Heather MacDonald on the lucrative Rape Culture Truthings.
The campus rape movement highlights the current condition of radical feminism, from its self-indulgent bathos to its embrace of ever more vulnerable female victimhood. But the movement is an even more important barometer of academia itself. In a delicious historical irony, the baby boomers who dismantled the university’s intellectual architecture in favor of unbridled sex and protest have now bureaucratized both. While women’s studies professors bang pots and blow whistles at antirape rallies, in the dorm next door, freshman counselors and deans pass out tips for better orgasms and the use of sex toys. The academic bureaucracy is roomy enough to sponsor both the dour antimale feminism of the college rape movement and the promiscuous hookup culture of student life. The only thing that doesn’t fit into the university’s new commitments is serious scholarly purpose.
The campus rape industry’s central tenet is that one-quarter of all college girls will be raped or be the targets of attempted rape by the end of their college years (completed rapes outnumbering attempted rapes by a ratio of about three to two). The girls’ assailants are not terrifying strangers grabbing them in dark alleys but the guys sitting next to them in class or at the cafeteria. […]
If the one-in-four statistic is correct—it is sometimes modified to “one-in-five to one-in-four”—campus rape represents a crime wave of unprecedented proportions. No crime, much less one as serious as rape, has a victimization rate remotely approaching 20 or 25 percent, even over many years. The 2006 violent crime rate in Detroit, one of the most violent cities in America, was 2,400 murders, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults per 100,000 inhabitants—a rate of 2.4 percent. The one-in-four statistic would mean that every year, millions of young women graduate who have suffered the most terrifying assault, short of murder, that a woman can experience. Such a crime wave would require nothing less than a state of emergency—Take Back the Night rallies and 24-hour hotlines would hardly be adequate to counter this tsunami of sexual violence. Admissions policies letting in tens of thousands of vicious criminals would require a complete revision, perhaps banning boys entirely. The nation’s nearly 10 million female undergrads would need to take the most stringent safety precautions. Certainly, they would have to alter their sexual behavior radically to avoid falling prey to the rape epidemic. […]
The baby boomers who demanded the dismantling of all campus rules governing the relations between the sexes now sit in dean’s offices and student-counseling services. They cannot turn around and argue for reregulating sex, even on pragmatic grounds. Instead, they have responded to the fallout of the college sexual revolution with bizarre and anachronistic legalism. Campuses have created a judicial infrastructure for responding to postcoital second thoughts more complex than that required to adjudicate maritime commerce claims in Renaissance Venice. […]
The campus sex-management industry locks in its livelihood by introducing a specious clarity to what is inherently mysterious and an equally specious complexity to what is straightforward. Both the pseudo-clarity and pseudo-complexity work in a woman’s favor, of course. “If one partner puts a condom on the other, does that signify that they are consenting to intercourse?” asks Berkowitz. Short of guiding the thus-sheathed instrumentality to port, it’s hard to imagine a clearer signal of consent. But perhaps a girl who has just so outfitted her partner will decide after the fact that she has been “raped”—so better to declare the action, as Berkowitz does, “inherently ambiguous.” He recommends instead that colleges require “clear verbal consent” for sex, a policy that the recently disbanded Antioch College introduced in the early 1990s to universal derision.
The university is sneaking back in its in loco parentis oversight of student sexual relations, but it has replaced the moral content of that regulation with supposedly neutral legal procedure. The generation that got rid of parietal rules has re-created a form of bedroom oversight as pervasive as Bentham’s Panopticon.
At the same time, Heather points out, campuses indulge in all manner of “sex positive” activities — from orgasm workshops to sex toy management — pushing young adults to abandon any thought of intimate relationships in favor of narcissistic hook-ups.
Modern feminists defined the right to be promiscuous as a cornerstone of female equality. Understandably, they now hesitate to acknowledge that sex is a more complicated force than was foreseen. Rather than recognizing that no-consequences sex may be a contradiction in terms, however, the campus rape industry claims that what it calls campus rape is about not sex but rather politics—the male desire to subordinate women. The University of Virginia Women’s Center intones that “rape or sexual assault is not an act of sex or lust—it’s about aggression, power, and humiliation, using sex as the weapon. The rapist’s goal is domination.”
