Have neo-feminists won the battle of rape on campus? Enough so, apparently, that they’re ready to move on to the next offense to gender to be “fixed” in the college star chamber. Spokesgal for the future victims, Amanda Marcotte, gives the talking points:
Katie Baker at BuzzFeed has a new piece out about one of the less attention-getting aspects of Title IX: that it’s supposed to protect students against domestic violence as well as sexual assault.
“The next wave of Title IX activism, researchers and activists say, will focus on how colleges investigate allegations of and provide resources to students in abusive relationships,” Baker writes. “And it’s going to be just as complicated and contentious.”
It seems like only yesterday when neo-feminists were railing about how one in five women will be raped in college, demanding that we believe accusers who almost never lie. Good times.
And yet, this debunked nonsense not only has become so embedded in the public narrative as to be immune from reality (with even the New York Times repeating the same debunked nonsense today), but is the foundation upon which future college crime is being built.
Some studies show that the oft-reported statistic that one in five women is sexually assaulted during college also applies to domestic violence, often called “dating violence” or “intimate partner violence.”
That’s right, domestic violence is the new rape. Having put in extraordinary efforts to take the word “rape” and undefined it into whatever a woman wants it to be, subject to post hoc reconsideration years later, even when it’s the guy who was in a black out stage and the gal who took advantage of him, the same is about to be done to “domestic violence.”
There was a time when domestic violence was the generic descriptor of a battery committed by one partner to a relationship to another, but the crux of the offense was the battery, a physical act committed by one person upon another. It was a crime when done by strangers; it was still a crime when done by people who were involved in an intimate relationship. Prosecutors sought to give it a cool new name to make it seem like a different offense, requiring greater punishment.
But that was back in the days when offenses had elements, when words had definitions. As we’ve seen watching the words “rape” and “sexual assault” become untethered from any cognizable meaning, limited only by the feelings of their “survivors,” it’s already happening with the new outrage.
But few people know that Title IX also protects students from domestic violence, which includes physical and psychological harm.
Title IX protects students from “psychological harm”? Says who?
Activists have long felt frustrated that physical, emotional and psychological abuse is seen as secondary to sexual assault, unless a student is seriously injured or killed. That may be because college dating violence victims are often dismissed as being young and inexperienced, Bolger said.
“Bolger” is Dana Bolger, who just graduated from Amherst College. Congrats, Dana! Plastics! And co-founder of activist group Know Your IX, and apparently is now in charge of defining the breadth and scope of federal law. She don’t need no stinkin’ judges.
But as is already clear, the fight isn’t about physical violence, which was a crime long before anyone came up with the phrase “domestic violence,” and remains a crime in everyone’s mind today. Oh no, that’s not the issue at all. It’s the “emotional and psychological abuse” where the battle will be fought.
If you find it problematic that the number of syllables squandered on “emotional and psychological abuse” is wasteful, you can always shorten it to the “feelz,” which is comprised of anything that, whether immediately, after deliberations or upon consensus of a small group of favored activists, hurts a woman’s feelings or can be taken, through any combination of rationalizations or mental gymnastics, as offensive.
The scope of such an offense is breathtaking. More importantly, it is impossible to dispute someone else’s hurt feelings.
But if deployed correctly, Title IX could be an incredibly effective weapon to fight domestic violence. College students are of an age when the risk for being victimized is at its highest, for one thing.
There’s likely merit in that contention, given that no group is as delicate and sensitive as women in college. Not even the deeply fragile young men who suffer such micro-aggression as would make Tyler Kingkade cry. And by couching the consequences in such “non-lethal” language as allowed Taser to put a stun gun on every cops’ belt, it makes frivolous complaints seem almost harmless. Except for the young men whose lives will be ruined by their expulsion and permanent taint.
The blunt instrument of the law also makes it hard to suss out some of the complexities of an abusive relationship. The law is reductive, focused on who hit whom and when. But Title IX allows adjudicators to look at the relationship as a whole, to suss out patterns of abuse.
The law is the enemy of the feelz. The law requires elements and definitions. The law requires evidence. The only thing worse than “the complexities of an abusive relationship” lacking any evidence at all is the relationship where there is massive evidence that it never happened.
