No such thing as Rape Culture redux

[ksen]

George Will: victimhood enjoys a "coveted status"

Colleges and universities are being educated by Washington and are finding the experience excruciating. They are learning that when they say campus victimizations are ubiquitous (“micro-aggressions,” often not discernible to the untutored eye, are everywhere), and that when they make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges, victims proliferate. And academia’s progressivism has rendered it intellectually defenseless now that progressivism’s achievement, the regulatory state, has decided it is academia’s turn to be broken to government’s saddle.

So the problem isn't that sexual assault on college campi are a thing, but that college administrators are bowing to progressive pressure from Washington to give the victims coveted status.

Wat?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

You might need a bit more meth to figure this one out.

 

[ksen]

Oh, I just noticed Will basically called sexual assault a "micro-aggression".

They are learning that when they say campus victimizations are ubiquitous (“micro-aggressions,” often not discernible to the untutored eye, are everywhere)

Please Repubs, keep writing about rape and sexual assault.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

He is quoting "micro-aggressions" so I think that must be coming from some school policy.

It seems he thinks that sexual assaults are too high on campuses, but then says that there is too much sensitivity to a woman's claim. So women need to remember that sexual assault isn't assault until you've said "no" twelve times, have hit the guy with a mallet, and had the police escort him from the place.

"No means no" only means "no no" if it is repeated... repeatedly. Otherwise, it just means "try again until I hit you with a mallet".

 

[Tom Sawyer]

He is quoting "micro-aggressions" so I think that must be coming from some school policy.

It seems he thinks that sexual assaults are too high on campuses, but then says that there is too much sensitivity to a woman's claim. So women need to remember that sexual assault isn't assault until you've said "no" twelve times, have hit the guy with a mallet, and had the police escort him from the place.

"No means no" only means "no no" if it is repeated... repeatedly. Otherwise, it just means "try again until I hit you with a mallet".

I think it's more like they recognize that it's a problem, but they only have so many resources and they can't deal with each and every incident when it's so prolific. It's like in the slums of Rio De Janeiro where they get a dozen murders a night. Eventually, the police don't want you calling up and bothering them every single fucking time one of your kids gets shot in the face.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

He is quoting "micro-aggressions" so I think that must be coming from some school policy.

It seems he thinks that sexual assaults are too high on campuses, but then says that there is too much sensitivity to a woman's claim. So women need to remember that sexual assault isn't assault until you've said "no" twelve times, have hit the guy with a mallet, and had the police escort him from the place.

"No means no" only means "no no" if it is repeated... repeatedly. Otherwise, it just means "try again until I hit you with a mallet".

I think it's more like they recognize that it's a problem, but they only have so many resources and they can't deal with each and every incident when it's so prolific. It's like in the slums of Rio De Janeiro where they get a dozen murders a night. Eventually, the police don't want you calling up and bothering them every single fucking time one of your kids gets shot in the face.

I was thinking more of it meaning non-violent assaults, if that comes across as meant. Groping could possibly fall under that category, if the source of it could be confirmed. IE, it is an aggression but not an all out violent one. Regardless, I think Will is citing some policy.

 

[doubtingt]

Oh, I just noticed Will basically called sexual assault a "micro-aggression".

They are learning that when they say campus victimizations are ubiquitous (“micro-aggressions,” often not discernible to the untutored eye, are everywhere)

Please Repubs, keep writing about rape and sexual assault.

No, Will did not call sexual assault a "micro-aggression". He was not referring to sexual assaults in that part of the quote but to other types of claimed victimization on college campuses that he refers to later in the article. The term "micro-aggressions" is not his and he doesn't view it as a legit concept, which is why he puts it into quotes. He his referring to notion of "mirco-aggressions" put forth mostly by victims advocates and academics within race and gender studies in which pretty much anything that any person for any reason says or does that is interpreted as racist, sexist, or in any way insensitive is an act of "micro-aggression". The term refers to the idea that most people looking at the situation wouldn't see anything "aggressive" or wrong in the interaction, but yet if anyone anywhere feels in any way negatively impacted by the act, then that means it was in fact an act of aggression that was just too "micro" to be noticed.

