evidence, lied repeatedly, and decided to convict innocent students in order to serve his own political purposes.

Men have no defense to even the most frivolous charges of rape and sexual harassment, and even less to frivolous charges of domestic violence.

Domestic violence has almost become a joke. Restraining orders are passed out like candy to women seeking advantage in a divorce -- some 70,000 per year in Massachusetts, and it's unlikely that more than a few hundred of those have any reality at all.

When a woman sees a divorce lawyer, the lawyer tells her how to make false charges of domestic violence; when a woman sees a "woman's activist," the activist will tell her how to lie and make false charges. A friend of mine wrote to NOW (National Organization of Women), pretending to be a woman going through a divorce, and NOW provided him with a thick packet of information about how to lie about domestic violence.

Another friend accompanied his girlfriend down to the town hall, right here in Framingham, Mass., where I live, to inquire about getting support for a divorce. The woman asked, "Was there domestic violence?" She said, "No." The woman responded by providing an extensive list of services -- housing, lawyers, social workers, etc. -- that she could get if she lied and said she was a victim of domestic violence. (It's hardly worth mentioning except for completeness, but of course there are no such services for men.)

Stories abound of judges and social workers giving custody to mothers who beat and starve their children, or whose boyfriends abuse and rape the children. These situations are incredibly lucrative to the judges and social workers, because the real father gets upset that his children are being beaten and abused, and they try to get help from the court system. The court system never sides with the father, because they'd make no money from that. Siding with an abusive mother brings in torrents of funding, because the mother's abuse never ends, so the court cases never end.

The winners are social service organizations, court clinics, women's shelters, visitation centers, feminist legal services agencies, women's protective services -- all stand to gain sums of money by supporting as many false charges of battering and abuse as possible. In one situation from the 90s that I've documented, these feminist organizations earned well over $300,000 by an abusive illegal alien who made false charges of domestic violence in order to keep from getting deported. She had the help of feminist divorce lawyers, feminist immigration lawyers, feminist judges, feminist shelters, and so forth. All of these feminists knew what was going on, but they pursued the false charges anyway, because that's how they make money.

According to government statistics, almost all child abuse is perpetrated by the mother, and most child sexual abuse is perpetrated by mothers' boyfriends. Judges and social workers always give custody to abusive mothers because it's so extremely lucrative to them, while giving custody to the father makes them no money at all.

The most spectacular related case occurred with Andrea Yates, the Houston mother who killed her five children on June 20, 2001. Feminist organizations went into overdrive raising money to "support" Andrea Yates. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that feminist organizations made millions of dollars from that case.

The saddest case was that of Democratic party official Susan Estrich. She was raped in 1974, and began lecturing about the unfair treatment of rape victims. She even wrote a book, Real Rape, where she wrote extensively about this unfair treatment. Then, in 1998, when a woman name Juanita Broaddrick credibly charged President Clinton with having raped her twenty years earlier, Estrich called the woman a liar and became Clinton's front-line defender. Estrich violated the body of her life's work, and sold herself out as a woman and rape victim's defender. She sent the message that it's OK to rape a woman if you're a Democrat. I honestly don't see how Estrich can live with herself. It later turned out, according to former NOW activist Tammy Bruce, that Clinton and Estrich paid off NOW to keep quiet. It's not surprising to me at all that feminist organizations couldn't care less how many women get raped, as long as they get their money.

That certainly must be what happened with Mike Nifong, Janette Rivers, and the Duke lacrosse students. Nifong certainly couldn't have cared less whether Rivers was raped -- after all, he never even bothered to speak to her. For him and for feminist organizations, rape is a financial opportunity and income stream, and they care about rape only insofar as it gives them money and political power.

Emily's List

Emily's List is far and away the wealthiest and most powerful political organization in the country, except for the two political parties. A lot of people haven't even heard of Emily's List, even though it has tentacles controlling politics at the national, state and local levels.

To see how wealthy and powerful Emily's List is, go to the Federal Election Commission web site and click on 2005-2006 Election cycle, Total Receipts, then click on "List Them." You get a huge list of PACs, with Emily's List on top, way ahead of everyone else. The same is true for every cycle since 1994, except for 2004.

Have you ever been in court and seen a woman sitting in the front row taking notes on what's going on? That's a court watcher, sent by an organization indirectly funded by Emily's List, who makes sure that the judge rules the right way -- whatever way will bring more money into Emily's List and the organizations it controls. If a judge rules the wrong way, then Emily's list will use its vast power and money to make sure that the judge doesn't get a budget or is removed.

This is clearly illegal extortion, but it happens all the time, and no one does anything about it.

Even if you haven't heard of Emily's List, you can be sure that all elected officials have. Emily's List affects almost every election, one way or another. Emily's List funds women candidates directly, and supports compliant male candidates indirectly, through "get out the vote" campaigns.

