Obama appointee dismisses "Mattress Girl" lawsuit against Columbia

[Derec]

When you show me a pregnant man as the result of rape I'll reexamine my view.

Well at least you admit you do not care about gender equality but instead demand female supremacy.
If only all feminazis were that honest.

 

[prideandfall]

And you agree with that blatantly sexist view?

it's not blatantly sexist, it's simply recognizing physical reality - just because you can't see it because of your ideological blinders doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

you can argue the point if you want, but absent any major dissent the generally accepted statistical fact is that roughly 1 in 4 women on college campuses have some kind of sexual misconduct done towards them.
if you buy that as being roughly accurate that represents a large enough proportion to constitute a clear risk to any random given woman to have an incident of sexual misconduct done to them.
that statistically speaking any given random woman has a fairly high risk of sexual misconduct makes it a decidedly female-centric problem, enough so that it's been argued the situation falls under title IX.

is there a study showing the statistics of men being falsely accused of rape? or of men being raped?
are the statistics high enough that any given random man at any given random college has a high chance of being raped or false accused of rape?
high enough that it could be considered a systemic issue that threatens the ability for men to safely get an education?

because unless you can show the above to be true, you're pulling smoke and manufactured rage out of your ass.

 

[Trausti]

Judge concluded rape was gender specific so male has no standing under Title IX concerning rape.

No, no. He concluded that "rapist" was not gender specific - it could apply to a man or woman (see Lena Dunham). Hence, being called a rapist was not gender-based discrimination, like being called a slut.

 

[Derec]

No, no. He concluded that "rapist" was not gender specific - it could apply to a man or woman (see Lena Dunham). Hence, being called a rapist was not gender-based discrimination, like being called a slut.

That would have been a reasonable line of argumentation if he used it to strike down the use of Title IX for sexual assault adjudications in general (including the disastrous "Dear Colleague" policy) but not a good reason to cherry-pick and dismiss this lawsuit.

 

[fromderinside]

Judge concluded rape was gender specific so male has no standing under Title IX concerning rape.

No, no. He concluded that "rapist" was not gender specific - it could apply to a man or woman (see Lena Dunham). Hence, being called a rapist was not gender-based discrimination, like being called a slut.

Amazing how I overlook words like 'not'. So because it is not a gendered term his suit is not covered under Title IX. However I'll let my point that rape is something that to be actable needs physical consequences like, say, pregnancy.

 

[Derec]

However I'll let my point that rape is something that to be actable needs physical consequences like, say, pregnancy.

So it's ok for men to rape women if
a) he uses a condom
b) either is infertile
c) woman used birth control
d) woman is post-menopausal?

Did I understand you correctly?

 

[fromderinside]

However I'll let my point that rape is something that to be actable needs physical consequences like, say, pregnancy.

So it's ok for men to rape women if
a) he uses a condom
b) either is infertile
c) woman used birth control
d) woman is post-menopausal?

Did I understand you correctly?

Nope. Condoms nor birth control aren't a guarantees, nor is an infertility diagnosis, or being supposed post-menopausal. There are exceptions to every one of your get out of crime proposals. When you find a pregnant male please come back with another of your interesting but flawed lists.

What is it about something that is nature you find so hard to comprehend.

 

[prideandfall]

What is it about something that is nature you find so hard to comprehend.

nature is sexist!!!11!

also, something-something, because obama.

 

[Derec]

What is it about something that is nature you find so hard to comprehend.

nature is sexist!!!11

Nature might be sexist but laws should not be. Every individual deserves equal treatment under law. Justice should not depend on which demographic one belongs to.

 

[prideandfall]

Justice should not depend on which demographic one belongs to.

but justice should reasonably account for inherent biological differences that no amount of equivocating on the part of you male SJWs can negate.

 

[fromderinside]

I agree. I'm also skeptical of mental claims.

 

[JonA]

The behavior of many in this thread is just more evidence that the political Left places no value whatsoever on individual freedoms, liberties, and justice - the bedrock of enlightenment thinking and true liberalism.

Is it any wonder why Dawkins calls them 'pathetic'? Or Nawaz 'regressive'?

Shameful. Just shameful.

Yes, please explain in more depth. Maybe give an example.

Take SimpleDon's reply as an example. Read it. Read it again. See what he's really saying.

Did you catch it?

He's not arguing about whether or not this issue represents an injustice, but that even if it does, it's okay because they're 'white males'.

Notice how there is no attempt to consider this as a case of individuals, but as part of an ongoing struggle between 'white males' and the 'women' - identity politics is part of the regressive left's ideology. It is doubtful the women in question ever 'truly were victims of oppression'.

But his thinking is clear: the women are members of a group historically oppressed by white males; as such they have been 'cosmically wronged' and their actions - the false rape allegations - represent a 'counter attack' on the enemy, and even if what they are doing is wrong when judged in today's light, it's all well and good 'cause it 'balances out' in the end.

That's pathetic. That's immoral. That's regressive.

And it's even borderline insane - similar to the way religious fanatics see the world as an endless struggle between the good of God and the evil of Satan's armies. And it carries with it all the same social and communal poisons.

As a liberal, the presence of such thinking deeply, deeply troubles me.

- - - Updated - - -

The behavior of many in this thread is just more evidence that the political Left places no value whatsoever on individual freedoms, liberties, and justice - the bedrock of enlightenment thinking and true liberalism.

Is it any wonder why Dawkins calls them 'pathetic'? Or Nawaz 'regressive'?

Shameful. Just shameful.

What are you babbling about now?

Some members of the pathetic left are so pathetic that they apparently can't even read simple English...

 

[thebeave]

So it's ok for men to rape women if
a) he uses a condom
b) either is infertile
c) woman used birth control
d) woman is post-menopausal?

