UPDATE: Robert VerBruggen weighs in over at Phi Beta Cons about how campus feminists have been distorting Mac Donald's articles.
He says he's "finally figuring out how feminists think" based upon their reactions to the Mac Donald piece. I couldn't agree more.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Mac Donald exposed the dubious claims of several organization that believe, without proof, that rape is an everyday event on American college campuses. Here she is in The Los Angeles Times and in City Journal.
Here are my favorite paragraphs:
So what reality does lie behind the campus rape industry? A booze-fueled hookup culture of one-night, or sometimes just partial-night, stands. Students in the sixties demanded that college administrators stop setting rules for fraternization. “We’re adults,” the students shouted. “We can manage our own lives. If we want to have members of the opposite sex in our rooms at any hour of the day or night, that’s our right.” The colleges meekly complied and opened a Pandora’s box of boorish, sluttish behavior that gets cruder each year. Do the boys, riding the testosterone wave, act thuggishly toward the girls? You bet! Do the girls try to match their insensitivity? Indisputably.It's as if Ms. Mac Donald were actually on campus to observe. She might have a few words to say about this Portside article riddled, as it is, with bogus statistics and feminist agenda. (Fortunately, Dan O'Toole CMC '09 and others have taken that article's authors to task.)
College girls drink themselves into near or actual oblivion before and during parties. That drinking is often goal-oriented, suggests University of Virginia graduate Karin Agness: it frees the drinker from responsibility and “provides an excuse for engaging in behavior that she ordinarily wouldn’t.” A Columbia University security official marvels at the scene at homecomings: “The women are shit-faced, saying, ΩLet’s get as drunk as we can,≈ while the men are hovering over them.” As anticipated, the night can include a meaningless sexual encounter with a guy whom the girl may not even know. This less-than-romantic denouement produces the “roll and scream: you roll over the next morning so horrified at what you find next to you that you scream,” a Duke coed reports in Laura Sessions Stepp’s recent book Unhooked. To the extent that they’re remembered at all, these are the couplings that are occasionally transformed into “rape”—though far less often than the campus rape industry wishes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wrote Ms. Mac Donald several years ago when I was caught, unarmed, in a politically correct firestorm. Though some students on campus threatened to kill me and assaulted a fellow student over our critical examination of the school's diversity program, I was, curiously enough, the only one punished.
After I was given an administrative slap on the wrist -- the school had first threatened me with expulsion -- I came across Mac Donald's article entitled "Prep School P.C. Plague." Her depiction of the political correctness cabal mirrored everything about my experience.
Eventually, I sent her an email, asking her why she didn't focus too much on my former prep school, Milton Academy. She responded about how it was just too easy to poke holes in. Unfortunately, she's right. What a pity there isn't a FIRE for high school students.
Subscribe in a reader
39 comments:
Yes, promiscuity is a problem. Yes, alcoholism is a problem.
But how dare you be so presumptuous as to assume that any girl who was raped was just some slut who consciously drank too much so that she could have an excuse to hook up?
No one, regardless of how much they drank or whatever bad decision they might have made, ever deserves to be raped. I happen to know all too well how much rape destroys a person, and how much it destroyed other CMCers. I'm glad you haven't been raped, but you have no right to judge those of us who have.
-Just because you don't personally know anyone who was raped doesn't mean it's uncommon. It's not. And please don't throw statistics at me. I've worked in a rape center. Most of the girls we saw weren't going to report it because it's difficult enough to share our experiences with those who are sympathetic, and it's even harder to explain yourself to pricks like you and Ms MacDonald who are going to talk to us like we're less of a person.
-If there's a problem, it lies in the fact that some men are too willing to take advantage of others, not that victims are drunk sluts who are asking for it, which brings me to this:
-Being raped doesn't mean we are/were drunken sluts. We weren't.
Shame on you for assuming so and trying to politicize our personal traumas. Bullshit like this is as hard to recover from as the rape itself.