Here is an excerpt on the wiki about the concept:

It is hypothesized that microaggressions can take a number of different forms,[9] for example, questioning the existence of racial-cultural issues, making stereotypic assumptions, and cultural insensitivity.[9][10] Some other types of microaggressions that have been identified[9] include Colorblindness (e.g., "I don't think of you as Black. You are just a normal person"), denial of personal bias (e.g., "I'm not homophobic; I even have gay friends."), and minimization of racial-cultural issues (e.g., "Just because you feel alone in this group doesn't mean that there's a racial issue involved.").
......

Being ignored by a waiter/waitress at a restaurant or being assigned to a particular task by an employer, might seem irrelevant or innocuous situations under most circumstances. However, when such situations are interpreted as being linked to racial differences, they become distinct, and take on a different connotation. As a result, people who perceive themselves as being subjected to them may experience emotional pain or other negative feelings.

Note the underlines parts emphasizing that all that matters is the subjective interpretation and perception of the "victim". IOW, no matter if there is any real aggression or prejudice, if someone feels personally affronted by a subtle act having nothing really to do with them, it is a "micro-aggression", and if you dare to point out that their reaction is unreasonable and the situation isn't about them or their race or gender, then you also have committed a "micro-aggression".

George Will is mocking this notion and he is trying to link it to another trend in academia of calling for educators to have to warn students whenever anything they might read or hear related to class assignments might potentially trigger negative emotions related to their own experiences of race, gender, violence, or pretty much anything else unpleasant in the world. One college drafted the following guideline for teachers in relation to giving students "Trigger Warnings" about books or lectures in their class:

“Be aware of racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, cissexism [transgender discrimination], ableism and other issues of privilege and oppression. Realize that all forms of violence are traumatic, and that your students have lives before and outside your classroom, experiences you may not expect or understand.”

Will might be wrong in the way he tries to connect these issues to one another and to sexual assault policies and standards of evidence on campuses. But he is not labeling sexual assault a "micro-aggression", but rather essentially arguing that micro-aggressions don't exist or shouldn't be legislated because colleges should only legislate real aggressions where you don't need and ideological lens to see it.

I'm sure you can find a legit thing to criticize Will's piece about, without misrepresenting what he said.

 

[Derec]

So the problem isn't that sexual assault on college campi are a thing, but that college administrators are bowing to progressive pressure from Washington to give the victims coveted status.
Wat?

When you redefine "sexual assault" to include so-called "micro-aggressions" (newest progresso-authoritarian invention) or consensual drunken hookups when the girl regrets it the following day (or following year for that matter, see Vasser College) then you get two things
- an explosion of "sexual assaults" on campuses
- and "sexual assault" ceases to mean anything at all

All you get is a bunch of male college students getting expelled for no reason other that a girl complained about them,

 

[Derec]

Oh, I just noticed Will basically called sexual assault a "micro-aggression".

They are learning that when they say campus victimizations are ubiquitous (“micro-aggressions,” often not discernible to the untutored eye, are everywhere)

Please Repubs, keep writing about rape and sexual assault.

The problem is not George Will but that colleges, pushed by the Obama administration, are defining . "Micro-aggression" is not a word conservatives (or even conservo-libertarians) have invented - it is a word fully belonging to the progresso-authoritarian camp.

 

[Derec]

It seems he thinks that sexual assaults are too high on campuses, but then says that there is too much sensitivity to a woman's claim. So women need to remember that sexual assault isn't assault until you've said "no" twelve times, have hit the guy with a mallet, and had the police escort him from the place.

Not so. According to colleges, if a guy and a girl both drink and have consensual sex, he is a rapist and she is a victim.

"No means no" only means "no no" if it is repeated... repeatedly. Otherwise, it just means "try again until I hit you with a mallet".

Nonsense. According to colleges "yes" means "no" if a woman changes her mind the next day (or even next year, see Vassar). Colleges are increasingly becoming a hostile environment for men.