If you're a candidate and you're willing to submit to Emily's List's control, and say only what they want you to say, then you get their help at reelection time; otherwise your opponent does (at least in the primary). If you get elected, you're expected to favor legislation that will pour even more money into Emily's List's coffers, and this is almost always legislation that favors more extortion at the court level.

This extortion aids feminist organizations that provide the support for Emily's List at the grass roots level, encouraging women to take a part of the money they've received and donate it to Emily's List.

This is a HUGE flow of money, propelling a large, corrupt political machine. It has no purpose other than making money -- certainly not helping women or children. In fact, my book documents many feminist policies which actually promote child abuse, or rape and violence against women. The bottom line is that the more women who are raped and beaten, the more money Emily's List groups make, and the more false accusations they can make, and the more money they make.

For example, suppose a divorce judge appoints a Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) to investigate a dispute between a mother and father in a divorce. If the GAL resolves the problem in one meeting, then she only gets paid for one meeting, and the judge never appoints her again. If, instead, she encourages the mother to bring false allegations of domestic violence against the father, then she'll get paid for many more meetings, as the outraged fathers tries to get "justice." Little does he know that these women "professionals" simply shuttle the man from one woman to another, so that the GAL and all her girlfriends make more and more of his money. The judge makes out well too, when he imposes child support penalties, a portion of which get kicked back into his budget to be used to dispense jobs and favors. So everyone makes money, and the children get screwed.

Emily's List is so huge, wealthy and powerful that no one even questions it -- certainly no one in the press. Even so, Emily's List has turned the divorce system into a sewer, and created a huge criminal enterprise, probably the biggest criminal enterprise in the nation's history, and certainly larger than Tammany Hall.

Now, I'm cynical enough to know that many people reading this totally disregard it. In fact, almost every feminist I've ever met is completely dogmatic, and just repeats feminist propaganda without even questioning it. An Emily's List representative could commit murder, and feminists would support her. That's how sick things are.

Most readers will have guessed from my extremely strong views on the subject that I have a personal experience that goes beyond the thousands of men, women and experts that I interviewed over the years.

My personal experience occurred in the mid-1980s. There was a social worker named Carrie Phillips who was working for the Middlesex Court Clinic, in Cambridge, Mass. She told me, "We always do what's best for the children. Whenever there's a disagreement between the mother and the father, we always side with the mother, because that's what's in the best interest of the children." Ms. Phillips was following the policies set down by Barbara Hauser, who ran the clinic, and never met a father that she didn't hate.

Now, since most child abusers are mothers, especially single mothers, and most child sexual abusers are mothers' boyfriends, Ms. Phillips was admitting criminal activity. Since Ms. Hauser always sides with the mother, even when they know that the mother is abusive, then they're siding with abusive mothers. It's against the law to give custody to abusive mothers, but they do it because that's how they make money and pad their budgets.

The same can be said of Dr. Mary Scott of Longwood Pediatrics in Boston, who put in writing a statement that it's against her policy, and the policy of her clinic, that any child under two years old should be permitted to spend more than two hours at a time with their divorced father. Once again, this is criminal activity, because in the case of an abusive mother, or a mother with an abusive boyfriend, it's her policy to give the mother and her boyfriend as much time as possible beat, starve, abuse and rape the child.

It's time that we stop thinking of these women as hard-working public servants, when they knowingly and admittedly give custody to mothers who they know are abusive. It's time for us to start thinking of them as criminals who are allowing children to be beaten, starved, abused and raped so that they can pad their own wallets. Saying that these women are helping society is like saying that a child prostitute pimp is helping society by giving employment to teenaged girls. The same can be said for judges and legislators who suborn these illegal activities.

And I'm not talking about something that happens only occasionally. I've interviewed thousands and thousands of divorced women and men, and second wives, and the story is remarkably consistent. Virtually no one denies that social workers, psychologists, pediatricians, judges, and other divorce court workers side with mothers, even when they know that the mother is responsible for beating, starving, abusing or raping the children.

What makes this all possible is Emily's List. Because of its huge wealth and power, it controls almost every Democratic party seat in Congress. Emily's List claims that its only purpose is to support women candidates and to keep abortion legal, but you can be certain that a pro-abortion Democratic party woman candidate who favors equal parenting in divorce will receive only vitriolic opposition from Emily's List.

Emily's List's main legislative function is to make sure that laws are maintained that permit the criminal activities to continue. For example, a law that allowed a social worker to be prosecuted for siding with a divorced mother who knowingly beats, starves and rapes her children would be quickly squelched by Emily's List.

Emily's List's other function is to make sure that federal domestic violence programs get funded. The "Violence against women act" (VAWA) has poured hundreds of billions of dollars into an army of women whose only function is to accuse men of domestic violence. It's exactly the same as if the VAWA were paying billions of dollars to the KKK to seek out violent blacks. People do what they're paid to do.

