Definitions matter, which persists to present a problem whenever anyone presents an argument relating to rape and sexual assault. The words still evoke an image of some animal forcibly grabbing a woman, throwing her to the ground in a dark alley and brutalizing her.

Except that’s hardly the rape or sexual assault of which anybody speaks these days. It’s not that it doesn’t happen, and isn’t a horrible crime, but the far more prevalent cries relate to sex that is facially consensual but tainted by the latest excuses of discomfort, alcohol or post-hoc regret. And because of this insurmountable gap in definition, Jim Hopper’s attempt to challenge Emily Yoffe is revealed as a scientific sham.

As a psychologist who has researched the neurobiology of trauma and regularly teaches military and civilian police and prosecutors, higher education staff and others, I can expand a public conversation started in The Atlantic, by the unfortunately titled and highly misleading September 2017 story, “The Bad Science Behind Campus Response to Sexual Assault.” In fact, the science on the neurobiology of stress and trauma is actually quite good, and the real issues are how that science is taught to university staff who aren’t scientists and how they, in turn, apply that teaching on their campuses.

Continue reading →

It was once a joke to suggest that cops carry a credit card reader on their belt, performing cash and carry law enforcement. So cynical. So ridiculous. So . . . Detroit.

An irate customer who was upset about the price of an item started trashing a northwest Detroit Marathon gas station last month, prompting manager Sadek Kaid to dial 911.

When the police didn’t respond after several minutes, Kaid said he hit redial and asked why.

“The dispatcher said, ‘It’s because you don’t have the Green Light,’ ” Kaid said.

Think the worst nightmare of net neutrality meets the aspirational “protect and serve.” Continue reading →

Judges are not “fierce advocates,” despite the wishes of New York Times’ copy editors. Judges are, ideally, impartial, using their authority to apply the law. Ingham County Court Judge Rosemarie Aquilina conveniently abandoned that role by prioritizing the feelings of the “sister survivors.” whom former U.S. Gymnastics doctor Larry Nassar sexually assaulted, over Michigan’s charge to jurists regarding the avoidance of judicial impropriety.

A judge should respect and observe the law. At all times, the conduct and manner of a judge should promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Without regard to a person’s race, gender, or other protected personal characteristic, a judge should treat every person fairly, with courtesy and respect.

Nassar’s sentencing hearing is a clear example of a judge straying from promoting the public’s trust in a fair and impartial judiciary. Let’s begin with Judge Aquilina’s decision allowing over one hundred and sixty victim impact statements across seven days.  Continue reading →

One argument against cameras in the courtroom is that judges, being human and fraught with the frailties of the species, might play to them. Who doesn’t want to look good for their close-up, Mr. DeMille? This seemed to terminally afflict Judge Rosemarie Aquilina as media focused on her.

There is a peculiar expectation that anyone would demand, or need, a deep discussion of how despicable Larry Nassar was and is. Is there a doubt? Is there anyone arguing that what this guy did isn’t absolutely horrible and outrageous? Continue reading →

Never having been a big fan of Toronto psychology prof Jordan Peterson, his interview with British journalist Cathy Newman held little interest. But Conor Friedersdorf’s Atlantic article about the interview was an exceptional dissection. No, it wasn’t really about Peterson’s views at all, even though the subtext was that he’s hardly the misogynistic ogre he’s portrayed to be by the highly woke. If anything, he’s a old-school liberal, but that’s neither here nor there.

What Conor’s article showed was the bizarre efforts of a lame advocate to take what Peterson said and try, with all her might to twist it into the most baseless, absurd and offensive expression possible. In the process, she revealed the worst of advocacy journalism.

But what struck me, far more than any position he took, was the method his interviewer employed. It was the most prominent, striking example I’ve seen yet of an unfortunate trend in modern communication. Continue reading →

It would likely be considered unseemly for a newspaper, say one as well-regarded as the Gray Lady herself, to put out a notice that it would like to publish a story about a particular identity group being victimized, so if you’re a member of that group and want to see your name in print, manufacture a claim of victimization and become famous! After all, newspapers report news, not create the news they want to report.