 

[RavenSky]

Otherwise, it just means "try again until I hit you with a mallet".

is it bad that this made me laugh

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

George Will is mocking this notion and he is trying to link it to another trend in academia of calling for educators to have to warn students whenever anything they might read or hear related to class assignments might potentially trigger negative emotions related to their own experiences of race, gender, violence, or pretty much anything else unpleasant in the world. One college drafted the following guideline for teachers in relation to giving students "Trigger Warnings" about books or lectures in their class:

“Be aware of racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, cissexism [transgender discrimination], ableism and other issues of privilege and oppression. Realize that all forms of violence are traumatic, and that your students have lives before and outside your classroom, experiences you may not expect or understand.”

If that really happens, that's political correctness gone insane right there. Dovetails nicely with the rape thread below where we were talking about taboo topics and questions, where investigation for truth is off limits because somebody's feelings might get hurt. People really need to toughen up. It is getting pathetic.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Oh, I just noticed Will basically called sexual assault a "micro-aggression".

They are learning that when they say campus victimizations are ubiquitous (“micro-aggressions,” often not discernible to the untutored eye, are everywhere)

Please Repubs, keep writing about rape and sexual assault.

In other words, he's talking about things that aren't rape.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I was thinking more of it meaning non-violent assaults, if that comes across as meant. Groping could possibly fall under that category, if the source of it could be confirmed. IE, it is an aggression but not an all out violent one. Regardless, I think Will is citing some policy.

I would guess even lesser things--wolf whistles, sexual humor etc.

 

[Bronzeage]

Not so. According to colleges, if a guy and a girl both drink and have consensual sex, he is a rapist and she is a victim.

"No means no" only means "no no" if it is repeated... repeatedly. Otherwise, it just means "try again until I hit you with a mallet".

Nonsense. According to colleges "yes" means "no" if a woman changes her mind the next day (or even next year, see Vassar). Colleges are increasingly becoming a hostile environment for men.

If you think this is a serious problem for men, I suggest you never allow yourself to be alone with a woman. I've been having sex with females(girls at first and later women) since I was 14 and have never been falsely accused of rape, and certainly never raped anyone.

I'm sure my good fortune is simply due to my good manners.

 

[Derec]

If you think this is a serious problem for men, I suggest you never allow yourself to be alone with a woman. I've been having sex with females(girls at first and later women) since I was 14 and have never been falsely accused of rape, and certainly never raped anyone.

That sort of dismissive attitude would not be tolerated in regard to actual rapes. "I've never been raped myself so it really can't be a problem"

The fact is, false rape allegations happen and they are a serious thing that is unfortunately not taken seriously enough by law enforcement, courts and colleges. On the other hand, colleges especially have reduced burden of proof to ridiculously low levels and made it much more difficult for male students to defend themselves substantially increasing the likelihood that an innocent male student is wrongfully expelled or otherwise punished. That is the fruit of the culture of "rape culture" hysteria prevalent on the feminist Left.

 

[thebeave]

Well, as usual, we can count on progressive California to come up with the right answer to solve the sexual assault problems on college campuses:

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Bill-pushes-into-college-sex-lives-to-help-rape-5535057.php#photo-6414096

California lawmakers want to take the burden of preventing rape off victims by requiring that college students looking to hook up prove they had agreed to have sex.

The "affirmed consent" standard - already in place at many universities - could be required at all publicly funded California colleges and universities under a proposed state law being considered by the Legislature.

The move comes as women's groups - joined by President Obama - have expressed outrage at the lax way college officials across the country have responded to reports of rape on their campuses.

But some say that requiring each partner to explicitly agree to have sex goes too far into people's bedrooms and unfairly limits due process rights of the accused.

And you all thought it was just the right wing nutters that wanted to control what's going on in the bedroom...

 

[Toni]

Not so. According to colleges, if a guy and a girl both drink and have consensual sex, he is a rapist and she is a victim.

"No means no" only means "no no" if it is repeated... repeatedly. Otherwise, it just means "try again until I hit you with a mallet".

Nonsense. According to colleges "yes" means "no" if a woman changes her mind the next day (or even next year, see Vassar). Colleges are increasingly becoming a hostile environment for men.

I would be very much interested in seeing any actual links to university policies which resemble your accusations. The link entitled Vassar gives Yu's side of the story and then of course, the woman must be lying because Yu was purportedly a virgin and also the daughter of a geology professor (i.e. privileged skank). Never mind that two witnesses suggest that she appeared drunk at the time.