This characterization may or may not describe the psychopathic violence of stranger rape. But it is an absurd description of the barnyard rutting that undergraduate men, happily released from older constraints, seek. The guys who push themselves on women at keggers are after one thing only, and it’s not a reinstatement of the patriarchy. Each would be perfectly content if his partner for the evening becomes president of the United States one day, so long as she lets him take off her panties tonight.
One group on campus isn’t buying the politics of the campus “rape” movement, however: students. To the despair of rape industrialists everywhere, students have held on to the view that women usually have considerable power to determine whether a campus social event ends with intercourse.
Hence, the shrieking hysteria at the collapse of Rolling Stone’s U-VA “gang rape” article and Lena Dunham’s back-peddling of her “Barry One” tale.
What is being revealed is that the Left-feminists have never really been interested in actual rape victims, but in using “rape” as another tool to dismantle the culture they hate; the culture that expects women to take as much responsibility for their own lives as is expected of men.
h/t sdferr
“I’m against the Patriarchy, but I’m totally into an all-powerful State that will take care of me as though I were a child.”
Let’s just say that Angry Studies majors don’t take a lot of credits in Critical Thinking.
Lena should consider disavowing her entire book as fiction; while it lets “Barry” off the hook, it also diffuses the “I molested my baby sister” scandal from last month.
Except that the “Barry raped me” narrative is the stone she can’t bear to let go of, even if it means she must drown.
Clearly everything needs to be video-recorded and posted to the cloud for all the world to see.
She could revise and refashion her “Barry raped me” into a recursive commentary on her electioneering advertizement promoting her “first time” with the ClownDisaster.
But no. That’s never going to happen, even though it did already.
This is interesting too in a Cui bono? sort of way:
It should also be mentioned that if college women weren’t content to be sought out like animals for barnyard rutting, college men wouldn’t be seeking to rut in the barnyard now, would they?
To restate a comment I made to the previous post, those old fashioned Christian, wait-’till-marriage rules seem to be the only thing which keep young people from either suffering lord knows what sort of emotional problems from years of mindless, emotionless hook-ups and/or being falsely accused of some heinous crime against Feminism. Who’d have thought the Old Verities would come in handy yet again.
DOJ to the rescue, or not.
Geoffb, you stand accused of veracity-bombing the narrative. How do you plead?
Why does the Bureau of Justice Statistics hate women?
Definitionally guilty.
baracky “hates” some ho’s
ruining class news
Cromnibus Survives, 219-206
>The post-totalitarian system touches people at every step, but it does so with its ideological gloves on. This is why life in the system is so thoroughly permeated with hypocrisy and lies: government by bureaucracy is called popular government; the working class is enslaved in the name of the working class; the complete degradation of the individual is presented as his ultimate liberation; depriving people of information is called making it available; the use of power to manipulate is called the public control of power, and the arbitrary abuse of power is called observing the legal code; the repression of culture is called its development; the expansion of imperial influence is presented as support for the oppressed; the lack of free expression becomes the highest form of freedom; farcical elections become the highest form of democracy; banning independent thought becomes the most scientific of world views; military occupation becomes fraternal assistance. Because the regime is captive to its own lies, it must falsify everything. It falsifies the past. It falsifies the present, and it falsifies the future. It falsifies statistics. It pretends not to possess an omnipotent and unprincipled police apparatus. It pretends to respect human rights. It pretends to persecute no one. It pretends to fear nothing. It pretends to pretend nothing.
{10}Individuals need not believe all these mystifications, but they must behave as though they did, or they must at least tolerate them in silence, or get along well with those who work with them. For this reason, however, they must live within a lie. They need not accept the lie. It is enough for them to have accepted their life with it and in it. For by this very fact, individuals confirm the system, fulfill the system, make the system, are the system. <
http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/165havel.html
Through a Glass Darkly: Sabrina Rubin Erdely and Stephen Glass
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll563.xml
Voice Of Truth – Casting Crowns
for pw
> Acts 18:9New International Version (NIV)
9 One night the Lord spoke to Paul in a vision: “Do not be afraid; keep on speaking, do not be silent. <
I’m totally into an all-powerful State that will take care of me as though I were a child.