This infuriates the “survivors” (I am assuming that they, too, will call themselves “survivors,” because it sounds so much more sympathetic than accusers), as no one has the authority to question their “lived experiences.” So rather than the nasty reductivism of proof, they need only have their feelings “sussed” to heap a world of misery on the male who hurt their feelings. What could possibly go wrong?
Will this sate the deeply felt emotional and psychological needs of the neo-feminists? Will “domestic violence” be the final frontier of Title IX? Now that they’ve claimed victory over sex, and are embarking on this new quest, don’t expect it to end any time soon. My bet for the next offense? Hemorrhoids. Exactly, no one will ever want to see the proof there either, and it does make for spectacular metaphors.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Why do I get this mental image of Emma carrying around a tube of Preparation H?
It would have been so much lighter, but still awkward when it came time for her to shake hands.
Did you hear that Dr. Ruth is a rape apologist? It just came out that she thinks when two people are naked in bed and engaged in foreplay or sex, one person cannot expect that the other will stop on command. Boom – now she’s a rape apologist.
Is this an open thread for random thoughts? I met Dr. Ruth. She’s adorable, but not sufficiently trendy.
Are not all blogs on the internet a repository for my random thoughts? Aren’t you flattered by my attention?
I’m not as cute as Dr. Ruth, so I’ll just squirm at the implication of your question and restrain myself from further posts – after this one of course. Also, I’m very jealous that you’ve met Dr. Ruth in person. I have never had that opportunity.
Of course SJ exists as repository for your random thoughts. As do I.
Why aren’t all allegations of serious crimes (e.g. rapes) in colleges investigated by police rather than colleges themselves? Ms. Bolger says, “because assault and harassment pose obstacles to students’ access to education — a fundamental civil right — colleges and universities are required to respond to sexual violence and its detrimental effects on campus survivors’ life and learning.” I’m all for preventing a convicted rapist from attending classes with his victim, but I’m guessing that Bolger wants to prevent accused rapists from attending classes with accusers. Does Title IX preclude due process protections?
Signed,
Glutton for Punishment
Let me fix this for you: I didn’t read the links in this post. I haven’t read the many earlier posts on the subject. So instead of doing all that boring stuff, I’ll just ask a silly question now so someone can make my life easier by saving me from the real labor of thinking.
You’re welcome.
Glutton for Punishment signing off.
It won’t be the same without you. And I mean that.
We’ll still have Paris.
We’ll always have Paris.
“You can always shorten it to the ‘feelz'”
“But that was back in the days when words had definitions”
What a shame that our language has become so debased that ideologues can use it to manipulate for their own ends. I wonder how that happened. If only there were something we could do about that.
Give Orwell and Huxley to the kids for Christmas.
The pendulum always threatens to move one way or the other too quickly, or else too far, no matter the issue — Title IX issues included — from at least somebody’s perspective. But let’s keep things into perspective. Women have been the subjugated for millennia, from the family unit on up to such attitudes being sanctioned by governments locally & beyond, including worldwide.
Forcing (a decidedly still) man’s world into relinquishing some of that power (basically, taming an overall entitled masculine perspective on society somewhat) at, perhaps, men’s overall expense a bit (depending on perspective, of course — and taking the risk of stroking many of their collective egos, or feelz, the wrong way, which itself would have lead to many a woman/wife/girlfriend being helplessly fed into the now proverbial woodchipper in times past, by the way, but I digress) is something I feelz that society will just have to accept as continued attempts/progress are/is made to improve the Overall human condition; a condition that is no longer exclusive in favoring one mere class of folks (in particular, the “ideal” Man) at the sum total expense of everybody else. 🙂
But what I don’t get is how you can ride a motorcycle while wringing your hands and wiping the tears from your eyes?
The “pendulum” metaphor is convenient, but I think you’ve misunderstood it. It’s not a feature, but a flaw. It swings one way, then the other, when we would all be better if it stopped swinging. I believe in equal rights for all, women included. That doesn’t mean we have to needlessly sacrifice anyone else’s equal rights on the altar of achieving it.
At 80 mph, the wind tends to take care of those tears for me.
Anyhow, the pendulum metaphor is no more flawed than the notion of “practicing” medicine is an inherently a flawed notion. There is rarely a single right or wrong answer to issues as complex as human rights, equality, and freedom. Even with something as relatively simple and straight forward as CPR, and after all these years after its inception, its guidelines change regularly. It’s always evolving. Go figure.
