Loftus Puts Nail In Recovered Memory Coffin

In the 1980s the so-called Recovered Memory or false memory syndrome (as its critics termed it) exploded onto the American scene with a vengeance. Not a few people were sent to prison based entirely on memories of abuse, much of it centered around alleged widespread Satanic cult conspiracies, that they claimed they repressed as children but were able to “recover” as adults with help from therapists. Sexual abuse guidebooks like Courage to Heal went so far as to suggest that most mental maladies faces by women, from low self esteem to overeating to depression, were likely caused by repressed memories of sexual abuse.

The recovered memory movement’s own excesses were its downfall. Although many people were credulous of the claims of Satanic conspiracies and repeated the mantra that victims could never be doubted, in fact the claims made by recovered memory therapists and patients became so bizarre that all but the true believers began to wonder if something else might be going on.

Elizabeth Loftus, an expert in memory who did pioneering studies on the fallibility of eye witness accounts of crime, helped take a lot of air out of the recovered memory claims by demonstrating that it was relatively easy to implant false memories into experimental subjects. Add to that the fact that many of the therapy techniques advocated by repressed memory experts used exactly the sort of methods Loftus found likely to result in fake memories, and by the mid-1990s recovered memory therapy was in full retreat. Some recovered memory therapists found themselves on the short end of civil lawsuits brought by their patients and/or people they had help put in jail based on recovered memory.

In an upcoming study to be published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, Loftus, Giuliana Mazooni and Irving Kirsch should manage to finally put the nail in the coffin of the recovered memory movement. In previous experiments, Loftus had demonstrated that false memories of routine events, such as being lost in a mall as a child, could be implanted, but now she’s managed to show that false memories of fantastic events — in this case demonic possession — could be implanted even in subjects who were initially skeptical about the very existence of the phenomenon.

In the experiments, conducted on 200 Italian students, subjects were asked to give a detailed life inventory including how plausible they felt demonic possession was and whether or not they had ever been possessed by a demon as a child. All subjects initially said they didn’t think demonic possession was very plausible and they had never experienced a demonic possession as a child.

Some of the respondents were then given a series of articles to read that dealt with demonic possession and portrayed it as something that was plausible and not uncommon. They were then asked to fill out a questionnaire about fear and anxiety, and some of the respondents were then falsely told that their particular set of fears indicated that they probably witnessed a demonic possession as a child. This is important because, again, the modus operandi of books like Courage to Heal is to tell people that if they are depressed or suffering from sexual dysfunction or whatever, it is likely a symptom of having been sexually abused as children regardless of whether the person has a memory of such an incident.

On a follow-up interview, 18 percent of the people told their responses indicated they had witnessed a demonic possession changed their original position and now agreed that not only was demonic possession plausible, but claimed they had witnessed a demonic possession as a child. Three-quarters of the rest of the subjects also changed their mind about demonic possessions, but not quite as drastically as the one-fifth who claimed to have witnessed a demonic possession themselves as a child.

“Previous experiments created memories that were plausible,” Loftus told Wired magazine, “But even something that’s implausible can be infused with plausibility. It’s a two-stage process. First you increase the plausibility of an event and then suggest it happened to the subject. It mimics the kind of thing that happens in a physician’s office. It’s like getting an X-ray and having the doctor tell you that you have pneumonia. But in this case, low self-esteem and depression means you were abused as a child. It’s an analog for that kind of situation. … This shows why people watching ‘Oprah’ or those in group therapy believe these kinds of things happened to them. People borrow memories from others and adopt them as their own experiences. It’s part of the normal process of memory.”

Most courts have already started routinely rejecting recovered memories as reliable for testimony, and this should help further that trend as well as helping to end the debate with those who still insist that recovered memories of ritual sexual abuse are genuine. Thanks to Loftus’ efforts, countless innocent people will be spared the horror of false accusations of sexual abuse and those who suffered from the witch hunt in the 1980s and 1990s might be able to restore a semblance of their lives.

Source:

Those memories can be made or simply borrowed. Scott LaFee, San Diego Union-Tribune, October 25, 2000.

Beware a rash of exorcisms. Leander Kahney, Wired, October 31, 2000.