At least, that was the idea way back when. Today, there is a more social media perspective, where one sniffs the air for the stench of outrage and then solicits the stories that emit the desired odor.

Continue reading →

In Matt Bird’s book, The Secrets of Story: Innovative Tools for Perfecting Your Fiction and Captivating Readers, there is a part called “The Poisonous Cindarella Story.”* It’s sad, pathetic and illuminating.

Up until that week, I was still clinging to my personal version of the Cinderella story: I was convinced I could go to a top MFA program, impress my professors, get whisked into a job in the industry, start at the top by selling a show to HBO, and begin a life of fame, fortune, and acclaim. So far, everything had seemed to work out (CAA liked the new intros, after all), but I began to feel a sense of dread: This was all an illusion. I didn’t really “have it” yet.

Looking back, this was the time I began to see that Columbia had been run like a fantasy camp. We were encouraged to dabble in everything and specialize in nothing, to follow our muse wherever it led us, content in the knowledge that we were in a “safe space.” We got tons of praise and very little criticism. Continue reading →

Ed. Note: I offered my friend and commenter Jake the opportunity to speak his mind and write a post. He took me up on it. Here it is.

Recently, our host opined the 2017 Women’s March was cool, but then wondered: Why? However, as I will demonstrate, the content of his post fails to address the question of why by ignoring the obvious answer, substituting the opinions of individuals for the purpose of the march, and changing the question. The net effect of all this pretense leaves me thinking: Cool story bro, but why?

As for why the 2017 Women’s March took place, a simple trip to their website reveals a clear and concise mission statement.

The mission of Women’s March is to harness the political power of diverse women and their communities to create transformative social change. Women’s March is a women-led movement providing intersectional education on a diverse range of issues and creating entry points for new grassroots activists & organizers to engage in their local communities through trainings, outreach programs and events. Women’s March is committed to dismantling systems of oppression through nonviolent resistance and building inclusive structures guided by self-determination, dignity and respect.

Continue reading →

The most common “solution” to improper police practices is better training. And, indeed, better training, such as de-escalation rather than resorting to force, would certainly be a positive step. But what’s rarely noted is that there’s training, and there’s “training,” where the wizened old cop teaches the rookie how it’s “really” done.

A Louisville Metro Police recruit received some impromptu training from then-assistant police chief of Prospect, Todd Shaw.

Shaw served with LMPD for more than 20 years before joining the Prospect department in 2012. In one of the Facebook messages, the LMPD recruit asked Shaw what to do in a scenario in which he catches three juveniles smoking marijuana.

The question was part of a paper the recruit was writing about “the right thing to do,” according to O’Connell’s letter. Continue reading →

The simpleton’s retort is that the crazies on the right, the creationists, believe Genesis is a history book. Fossils? God planted them there to test us. And if you believe in evolution, you failed, sucker! This is the cover for their counterparts on the left, who love science, and aren’t at all blinded by religious ferver, but only so long as it confirms their bias as well.

One thing that makes the Left less appealing than it used to be is its overt resistance to scientific findings that supposedly go against the liberal narrative. For example, any suggestion that there might be evolutionary differences between human ethnic groups, or between men and women, is not only denied, but has become so taboo that merely to bring up these subjects risks opprobrium from the Left. Evolutionary psychology and studies of “race” have been demonized by many to the extent that these endeavors are sometimes deemed worthless.

Likewise, the Left obdurately resists any notion that there are evolved differences between the behavior, abilities, or preferences of men and women. Cordelia Fine, for example, has made this her goal, and while her two books on the subject are good in parts, they’re also deeply flawed in some of their critiques. For instance, males are larger and stronger than females, and it’s hard to explain this without invoking sexual selection. And if sexual selection on the human body caused dimorphism in morphology, isn’t it reasonable to expect it to have caused differences in behavior and brains— just the kind of differences that produce behaviors we see in human society?

Continue reading →