Pretty sure the screamers are more likely to see themselves as ranchers than as cattle.
children often have delusions of omnipotence
UVA, really old news. h/t Maetenloch @ Ace
geoffb
I pointed that DOJ study to a couple of sjw’s on my twitter feed and the Juicebox Mafioso at Vox have an article already explaining it away as irrelevant because it deals only with “criminal” victims not “all victims” whether such victims admit to rape or not.
Rape Truthers
argh
That’s why I said “definitionally guilty” because by defining sexual assault down and down and down eventually 1 in 5 is reached but the “crime” is now meaningless category. Much like the word “culture” which is defined as almost anything you can name and thus means nothing anymore.
In other words, “fake but accurate” is a religious creed.
Yesterdays’s male gaze is tomorrow’s mind rape; probably accompanied by fits and hysterics worthy of the girls who sparked the Salem Witch craze.
More wisdom from Dr. Sowell.
Based on the 1 in 4/5 criteria, I too was sexually assaulted at UVA, in the aptly named Memorial gymnasium in early 1980s during a UB40 concert. Someone grabbed my ass…right butt cheek to be specific. I am certain it was a smoking hot brunette or blond or redhead but I never saw her as she hit and ran before I could turn around and ID her. See obviously left the scene of the crime in a hurry because she likely knew that I would be willing to press more than charges. I suppose that someday I may recover from this assault.
I now have a daughter attending UVA in her second year. We will discuss transfer options while she is home over Christmas break as I do not care for how the administration has handled this incident.
…those old fashioned Christian, wait-’till-marriage rules seem to be the only thing which keep young people from either suffering lord knows what sort of emotional problems from years of mindless, emotionless hook-ups…
Man, what I wouldn’t give to have those emotional problems again…
The pathetic thing is that Whoopi was right, although applied incorrectly, about her “rape-rape” definition.
Remorse sex (I was drunk, I couldn’t say NO) isn’t the same thing as being forced into a car at gunpoint and raped.
It just isn’t.
I don’t know if the UVA situation was remorse (group) sex or not, but she very likely put herself in the situation willingly to some point. THIS is the danger that I advise MY daughter’s against. Don’t do stupid shit.
<Man, what I wouldn’t give to have those emotional problems again…"
Really? Personally, I enjoy being in command of my hormones and no longer ordered around by the little general. Is probably one of the main reasons age is associated (though not always accurately) with wisdom…
Hey Carin, long time no see.
Don’t do stupid shit
Don’t let yourself be used.
Don’t use other people.
Pretty much covers all the bases.
Yeah, Car in. Don’t be such a strang er.
Fabulist vs fabulist.
Really?
The opening lines of A Tale of Two Cities are about as close as one can get to my feelings about those days. Those crazy, stupid, exciting, impossible, frustrating, dangerous, glorious days. Pretty awesome when you’re sitting on either side of 20, but it’s definitely not an old man’s game.
And now, the article that always bears reposting, Sex and State Power:
It may seem that feminists got it all wrapped around the axles from a toxic mix of mindlessness and fanaticism when in fact it’s Yet Another Blow To Individuality.
Individuality is cisheteronormative
and a bunch of other things that the Left hasn’t invented neologisms for
–yet.
Those crazy, stupid, exciting, impossible, frustrating, dangerous, glorious days. Pretty awesome when you’re sitting on either side of 20, but it’s definitely not an old man’s game.
I don’t think the current environment looks particularly awesome. It strikes me as crazier, stupider, more
excitinginteresting, more frustrating, more dangerous and less glorious than ever.The hook-up culture has succeeded in disenchanting sex, imbuing it with all the intimacy of a handshake and a slap on the back.
[insert Mike Meyers as Middle-Age Man video clip HERE]
I was only addressing the “emotional problems” derived from mindless hookups. You’ll get no disagreement from me that the developments of the last 20 years have introduced all sorts of negative factors that have greatly worsened the cost-benefit analysis.
