No, it isn't. But feel free to link to widely accepted feminist treatises you have actually read and can accurately summarize to demonstrate your point. Quote mines don't count.
You are confusing me with a guy who would willingly read through feminist treatises. But subjecting oneself to hundreds of pages of their drivel is not necessary - their articles are sufficient. Just look at feminist support for these new rape laws that make it easy to expel innocent male students. Or feminists like Jessica Valenti supporting reversal of burden of proof for rape cases. Or feminists being against making divorce laws more equitable between genders.
You have cases in which males were punished, but you don't have evidence the outcome was the result of misandry.
If a male and a female student are both drunk and engage in consensual sex and the male student gets expelled what would you call it? If colleges were in the habit of only punishing the female students under these circumstances you would not have any difficulties calling it misogyny.
Suppose a college has a first-past-the-post system for identifying victims and alleged perpetrators, where the student who first reports a mutual drunken sexual encounter gets the benefit of the doubt? That's a system that could be exploited to a person's advantage, but it's gender neutral. Men like Charlie reporting they were mounted without consent would get the same consideration as women.
First of all, that system is extremely unjust as well. If an investigation determines that two people engaged in same behavior the college should not selectively punish only one of them.
Second, there is no evidence that this is what colleges are doing rather than sexism. In case after case it is the male getting expelled and you and other feminists are just fine with that.
If men are more likely than women to commit sexual assaults (which they are), and women are more likely than men to come forward when they are the victim of a sexual assault (which they are), then men are more likely than women to face a disciplinary board as an alleged assailant, and women are more likely than men to go before one as an alleged victim. Simply pointing out that women are usually considered victims and men assailants doesn't prove anything about misandry being a factor. You have to show that gender bias is influencing the outcomes.
If men and women are actually determined to have done the same thing (like at Occidental) then only punishing the male is unjust. And since it only happens to men, gender bias is evident, especially in light of sexist feminist screeds about the alleged "rape culture".
Furthermore, if the female has sex with a drunk man (like at Amherst) it is still the male who gets expelled. And yet you still deny feminist anti-male bias.
Where is the evidence these rules are only being enforced against males? That is the central part of your claim. It needs more support than a scattershot of cases in which the only unifying factors are the guy got expelled and you blame feminists.
Do you have any case of a female getting expelled for sex with a drunk male student? In case after case it is the male student who gets expelled even when he did nothing wrong.
"yeah, that's gender bias, which I oppose BTW because I'm a feminist".
LMFAO!
How much did her status as a minor affect the charges and the outcome?
It didn't bother the police when they concluded it was consensual, so why should it bother the university? They were both freshmen, they were both around 18, they were both drunk, they both engaged in consensual sex. The male student gets expelled, the female student gets protected as a "victim" because a
radical feminist professor convinced her she was "raped" when she clearly wasn't.
Did she get victim status because she claimed it, and he didn't because he never reported being victimized?
Why should that matter one iota if the facts show they both did the same thing? Also would the feminist professor have told him that he was "raped"? No way in hell, because that doesn't fit the feminist party line.
Has something like this happened before? If so, what was the outcome? You have to consider those factors before you can say there's evidence of men being unfairly disadvantaged at Occidental. And then you have to show evidence of the same unfairness at other colleges before you can say there's a pattern of gender bias in these systems. And then you have to show how it derives from feminism before you can say the feminists are to blame.
In case after case there are male students being expelled under very dubious circumstances. In the case of University of North Dakota, police determined the female was lying and issued a warrant for her arrest. That didn't matter to the university who expelled him anyway.
Okay, so I listed some of the facts of the case and you responded with quibbles and blaming everything on feminism. What is the point here? Are we going to argue whether the legal age for drinking should be lower
I think it should be but that's beside the point. The point is that the two did the same thing, yet only the male got punished.
or if schools should be required to report adults who have sex with minors on campus?
They are basically the same age.
That topic should have it's own thread. But if we're going to discuss unequal treatment of students then let's focus on that.
Yes, let's. They did the same thing, yet only the one with a penis got punished. Because feminism.
I agree that the treatment of both students was unequal despite their rule breaking behavior being pretty much the same. I would like to know why.
Why not?
1) All you have shown are the results of apparently flawed systems. You haven't presented the means necessary to separate out the results of a flawed gender-neutral system from a flawed gender-biased system or a well functioning gender-biased system. Why was she treated as a victim? Is it because she is the one who reported being victimized, or because she was a minor and he was an adult? Did she get leniency in exchange for cooperating with the board as it investigated the alleged sexual misconduct? You haven't shown which, if any, of these possibilities affected her status in the eyes of the disciplinary board.
It's her having a vagina. That makes her automatic victim just like having a penis makes one an automatic "rapist" as far as feminism goes.
2) Saying something is the result of feminism without showing decent evidence that feminism affected the outcome is like saying "God did it". That's an explanation that only satisfies the believers.
No. Denying clear feminist gender bias is like apologists denying the Bible contradictions and inventing increasingly complex scenarios to justify inerrancy.