And here's another thing that few people realize: None of these programs do women any good. No one even claims that they do. Feminists don't claim that these programs have reduced rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, or anything else. The reason they don't is because it would imply that their budgets should be reduced. For these feminist organizations, the more women who are beaten and bloodied the better, because the feminist organizations make more money. These programs spend billions of dollars and do nothing but promote hatreds that last for decades, and destroy children's lives.

Even more important to Emily's List is the blind, total obedience that feminists pay to it. As I said, an Emily's List representative could murder someone in cold blood, and feminists would support her. It's a total, unquestioning, almost robot-like devotion by many ordinary women.

A criminal organization like Emily's List requires for its success a large army of women who are so blinded to the feminist propaganda that they walk in lockstep with and obedience to the criminal enterprise and its money-generating machine, without even a whimper of protest about the people, especially millions of children, whose lives are being destroyed. Police are getting more into the act as well. Fathers are automatically assumed to be dangerous, and they're harassed and jailed at will.

The mainstream media plays an important role in all of this. Here in Massachusetts, the Boston Globe is almost totally under control of Emily's List, regularly publishing fund-raising press releases from feminist organizations as if they were news. In the 15-20 years I've researched this issue, I can't recall ever seeing an article that challenged feminist fund-raising press releases; or that spotlighted fathers' grievances in divorce; or that spotlighted the plight of second wives in divorce. With regard to this last point, second wives are vitriolically hated by feminist organizations, because they're women who completely contradict everything that feminists say. If you want to really understand what's going on in divorce courts, just start talking to second wives, as I have. You get a picture you've never seen before. But to Emily's List, to the Boston Globe and other mainstream media organizations, second wives are simply non-persons.

The power wielded by Emily's List over the Boston Globe, over Democratic party politicians, and the numerous organizations that it funds and controls is enormous. Anyone in the divorce system who doesn't conform is dealt with viciously and quickly. The pervasiveness of the control this criminal enterprise has over feminists and ordinary women speaks to the degree of political control and domination that Emily's List and feminist organizations have acquired over society as a whole.

Now, I don't know if Mike Nifong has any direct relationship with Emily's List. He's a Democratic party politician, so he's certainly aware of them, and may even have received indirect support from them in one of his election campaigns. But at the very least, Nifong followed the standard Emily's List and NOW prescription of using purposely using false accusations for political power and fund raising. Whether Emily's List was involved in the Duke case or not, Nifong's purposeful pursuit of vulnerable young boys whom he knew to be innocent is Emily's List policy and NOW's policy.

Mike Nifong's defeat represents a cultural change, because prosecutors were forced to dismiss false accusations against vulnerable male college students. This result should make prosecutors more reluctant to make false accusations for political purposes.

Things are changing in other ways as well. A detailed study by published by Evans and Novak Political Report published in the weeks following the November 2006 election showed Emily's list, despite its vast wealth, is doing worse politically. The report found that "of the 19 competitive House races in which EMILY's List backed and funded a candidate, only two won," after a result in 2004 that was almost as bad. "That Emily's List did so poorly, despite the [strongly pro-Democratic trend in 2006] trend, provides yet another interesting confirmation that this election was a non-ideological confrontation between the two parties, decided mostly on the basis of a failed Iraq occupation and a corrupt Republican establishment."

The changes in politics in general and "gender politics" in particular are accelerating, thanks to huge generational changes. Today's young adults (called the Millennial generation or Generation Y) are quite different from the Boomers and Generation-X. They grew up during the chaos of the 1990s when they didn't know if or when they'd ever see their fathers again, and all their parents did was argue vitriolically. It's not that today's young people are pro-feminist or anti-feminist (just as they aren't pro-war or anti-war); it's that they're just sick of all the fighting and bickering, and see feminism as one major source of that bickering.

As America heads deeper into a generational Crisis era, the country as a whole is increasingly putting national survival ahead of individual and ideological interests. Large political organizations, including the political parties themselves, are being forced to realign themselves and redefine how they do business, just as they had to do during America's last two Crisis eras. During the Civil War crisis, party realignments ended the Whig Party and created the Republican Party. During the World War II crisis, realignments in both major political parties were accompanied by destruction of the corrupt Tammany Hall machine, causing the entire organization to go out of existence 20 years later. In the current Crisis era, we can expect major realignments in both Democratic and Republican parties and, thankfully, the destruction of the corrupt powers of the huge Emily's List machine. Whether Emily's List will even continue to exist depends on how well it adapts itself to the new generation and to the country's changing needs. (This article was updated and expanded on 28-Apr) (22-Apr-07) Permanent Link
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Donate to Generational Dynamics via PayPal

Web Log Pages

Current Web Log

Generational Dynamics Web Log for 22-Apr-07 Collapse of Duke rape case represents cultural change

Emily's List

Web Log Pages

Generational Dynamics Web Log for 22-Apr-07
Collapse of Duke rape case represents cultural change