Share

Some Universities Announce They Won’t Carry RU-486

In several weeks, the abortion-inducing drug RU-486 drug will hit pharmacy shelves — but not at the pharmacies of health centers at many colleges and universities. Already, Emory University, The University of Georgia, Boston University, and the entire Florida public university system have announced that their health centers will offer RU-486.

There are several reasons for these decisions, perhaps the biggest begin the ridiculous restrictions that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration slapped onto the drug. Health facilities that are very close to hospitals might be able to meet the strict requirements, but most university health systems simply don’t have the sort of facilities to meet the FDA’s requirements.

An option not mentioned, but certainly on the minds of universities must also be the possibilities of lawsuits. RU-486 has a number of occasionally severe side effects and university systems might be afraid of becoming the deep pocket victims of lawsuits.

And, of course, some colleges and universities simply want to avoid getting caught up in the abortion controversy. You can bet that many state legislatures will consider bills in the coming years to withhold funds for state-sponsored universities and colleges that offer RU-486, along with heightened abortion-related protests at institutions regardless of what decision they make (with the pro-lifers being outraged if they offer it, and the pro-abortion contingent outraged if it’s not offered).

Source:

Many Campuses Won’t Offer Abortion Pill. Kris Osborn, Fox News, October 24, 2000.

Share

Single Women and In Vitro Fertilization

Back in August I wrote about an Australia court’s ruling that overturned laws in some Australian states banning single women from having in vitro fertilization (|Australia Prime Minister Wants to Ban In Vitro Fertlization for Single Women|). In that case a law passed by the state of Victoria was overturned on the grounds that it violated Australia’s Sex Discrimination Act which, among other things, makes it illegal to discriminate based on marital status.

Last week, the Australian Supreme Court announced it would hear an appeal on behalf of Australia’s Catholic bishops to have that court ruling overturned, and the Australian prime minister is apparently continuing his efforts to have the sex discrimination act amended in such a way as to make the ban on in vitro fertilization for single women pass muster.

The case here is complicated somewhat because apparently the Australian government subsidizes such infertility treatments through its health care system. The state shouldn’t discriminate between single and married women as far preventing in vitro fertilization, but on the other hand it shouldn’t be in the business of subsidizing such treatment for either single or married women.

Some commentators such as Leslie Cannold (Woman’s Quest for Solo Parenthood Ignites Debate) are being a bit hypocritical when they portray any opposition as aimed at undercutting women’s independence since apparently the woman in this case is more than happy to be dependent on the state to provide her for her fertilization treatments.

Women certainly should have access to in vitro fertilization, but definitely not a right for taxpayers to pick up the costs of the expensive procedure.

Source:

Woman’s Quest for Solo Parenthood Ignites Debate. Leslie Cannold, WomensENews.Org, October 25, 2000.

Share

Say Goodbye to Ladies Night

According to the Orlando Sentinel, real-estate agent Christopher Langdon recently took several Florida bars to court. His complaint? He was denied free drinks at a bar during a Ladies Night promotion based entirely on his sex — based only on the fact that he was a man, he was not given free drinks.

He’s suing in federal court asking for $100,000 and a ban on ladies night-style promotions. Sound bizarre? A bit, but (a) at some point Langdon or some other man is going to succeed in such a lawsuit, and (b) Ladies Nights promotions are almost certainly going to be a thing of the past.

In the name of gender equality, several states have already passed laws which courts have interpreted as outright banning sex-based promotions at bars and restaurants. As Langdon himself rhetorically asks, “If you allow this type of discrimination [Ladies Night], then why wouldn’t you have, for example, a white businessman’s lunch?”

At least one of the bars came up with a novel legal theory, but it will be shot down eventually. Lawyers for Mark NeJame, who owned the Zuma Beach Club in Florida, argue that since men pay the same price for drinks on Ladies Night as they do any other night of the week, there is no price discrimination — rather there is a special break for women, in return for which men get the benefit of additional women at the bar (and lets face it, the reason drinks are given free or cheap to women is largely to draw in more men as well).

That won’t fly since, as Langdon points out, even under this theory the action constitutes sexual discrimination against married men (who presumably just want a drink not an intangible opportunity to score with a single woman).

“This is what it boils down to,” Langdon told the Orlando Sentinel, “Men have to pay millions of dollars more for drinks and entertainment than women. I just don’t think it’s fair that men should pay for food or entertainment or beverages than women — I don’t think the converse is fair either.”