3) What you are describing is misandry, not feminism.
Much of contemporary feminism entails misandry.
That sounds like a good reason to be sober when choosing your sex-buddies.
Sobriety doesn't cure crazy. Also, what you wrote sounds a lot like victim blaming.
However, if there is evidence one of them used force or coercion on the other before or during the encounter, as there is in the case presented in the OP, then the consequences for that student should be more severe. At the very least, the use of force merits expulsion.
Except that there is no evidence that the male student used "force or coercion" in the OP (Amherst) case.
You just agreed that Ben was raped because his consent was coerced but now you're saying reluctant consent counts as valid consent. So if Ben described what he was feeling as "reluctant" rather than "feeling coerced" , does that make the encounter okay in your book?
Not ideal, but it should surely not be actionable either by state nor colleges. If your girlfriend is not satisfied with the frequency of sex and threatens to leave you if you don't do it more often and you do it even though you are not enthusiastic about it, did she rape you every time you had sex over and beyond the old frequency? By the way, feminist Ms. Magazine includes that in their definition of "rape", at least when it happens to a female.
It's just ridiculous to put strict conditions on consent like that. All that matters is that a) consent was freely given and b) that the person was capable of giving it. Anything else is a dangerous slippery slope.
The reason for his reluctance, in this case his fears for what might happen if he said no to the woman who slashed her legs before breaking into his home to demand sex, are no obstacle to the sex being considered consensual?
Home invasion certainly is. That's a bit more than reluctant consent though.
Suppose we use the term "unencumbered" to denote an agreement to have sex free from coercion, trickery, and manipulation. Ben did not actually want to have sex with his ex- but he feared a worse outcome if he didn't. His consent was affirmative but not unencumbered. Does that mean he really did consent, or that he really didn't?
Trickery or manipulation? That, like your requirement for "sober" and "enthusiastic" consent would make a large percentage of people into rapists. Is a person who lies about their age, marital status, occupation or level of feelings for the other a rapist?
She used that as an example of pressure tactics and coercion to force a non-consenting person into performing or allowing sex acts they don't want. If a couple must both contribute to pay the rent or cooperate to get themselves to work each day, a threat by one to end the relationship is a threat to make the other homeless or jobless or both. That's some serious leverage.
Nobody should be forced to continue in a relationship they no longer want to be in. Nobody should be forced to house a person they do not want to house. And sex is an important component of most relationships and a valid deal-breaker. If a woman threatens to break up if her boyfriend doesn't do more housework and he agrees is he a victim of forced labor? If not, why different rules for sex?
"Do what I want or else....." where the "or else" is a very unpleasant outcome is coercion.
Nonsense. It depends on what the very unpleasant outcome is, especially if the "unpleasant outcome" is not a result of an action (like violence) but failure to do something (like no longer being her boyfriend).
In the sense of it being gleeful and energetic? No.
Definition of enthusiastic:
en·thu·si·as·tic
inˌTH
o͞ozēˈastik,enˌTHo͞ozēˈastik/
adjective
adjective: enthusiastic
having or showing intense and eager enjoyment, interest, or approval.
"the promoter was enthusiastic about the concert venue"
synonyms: eager, keen, avid, ardent, fervent, passionate, ebullient, zealous, vehement; excited, wholehearted, committed, devoted, fanatical, earnest; informalhog-wild, can-do, gung-ho, rah-rah, psyched
"an enthusiastic supporter of Latin American baseball"
In the sense of it being given without coercion, trickery, or other unethical behavior tainting the genuineness of the consent? Yes.
I do not see any of this in the definition above. And again, I think this is way too broad.
I don't think it's an ideal situation to have having college administrators trying to decide where consent ends and non-consent begins, but I do think it's necessary. Administrators have to at least try to identify the sex offenders and get them off campus, and evaluating the quality of the consent they claim to have been given is part of the process.
Identifying sex offenders is the job of the police and the criminal justice system. What they want is a way to expel male students with little to no evidence because of feminist pressure.
Preponderance of evidence is the standard in civil actions, which the Obama Administration correctly pointed out.
POE is the standard for torts. Non-tort civil actions, particularly administrative ones, often use "clear and convincing proof". Colleges used to use that standard for sexual assault cases and still continue to do so for other administrative matters. The change to poe by Obama administration was purely political to appease the radical feminists and increase expulsion rate. Unfortunately poe has a very high false positive rate as could be seen in the slew of wrongly decided cases since the policy went into effect in 2011.
It's the same one used when an employer fires an employee for cause, or when the Boy Scouts kick out a scoutmaster for homosexuality.
Maybe (do you have a citation?) but it is not the standard used for colleges to expel students for non-sexual matters.
It might not be the best standard.
That's an understatement. The only reason it was adopted is politics and pressure by feminists to expel more male students.
But if the standard is too low it should be raised for in all such cases, not just the ones affecting men attending college. That requires changing the laws that govern those parts of the civil code.
The only thing you'd need to change is rescind the Obama/Biden edict of 2011.
