By: David French – nationalreview.com – October 4, 2018

Let’s begin with what should be a painfully obvious statement. Nobody — not even those who strive for fairness — approaches any controversy with a blank slate. The best you can do is acknowledge this reality and strive to control for it. You can read the best arguments from the other side. You can imagine yourself in their shoes. But one thing is certain: If you don’t even try to understand another perspective, or if you write it off immediately as evil or stupid, then your sense of alienation and even hatred will grow, exponentially.

In the context of the Brett Kavanaugh controversy, let me make a humble suggestion. A person’s view of marriage and family can have an irrevocable, decisive impact on the prism through which he or she views Christine Blasey Ford’s claims.

I think it’s safe to say that many feminists would say that they see their fundamental secular identity as that of a woman and that their fundamental secular purpose is to defend the interests of women in a world that all too often assaults women, abuses women, and in many contexts denies women equal opportunity. When they see a woman like Christine Blasey Ford come forward, they are immediately drawn to her at a powerful, visceral level. They see themselves in her.

So their impulse is to help her, to make sure that she faces minimal backlash, and — critically — to believe her in the absence of overwhelming proof of a lie or a mistake. This is especially true if a feminist has experienced abuse herself or knows the pain of disbelief when or if she did report.

Now, let’s contrast that view with, say, that of more traditionalist married men or women. They see their fundamental secular identity not as defined by their sex but rather as bound to other identities — wife and mother, husband and father, most notably. There is a sense of unity in marriage, resonating back to Biblical concepts. That means — absent truly compelling reasons — that the “I” of both individuals is subsumed into the “us” of the family. The fundamental secular purpose of both adults is to defend the interests of their family and to secure the health, vitality, and affections of each member.

If a woman has placed enough love, trust, and respect in a person to marry him, to take his name, even, then if someone comes forward with an accusation against the husband, it is also a threat to the fundamental identity and purpose of the wife. (Just as it would be to the husband if the roles were reversed.) There is an instinctive, primal response: “If you are going to come after us, then you had better have evidence.”

In that circumstance, a married couple can watch Brett and Ashley Kavanaugh striding through the hall before Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony, see the look of anguish and resolve on their faces, and be immediately drawn to them at a powerful, visceral level. They see themselves on that television screen. A person hasn’t just made an accusation against a man. A person has threatened the sanctity and security of a family, and that is a grave matter indeed.

It is absolutely true that there is a gender gap in American politics. In 2016, there was an immense gap between single women and married men. The gap between married men and married women was far lower. This only makes sense — and not because men dictate to women but because two people joined for life tend to view the world (and their interests) in much the same way.

Even in the face of modern challenges and modern controversies, it is astonishing how often our oldest traditions are proven wise. Burdens of proof aren’t just a vital element of fact-finding. They’re critical to the very legitimacy of any adjudicative process. Given the disparate experience and values of women in the United States, “believe women” will never gain the wider cultural traction that feminists covet. Many millions of married women accurately perceive that “believe women” makes the well-being of their son or their husband — and, by extension, their own well-being — contingent not on evidence but on whim, on ideology. In a world full of malice, they become more vulnerable to malice.

There are conservative women who have watched the Kavanaugh controversy unfold with shock and horror. They’ve seen fantastical claims of gang rape, uncorroborated claims accepted as true — even in the face of multiple inconsistencies — and a frenzied effort to dig up shameful or humiliating claims against a husband and father. They don’t see the defense of a woman against a predatory man. They see an attack on a family by a hostile press and a hostile party, with presumptions of guilt dominating the debate. It is no wonder that so many responded with deep emotion to Kavanaugh’s impassioned defense.

It is important for conservatives to understand the feminist perspective, and the mainstream media are very effective at communicating the heartfelt anguish of America’s most thoughtful and passionate feminist voices. The media are far less effective at communicating a very different experience — the experience of how an accusation can sometimes create victims, and how sometimes those victims include the women who love a husband or a son more than they love their own lives.

To see this article, click read more.

Source: Brett Kavanaugh Hearings: Understanding Women Who Support Him