You, in effect, “practice” law. If you’d rather instill rigid dogma, perhaps you ought to have become a Priest.
prac·tice /ˈpraktəs/
noun: practice
Words sometimes have more than one definition. Picking the wrong one can make someone look a bit silly.
Are the options limited to sweeping and inconsistent vagaries of “human rights, equality, and freedom” (protip: equality and freedom are conflicting concepts, where one is lost as the other gained), where men must necessarily suffer undeserved harm while trying to find some level of compensation for women as the pendulum swings from the quest for equality to protecting the delicate damsels from hurt feelz, to “rigid dogma”?
I don’t think so. But don’t be dissuaded by definitions and reason. After all, practice makes perfect.
Surely a (butthurt?) man of your stature recognizes that the reason the Pendulum metaphor even exists (thus applies so well to this discussion) in the first place is due to the fluid nature of it. It will always ebb and flow due to forces being applied to it. When it stops, it’s broke. At the very least it needs attention in order for it to work properly again, e.g. the application of more force via rewinding of the clock. And yes, some folks lose influence as some others gain power/influence in the process. But women hardly have a history of abusing, raping, and otherwise repressing the men in this world, a dynamic I seriously doubt will be changing anytime soon anywhere.
If that pendulum doesn’t get to moving again though, well, you can bet that some authoritarian asshat is ruling the roost and applying (almost certainly, His Maleness) force on the thing to keep it still. A moving pendulum suggests progress is (attempting) to being made. If it stops, or else swings too wildly (e.g. Iraq for the past few years) then something is amiss, and lots of folks in that particular society will soon be heading to the woodchippers, you can bet on it.
As for the definition of “practice,” well, I think it’s clear how I am referencing the word. Yes, practice makes perfect. Again, if you want stale, stiff, rigid compliance to your world view from the masses, then perhaps you ought to practice your mad skillz in a Cathedral (especially during the Middle Ages). Just memorize the Bible, apply your interpretation of it, and By-God it on everyone else, simple as that.
Meh. Been over this turf. It’s boring the second time around.
So let’s add up the score. SHG kicked your butt on the pendulum metaphor (though your continuing to dig that hole is good for an epic double facepalm), smacked the crap out of you on your wrong def of “practice,” and you couldn’t even get a rise out of him by trying to goad him with the bizarre use of “butthurt.” a common effort by ten year olds and the perpetually defeated.
The best you come up with is “But women hardly have a history of abusing, raping, and otherwise repressing the men in this world, a dynamic I seriously doubt will be changing anytime soon anywhere.” Has anybody here abused, raped or otherwise repressed you? I didn’t think so. And yet, here you are, the victim. Save it for the lean-in group.
You lose.
I considered raising that sentence, but its just the usual empty rhetoric. Every woman’s a victim is not a newsflash.
Well I didn’t quite see it that way, lol. But thanks for the mansplain anyway, Myles. 🙂
Mansplain? That’s the feminist corollary to Godwin’s Law.
God will forgive me for quoting from the latest market outlook report for litigation specialties:
Title IX is rich earth, ever tillable
From its crust right down to its last syllable.
It has endless repositories
For legal suppositories,
Especially if hours are billable!
slowclap
Internet outrage junkies, take note: you *can* use the interwebz to make cool stuff.
Why slow? I think he deserves a decent, regular speed clap.
The crazy thing is that almost everyone is citing sources which ultimately link back to the BJS statistics, but the BJS statistics do not say what the feminists are implying. (In case you’ll allow it: http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vi.pdf is the link; all quotes are from there)
For example, feminists imply that the cops can’t handle the issue. But as it turns out, 50% of people report to the cops, and have a 90% cop response rate. That’s data which supports “more reporting,” not “going outside the system.”
And similarly, feminists imply that intimate violence is 1 in 5, while that BJS states “Women age 16 to 19 and women age 20 to 24 had nearly identical rates of intimate victimization: about 1 violent victimization
for every 50 women” (and they have the highest rates.)
Also, feminists imply that intimate violence is the largest problem–perhaps next to rape–while statistics suggest that it is not by any means the largest issue: ” Intimate violence accounts for about a fifth of all violence against females. The two categories of violence by friends and acquaintances and violence by strangers are each over a third of the victimizations.” (Also, in a statistical sense, rape is already included in the “violence” column, which is to say that rape is a subset and not an additional set.)