It also gives Vassar's actual policy:

Vassar's regulations state that 'Any student accused of rape will automatically and concurrently be charged with attempted rape, sexual assault, and attempted sexual assault. The minimum sanction for any student found guilty of rape will be immediate expulsion from the college.

Which differs considerably from your claim that yes means no if a woman changes her mind the next day or year or that if both drink then he is a rapist and she is a victim. In fact, I notice what appears to be gender neutrality in the wording.

 

[Derec]

And you all thought it was just the right wing nutters that wanted to control what's going on in the bedroom...

The left wing nutters have been doing it since the late 60s with the cockamamie "personal is political" doctrine.

 

[Derec]

I would be very much interested in seeing any actual links to university policies which resemble your accusations.

The university policies that restrict accused's right to due process and lower the burden of proof to the lowest possible setting have been discussed at length and are not even disputed by your side.

The link entitled Vassar gives Yu's side of the story and then of course, the woman must be lying because Yu was purportedly a virgin and also the daughter of a geology professor (i.e. privileged skank). Never mind that two witnesses suggest that she appeared drunk at the time.

First of all, I am not saying that she "must be lying" (although it is likely given the evidence available to us). That you assume this means that you have internalized the "presumed guilty until proven innocent" doctrine, i.e. that you think the only way a male student accused of rape or sexual assault should avoid punishment is to prove that "the woman was lying". But the burden of proof should always be on the accuser. If it can't be proven she was assaulted, he should not be punished in any way. The only purpose proving she was lying should serve is when it comes to punishing her. If we can't prove either way nobody should be punished.
All this should be noncontroversial in a civilized society. It is very sad that many disagree with it in the name of "protecting" female students no matter whose rights get violated in the process.

Second, the girl or the college never challenged the claim that she only brought her accusation a year after the alleged incident. Why didn't she contact the police right away? Why didn't she seek medical help? If she was really raped or assaulted, why wait that long? Specifically, why wait until the very last moment to file the claim? That shows calculation.

Third, about the alleged witnesses that saw her "appear drunk". Being (or appearing) drunk doesn't mean she was unable to consent. Also, how drunk was he? Sauce of the gander should be sauce for the goose. But colleges disagree. Drunkenness, according to them, renders a female incapable to consent but it has no such effect on the male. Furthermore, I am very skeptical of the ability of these alleged witnesses to recall who appeared drunk on a specific night a year earlier. Who are these alleged witnesses? Friends of the accuser? Was their identity disclosed to the accused? Was he able to cross-examine them? And let me repeat the most salient point, them seeing the accuser "appear drunk" in no way, shape or form proves non-consent!

Fourth, you have ignored exculpatory evidence. Rightly, there should not be any need for it given that inculpatory evidence is so sparse as to be virtually non-existent. But it further illustrates the travesty of justice Vasser committed here. To wit, the accused and the accuser were exchanging friendly messages in the year between the alleged incident and her filing the accusation. Now if she was really raped why would she continue to have voluntary and friendly contact with the accused?

Fifth, the point of her father being professor was not that she is a "privileged" (that's progresso-authoritarian language just like "micro-aggressions") but that the guy was judged by professors (i.e. her father's colleagues) after Walker requested that no students be present in the tribunal.

Which differs considerably from your claim that yes means no if a woman changes her mind the next day or year or that if both drink then he is a rapist and she is a victim. In fact, I notice what appears to be gender neutrality in the wording.

How many female students has Vasser expelled after a mutually drunken hookup? The wording might be gender neutral, but the application is very gender specific. Female accuses a male of sexual assault a year later, there is no evidence the encounter was non-consensual, male student gets expelled regardless.

Again, there is no evidence that the sex was non-consensual. None whatsoever (if there is please present it or forever hold your peace). Yet the male student was expelled.

Anyway, if I was on the jury I'd vote to give Yu Vasser's entire endowment for punitive damages. What that college did was unconscionable.
Also I think every male student unjustly expelled should file a lawsuit and force the colleges to defend their actions in actual court (as opposed to their own kangaroo variety). Last but not least this seems the only way to make the identity of the accusers public. Without the lawsuit we would not have known that the name of the girl in question is Mary Claire Walker for example.