But when do we date the beginning of hook-up culture? Late 90s? Sometime around 700,000 BC?
Or maybe, hook up culture was a good deal of recorded history ending with the much publicized Dickensian age and only ended for a brief moment with the highly localized and short lived Victorian period.
I suppose I’m saying that over most of the planet and over most of time I don’t think we’ve ever had much by way of sexual restraint.
What we might see as historical sexual restraint was mainly youthful pregnancy and far higher rates of male murder.
If you strain your eyes just right you can see that as sexual restraint maybe but I’d take it more as a natural consequence of a lack of sexual restraint.
heh, recorded history can’t help it’s less than a fragment of a tiny piece of a particle of a drop in the sea as a over against the sculpting of over a billion years of evolutionary development. It’s pretty funny though that our puny hubris encourages us to pretend otherwise — to imagine we can eliminate nature. What folly.
I sometimes think about sending a younger kid to college and shudder a bit out of dread.
Then I imagine marrying off a 13 year old daughter.
Fair points all bh, but I don’t remember the Jimmy Castor Bunch singing about bukkake parties. Nor do I remember the Achaeans going to war with the Trojans over the town pump.
Oh, don’t get me wrong. I think we live in a very, very, very nice age. So, yeah, the Jimmy Castor Bunch were historically strange and aberrant. Which, good for them, that’s worth preserving.
But the Achaeans? I’d be more than willing to bet that they had horrible sexual abuse of barely pubescent girls and boys to a degree that it wasn’t really worth mentioning.
i give campus rape and sex management industry two thumbs down
are they on yelp?
I guess we could say that Ed Driscoll would file this under the tag “Return of the Primitive”
With the addenda that kids these days are volunteering to be used, abused, degraded, discarded, etc.
We really don’t even have to go back that far.
What were the ages of consent in our original colonies?
Bill Whittle: Lena Dunham, Al Sharpton, Eric Holder and the New Barbarism
>sex management industry <
baracky could do sumthing with that: osha, epa maybe bureau of indian affairs for the kink stuff
Okay, but again, the only gang rape going on in Salem Town was purely imaginary, if that. And I doubt there was much hooking up going on in the back of the barn following the church social —in the modern “hi, nice to meet you, would you like a handjob?” sense we’re talking about here.
And I grant there’s a level of gonzo exaggeration there.
I suppose what we need to do is guard against both a) naturalistic fallacy and b) ignorance of nature and history.
We are talking about what we’d now consider to be the sexual enslavement of prepubescent girls though, right?
proggtardia news
David Ruenzel: Guy Who Made A Living Excusing Black Criminality Just Got Murdered By Two Black Oakland Males
Remember, girls hit puberty much sooner now.
I’d be willing to bet that a person or two reading this blog has a great great grandmother who didn’t have her first child 9 months after marriage… because it was not biologically possible.
>the sexual enslavement of prepubescent girls though, right?<
allan has got it covered
ISIS Publishes Sex Slave Pamphlet – Approves Child Sex
I should probably cede a point or two in the interests of comity and such but I figure on just about all the points of moral concern we’re on the same page regardless.
the old is the “new” normal. proggtardia uber(?) alles. where my ride go?
>If an entire district town is plastered with slogans that no one reads, it is on the one hand a message from the district secretary to the regional secretary, but it is also something more: a small example of the principle of social auto-totality at work. Part of the essence of the post-totalitarian system is that it draws everyone into its sphere of power, not so they may realize themselves as human beings, but so they may surrender their human identity in favor of the identity of the system, that is, so they may become agents of the system’s general automatism and servants of its self-determined goals, so they may participate in the common responsibility for it, so they may be pulled into and ensnared by it, like Faust by Mephistopheles. More than this: so they may create through their involvement a general norm and, thus, bring pressure to bear on their fellow citizens. And further: so they may learn to be comfortable with their involvement, to identify with it as though it were something natural and inevitable and, ultimately, so they may—with no external urging—come to treat any non-involvement as an abnormality, as arrogance, as an attack on themselves, as a form of dropping out of society. By pulling everyone into its power structure, the post-totalitarian system makes everyone an instrument of a mutual totality, the auto-totality of society.