And there’s the rub. Courts have begun to show a willingness to take on cases where women claim that they are charged different prices than men for the same service. Some of these claims border on the absurd — such as women who argue that men and women’s hair styling price should be the same, even where a woman’s requested styling is far more complex and time consuming — but courts have shown a willingness to consider the possibility that price discrimination based on sex violates nondiscrimination laws. They can’t take up those sorts of cases, however, without implicitly legitimizing exactly the sort of thing that Langdon is arguing for — protecting men from cases where they come out on the short end of the stick, such as Ladies Night.

Whether for better or worse, get used to this sort of thing, because believe me, we’ve only seen the beginning of lawsuits like Langdon’s.

Source:

Man makes his move on ladies night. Tyler Gray. The Orlando Sentinel, October 10, 2000.

Share

Should Men Have A Right to Choose Too?

Cathy Young has a very long, very well written piece in Salon.Com about an idea originally propounded by the men’s rights movement that is likely to be tested in courts within the decade — do men have unequal rights when it comes to issue of abortion that should be solved via a legal remedy?

The basic argument simply turns pro-choice argument on its head. If women should be able to have control over entering in to parental obligations, why not men as well? The idea seems inane at first, but most of the arguments against it, in one way or another, rely on claims that abortion rights activists already say are preposterous when used by pro-lifers. Typically feminists reply that if men don’t want to have to pay child support they should keep their pants on, which is a crude version of an early argument against abortion — if women don’t want to get pregnant, they shouldn’t sleep around. As Young notes, there is a “willingness to liberate women but not men from the unwanted consequences of sex…”

Young quotes from a Planned Parenthood pamphlet, “9 Reasons Why Abortions Are Legal,” which says, in part,

At the most basic level, the abortion issue is not really about abortion. … Should women make their own decisions about family, career and how to live their lives? Or should government do that for them? Do women have the option of deciding when or whether to have children?

Young essentially wants to know that if they are serious about the rhetoric, why shouldn’t men have the same opportunities. And if not, why not?

Most people of the folks who support the so-called men’s right to choose typically have some scheme whereby either parent is able to forego parental obligations — women can obviously abort a fetus as a remedy, and typically the remedy for men would be to renounce parental obligations during the pregnancy.

Does this sort of thinking make sense? Up to a point there are some important insights to be taken away from this sort of argument, but ultimately it has no chance of being accepted by courts and is suspect morally. The problem for feminists, however, is that the reason most people will find the men’s right to choose arguments fallacious is the persistent sexual stereotypes which see men as economic providers for children. The idea of father simply being able to renounce their parental obligations is probably revolting non-feminists and feminists alike (who, when contemplating it, might get a hint of how pro-lifers feel about the idea of a woman being able to abort a fetus) largely because of expectations society has of fathers.

Personally I think that’s, on balance, a very good thing. Besides technological solutions on the horizon such as the male birth control pill are likely to put men and women on more equal technological footing when it comes to controlling reproduction, and a massive change of the sort proposed by those advocating for a man’s right to choose would be a very bad idea.

On the other hand there is a subset of cases of forced fatherhood which Young cites which probably does deserve additional looking into. Namely, how should the law handle the responsibilities of a man when he is forced into being a father thanks to nonconsensual sexual activity?

Young finds a couple of doozies that are stunning. In one case a woman seeking to get pregnant took advantage of a male co-worker who had passed out drunk at a party, and subsequently bragged to friends that she saved a trip to the sperm bank. In another, a woman had oral sex with a man and requested he use a condom. Afterward, unbeknownst to him, she used a syringe to retrieve semen and inseminate herself. In both cases, the mothers sued for and won child support payments from the involuntary father.

And of course there was a much-reported case of a woman convicted of statutory rape for having sex with a 12 year-old. Even though the state concurred that this was in fact a criminal sexual act, the young boy was forced to pay child support when he was 18.

Some sort of legal remedy is in order for those sorts of bizarre cases, but otherwise dramatic legal changes in the way parental obligations are established would be a very bad idea.

Source:

A man’s right to choose. Cathy Young, Salon.Com, October 19, 2000.

Share

Power Tripping

An article appeared on UWire today (Sexual assault speaker at U. New Mexico gets cold shoulder from athletes forced to attend) about and power that illustrates the often hypocritical nature of feminist discourse on power relationships. The topic was a sexual assault lecture at the University of New Mexico given by Jessica Weiner, who apparently makes a living doing this sort of thing.