The statistics have been far more thoroughly addressed here and elsewhere. Does it really have to be done every single time the “1 in 5” is mentioned? Isn’t the last 100 times good enough that you don’t need to do it again?
Yes, I think so. Repetition fights stupidity, and facts should be put out whenever possible. (Not for YOU, obviously, but for most folks.)
Then you really need to start a blog where you can do so your heart’s content.
Why not just cut all this crap and go straight for a “relationship review board” who can determine if there is reasonable suspicion that the individual with a more masculine appearance didn’t live up to the expectations of their partner or caused any sensation of regret or shame? This way victims don’t need to feel the anguish of being re-victimized by the processes of reporting their attacker.
Think about it – Is their physical appearance at such a disparity that the man revealing the intimacy caused ridicule of the woman by her peers? Did the man purchase presents or take her on dates for the sole purpose of having sex with her? Or, god forbid, did the man stop calling the victim simply because she refused intercourse?
Think about the psychological violence and mental trauma caused by any of these incidents and ask yourself: can you really allow men like this to exist in an environment of higher education? Can the risk of emotional domestic abusers just getting away with their violent words really allow relationships to go unmonitored? If you aren’t an abusive scumbag any you have nothing to hide, why would you oppose this?
Flowers used to be a nice touch. Now, too much of a risk.
Man, Jack, the utter contempt for women’s perspectives and experiences in life is absolutely palpable here. But you clearly have no desire to understand anything other than what you think you already understand, and that is that your personal Maleness is under !attack! By a bunch of sniffling Women no less! Gasp!! So, we (society) fight one another instead of attempting a civil dialog — well, or perhaps more accurately, we tend to reactively pound our individual perspectives up one another’s ass and tug violently for the pendulum rather than simply discuss, hence, learn and resolve issues more civilly (oh but that’s too feminine)….
So it is, the state of the world right now, which is pretty much how every issue imaginable is dealt with: by pounding our views up one another’s collective asses. Oh the fun (and so masculine)….
If the options are limited to agreeing with your feelz or accusations of “utter contempt,” it doesn’t look like you pass the civil dialogue test any better than Jack. Why is it you think “understanding” you is most important? You don’t give a damn about guys (which is no big deal and no guy really cares anyway), but “the problem” is that guys don’t desperately want to understand women?
As you attack masculinity, while complaining that men don’t understand femininity, the whole thing just looks laughably hypocritical and narcissistic.
I’ve merely shared my general observations concerning issues in general, including involving Title IX concerns in general. I’ve not taken any specific stance for or against generally men, nor in general women concerning any specific circumstance here. I’ve merely made general observations concerning the general origins (women historically being oppressed — seriously, can this be possibly be a point of contention?) & state of the gender war, if you will, currently being waged in society. Those issues are clearly complex, with both sides (hyper-emotionally) grasping and tugging firmly so as to not only hold their current ground, but to increase it as well. Kinda like the perpetual abortion debate: it will probably never be “settled.”
It didn’t take long to realize that I had hit a raw nerve, or worse yet, had stumbled straight off into a damn bee hive, lol. Touchy subject here!
But to answer your question however, understanding me as a human being was never the point. I assure you that you will never understand me, but by the same token, we’ll both agree that that is of no loss to you. Yet, as with any “war,” eventually the sides waging it will have to drop the rhetoric, loosen their collective death grips on the f’ing pendulum, and sit down and shut up for minute. Then and only then will constructive dialog be possible in order to achieve some common ground.
That is all. Now, if you’ll excuse me I’ve got some miles to ride. Happy Flag Day! 🙂
There is a difference in how you approached this. You took it personal. You got personal. I treat you like anyone else here, no better and no worse. I couldn’t care less what your gender, color or shoe size is. Most guys don’t get hyper-emotional (that’s a phenomenon called “projection,” where you impute to your adversary your own feelings and motivations), but annoyed.
By the way, every time someone tries to play the “hit a raw nerve” game, they lose. You got annoyingly bound up in empty rhetoric. I hesitate to tell you what that is (because I like you and it would be mean), but a raw nerve it’s not.
Thank you for considering my feelings. I see we’re making progress. 🙂