Did I understand you correctly?

Nope. Condoms nor birth control aren't a guarantees, nor is an infertility diagnosis, or being supposed post-menopausal. There are exceptions to every one of your get out of crime proposals. When you find a pregnant male please come back with another of your interesting but flawed lists.

What is it about something that is nature you find so hard to comprehend.

This is such nonsense. What if a guy violates a woman with a broomstick. That's still considered rape. But you'll probably come up with some weird theory about how a broomstick could still get her pregnant.

 

[laughing dog]

Some members of the pathetic left are so pathetic that they apparently can't even read simple English...

Your first post revered to "many". At that juncture, there had been exactly 5 different posters, including Derec. In your reply, you give only one example. Since one is not normally considered many, are you including yourself in the membership of the pathetic left that apparently can't read simple English or are you going to continue to babble?

 

[Derec]

This is such nonsense. What if a guy violates a woman with a broomstick. That's still considered rape. But you'll probably come up with some weird theory about how a broomstick could still get her pregnant.

And the offspring would probably look something like this.

 

[Derec]

Justice should not depend on which demographic one belongs to.

but justice should reasonably account for inherent biological differences that no amount of equivocating on the part of you male SJWs can negate.

How is unequal treatment before the law justified in this case by biological differences?
Both parties require consent for sexual activity, that is not affected by biology.
Either party can be the more aggressive one, that is not affected by biology.
And I do not see how ability to become pregnant should affect treatment before the law on matters unrelated to pregnancy.

Also, why is it that biological differences are used to justify unequal treatment iff (if and only if) this unequal treatment benefits women?

P.S.: I object to your misuse of the term SJW here. One of the hallmarks of SJWs is that they reject treating people as individuals but rather treat them as ciphers for different groups, which they neatly divide into "oppressors" and "oppressed". Thus, SJW much better fits you, fromderinside and laughing dog.

P.P.S.: Some people in Kentucky agree with your sexism because when a 15 year old boy and a 13 year old girl had consensual sex, only the boy was charged.
Kentucky court rules in underage sex case involving teens
I guess you agree with such selective prosecution because you think females are the "more equal" animals ...

 

[laughing dog]

P.S.: I object to your misuse of the term SJW here. One of the hallmarks of SJWs is that they reject treating people as individuals but rather treat them as ciphers for different groups, which they neatly divide into "oppressors" and "oppressed". Thus, SJW much better fits you, fromderinside and laughing dog.

Your misuse of the English language is duly noted. But since you do claim that man are oppressed and women get special treatment, you really do fit your definition of SJW.

 

[Derec]

Nope. Condoms nor birth control aren't a guarantees, nor is an infertility diagnosis, or being supposed post-menopausal. There are exceptions to every one of your get out of crime proposals. When you find a pregnant male please come back with another of your interesting but flawed lists.

So a rape should only be prosecuted if the woman gets pregnant. Got you.

What is it about something that is nature you find so hard to comprehend.

What is it about the 14th amendment that you (and others, including the feminist judge) find so hard to comprehend?

- - - Updated - - -

Your misuse of the English language is duly noted. But since you do claim that man are oppressed and women get special treatment, you really do fit your definition of SJW.

I think people should be treated as individuals and not treated differently based on their genitals. That puts me at odds with SJWs like you, prideandfall or fromderinside.

 

[laughing dog]

I think people should be treated as individuals and not treated differently based on their genitals. That puts me at odds with SJWs like you, prideandfall or fromderinside.

Assuming your analysis is valid, that does not mean you are not a SJW. It simply means you are a different sort of SJW.

 

[Derec]

it's not blatantly sexist, it's simply recognizing physical reality - just because you can't see it because of your ideological blinders doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Men and women have different genitals. How does that justify treating them unequally before the law?

you can argue the point if you want, but absent any major dissent the generally accepted statistical fact is that roughly 1 in 4 women on college campuses have some kind of sexual misconduct done towards them.

That statistic is based on a bogus study by the radical feminist Ms. magazine. It lacks any merit.
And regardless of how often injustice happens, each case of injustice should be treated individually. What you are suggesting - ignoring injustice against members of certain groups - is very dangerous.

if you buy that as being roughly accurate that represents a large enough proportion to constitute a clear risk to any random given woman to have an incident of sexual misconduct done to them.

If it were true young women would be safer in Somalia than on US college campuses. The statistic is clearly bogus.

that statistically speaking any given random woman has a fairly high risk of sexual misconduct makes it a decidedly female-centric problem, enough so that it's been argued the situation falls under title IX.

And this application of Title IX involves unequal treatment under the law, which should in itself fall under Title IX if the application wasn't horribly biased against men.

is there a study showing the statistics of men being falsely accused of rape? or of men being raped?

I don't know. But statistics should not matter. If female Asian albinos are far less likely to be murdered than the national average (for example) that does not mean that murders against somebody who happens to be a female Asian albino should be given low priority by law enforcement. What matters is that an individual has been murdered, not how many other people who share some of her characteristics have been murdered lately.

are the statistics high enough that any given random man at any given random college has a high chance of being raped or false accused of rape?

What does that matter regarding an actual case of a male being falsely accused of rape?

because unless you can show the above to be true, you're pulling smoke and manufactured rage out of your ass.

Nope. I am merely arguing for treatment of every student as an individual. That used to be a core liberal principle. Alas, it has been long abandoned for the kind of identity politics you practice.

- - - Updated - - -

I think people should be treated as individuals and not treated differently based on their genitals. That puts me at odds with SJWs like you, prideandfall or fromderinside.

Assuming your analysis is valid, that does not mean you are not a SJW. It simply means you are a different sort of SJW.

SJW has a meaning. If anything, I am an IJW.