Everyone, however, is in fact involved and enslaved, not only the greengrocers but also the prime ministers. Differing positions in the hierarchy merely establish differing degrees of involvement: the greengrocer is involved only to a minor extent, but he also has very little power. The prime minister, naturally, has greater power, but in return he is far more deeply involved. Both, however, are unfree, each merely in a somewhat different way. The real accomplice in this involvement, therefore, is not another person, but the system itself.
Position in the power hierarchy determines the degree of responsibility and guilt, but it gives no one unlimited responsibility and guilt, nor does it completely absolve anyone. Thus the conflict between the aims of life and the aims of the system is not a conflict between two socially defined and separate communities; and only a very generalized view (and even that only approximative) permits us to divide society into the rulers and the ruled. Here, by the way, is one of the most important differences between the post-totalitarian system and classical dictatorships, in which this line of conflict can still be drawn according to social class. In the post-totalitarian system, this line runs de facto through each person, for everyone in his own way is both a victim and a supporter of the system. What we understand by the system is not, therefore, a social order imposed by one group upon another, but rather something which permeates the entire society and is a factor in shaping it, something which may seem impossible to grasp or define (for it is in the nature of a mere principle), but which is expressed by the entire society as an important feature of its life.<
havel potp
I think maybe the operative difference is not so much that less of the dirty deed got done, as that fewer doers of the dirty deed bragged about it and received widespread public admiration for it.
>as that fewer doers of the dirty deed bragged about it and received widespread public admiration for it.<
=for everyone in his own way is both a victim and a supporter of the system. =
divide and rule is old timey
perhaps “old timey religion”
Only in the old stoic sense that one can be a slave to ones own passions –as promulgated by the early Church. At least that’s what it seems like from my vantage point, but I’ll allow that there’s plenty of pluralistic ignorance going on — i.e. college women are “putting out” (see how dated I am), not because they want to, but because they feel like it’s expected, and college men are expecting women to “put out” because 3rd wave feminisim/hypergamy/feral females? everybody’s doing it/I thaw it on PeeBeeEth!.
Don’t I know it, having barely survived the advances of fourteen (fifteen? –memory fails) year old going on twenty with my honor intact –when I was but a poor lad of eighteen.
Sorry for the delayed reply. My carefully planned Christmas party for my Cub Scout pack was exploded earlier by a school christmas concert I wasn’t made aware of until tonight.
sex management news
New Website Helps Muslim Men Find Eligible Second, Third Wives
go allan!
Addenda: maybe related or maybe not, but Lauren Bacall was nineteen going on thirty when she made To Have and Have Not
Ahyep.
“Am I Blue”
“How Little We Know”
Plus, my favorite ending ever.
From my link in the following post…
It’s difficult enough to respond to every new front that’s opened (racial, sexual, economic, foreign). Getting our voices heard over the drumbeat of the Left’s Community Organizing after ‘our’ mainstream media routinely turns their pet issues’ volumes up to 11 just isn’t working for us. Add the known fact that ‘our own’ (see: Boehner and Obama working side-by-side to pass CROmniBust) routinely stabs us in the back, we have little traction and zero chance to reverse any of Obama’s fundamental changes.
It’s sad times indeed for those who see what’s coming, and are powerless to halt, slow, or even brace for the impact.
we need to have separate colleges for boys and girls like in Saudi Arabia
this way the hoochies won’t get raped so incessantly and they can study more better about the sociology and the guys can focus on stuff like math and science
You’ve strayed far from the path Nishi put you on, ‘feets. Or, you’re strong but forgetting necessary nuance in your fifth column exercisings tonight.
happyfeet says December 13, 2014 at 7:19 pm
That may be the most worthwhile thing you have said (that I saw anyway) in five years.
Not only could the innies practice being not sluts more, the outies could chew pop tarts into gun shapes with much less condemnation.
I think it’s a marvelous idea!!