The story made UWire because a large group of athletes were in the audience and were joking and laughing in part because they resented the fact that they were required to attend a lecture which they though would consist mainly of male bashing. The hypocrisy comes in Weiner’s theory of power. According to the UWire story, to illustrate power relationships, Weiner,

Lead[...] the students in a 10-second game of thumb wrestling, Weiner told them that they could get wishes for each win. The students then thumb wrestled with a fury, attempting to beat each other.

After the exercise, she explained the point was to defeat the other person because people want power and success. She said sometimes people see each other as people they can control or overpower, which is where confusion about sex begins.

It is interesting that Weiner sees competition as inherently about control and power, while ignoring the irony that she is lecturing to a captive audience forced to attend her speech by a large academic university which certainly has more power over its students than the thumb wrestlers have over each other.

This is typical of radical feminist, in particular, and Left-wing in general, critiques of power relationships — power is only questionable when its wielded by the other side (men, right wingers, fill in the scapegoat group of the month), whereas it is implicitly benevolent when wielded by feminists.

Source:

Sexual assault speaker at U. New Mexico gets cold shoulder from athletes forced to attend. Angela Williams, UWire Today, October 17, 2000. Originally published in University of New Mexico Daily Lobo, October 17, 2000.

Share

Women Can’t Throw? More Like Scientists Can’t Do Representative Samples

Many wire services and newspapers picked up on a study by researchers at the US National Institute of Child Health and Development that claim men are significantly better at throwing small round objects than women. Here’s the short version: this is one of those studies that is so lacking in any redeeming qualities, that it’s almost certainly an attempt to avoid unemployment by those responsible for it.

First, the researchers tested a grand total of 25 human volunteers and 17 capuchin monkeys. Twenty-five people is simply not enough to establish much of anything meaningful. Sometimes medical researchers have to do very small such studies to make sure a new drug is basically safe before doing real safety and efficacy studies, but there are good ethical and monetary reasons for that. Given the number of women and men who play sports that involve throwing small objects, surely it would have been relatively easy and cheap to do a study on a march larger sample.

Second, the results aren’t all that statistically compelling. The researchers found that throwing balls or stones into a buck at 9 feet and 18 feet away, men were, on average, 32 percent more accurate than women. Given the small size of the sample, that is essentially the same thing as saying there was no difference at all. I don’t want to go into a statistics lesson, but typically to say there were a real effect not only would a larger sample be needed, but the difference in effect should be at least 100 percent or more to avoid the very real possibility that the alleged difference is just a statistical artifact.

The researchers offered two reasons as to why men might throw better than women — that men are more likely to be trained to throw balls or that there is some neurological difference. A more likely explanation is that given the study’s small sample and very low difference, the real cause of the difference is the study design rather than any inherent ability to throw more accurately by either men or women.

Source:

Women ‘cannot throw’. Robert Uhlig, The Telegraph, October 12, 2000.

Share

As If RU-486 Needed Any Additional Controversy…

When the U.S. Food and Drug Administration finally approved RU-486, it would not release the name or location of the company that would manufacture the drug for the U.S. market citing safety and security reasons. In fact it looks like it wanted to avoid a public relations problem that it’s going to have to deal with anyway — Hua Lian Pharmaceutical Company in Shanghai, China, will produce the drug.

Clearly the FDA was less concerned about safety concerns than getting attacked by anti-abortion activists for awarding the contract to China with its repressive dictatorial regime and history of extreme population control measures.

National Right to Life’s Douglas Johnson quickly attacked the FDA after the Washington Post revealed where the drug would be manufactured, telling the Associated Press,

They said they wanted to protect the company from violence or protests, but it’s ludicrous to say that it is an issue in China, where demonstrations aren’t permitted. It’s a public relations problem they want to avoid — they don’t want the association with Chinese coercive abortion practices.

This is just going to increase the level of controversy surrounding the drug and create a public relations nightmare for anti-abortion groups to latch on to. This FDA decision is likely to prove a disaster, and the FDA should seriously try to find a manufacturer in a more democratic nation to produce RU-486.

Source:

China plant to make U.S. abortion pill. The Associated Press, October 12, 2000.

Share