Do the boys, riding the testosterone wave, act thuggishly toward the girls? You bet!
Oh yes, boys will be boys--as soon as they see a girl wearing a tank top who's had a couple of beers, they have to rape her! It's not their fault! It's hormones! It's uncontrollable!
Let's be clear about this: If you went to a party, had a few beers, and got raped, you wouldn't say it was your own fault. Why? Because having a few beers and going to a party doesn't mean you've consented to sex with everyone (or anyone!) else at that party.
Moreover, don't you have a girlfriend? How could you possibly think like this if you care about any of the women in your life? (Moreover: how can you not be a feminist if you care about any of the women in your life? How can you deride the movement that has allowed us not to be the property of boors like you?) No one deserves to be raped.
This is really, really sick. Your poor girlfriend. Your poor mother. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I'm sorry but I don't believe that when two people both get inebriation and both have an implicit consent that one should be tried in a sham, kangaroo court while the other gets to become a victim. By loosely defining rape to fit everything before verbal consent, it is you that does damage to the real, and thankfully, rare rape victims on our campuses.
If you really wanted to reduce rape, you would join me in opposing the permissiveness that so characterizes today's American campuses.
As for the personal attacks on me, I don't mind them, but they do plenty of damage to your cause. I would prefer, though, that if you attacked me personally you would at least put your name out there so I could respond to a person and not a baseless charge. Read either articles before attacking me personally.
Address the substance of the post, if you can.
"Bullshit like this is as hard to recover from as the rape itself."
--That quote basically sums up why it's impossible to take campus feminists seriously. You get on here and accuse Charles of calling girls who get raped sluts. Are you serious? Perhaps you should take some time and actually read the article. You know, think a little bit. You might learn that our campus, like many others, is not secretly hiding the greatest crime wave in the universe. You might also learn that girls can take measures to prevent unwanted sexual encounters (which range from unfortunate hook-ups to rape). But of course this would require a little bit of wisdom and restraint--something modern feminists would never permit.
The second poster also reveals why campus feminists tend to be utter morons. Here, she takes a quote in which MacDonald says that boys obviously act on the new found sexual freedom of college age girls, and infers this means that rapists are not the ones to blame. She repeats the same trope that Charles and MacDonald must be implying girls who drink too much are the ones at fault. Please, grow up.
I encourage this these emotional nuts to take a deep breath and actually read the City Journal essay. Until you two loons take some time to learn about the real world, you will continue to confirm everything conservatives suspect about the shallowness of feminist thought.
I usually don't do this, but I am Charles's girlfriend. I'll preface this by saying that I go to school in New Orleans, one of the most alcohol ridden cities in the US, and attend Tulane University, where the drinking culture is so accepted that local politicians buy kegs for their campaigns and pour beer for students. A very close friend of ours was sexually assaulted when we were in high school, and I’ll defend Charles's character by saying that he has been wonderfully understanding and helpful about everything. In fact, he's been more than wonderful, and I’ll vouch for his behavior.
That being said, it's ridiculous to assume extremes when it comes to campus rape. There's no way you can automatically lump Crystal Gail Magnum (from the Duke Lacrosse case) with a real victim of rape. You can't equate someone who maintains that they were raped in order to save face on JuicyCampus.com after a night of bingeing, to someone who's been date-raped from a slipped roofie in one drink. Each scenario is different, and Ms. MacDonald chose to highlight a factor that many campuses don’t take into account when it comes to discussing the sex culture on college campuses. (When I write it that way, it sounds like something grown in a Petri dish…perhaps it’s an apt metaphor.) She points out that even girls like pre-gaming, and the rituals that have sprung up around a drunken hookup are elaborate and, to a point, accepted.
The word “rape” carries so many powerful connotations. It’s all in the intention of the user, whether to disguise or simply tell what happened. To wield it as bluntly as the two anonymous responders do politicizes an issue that ought not be politicized, and turns women—rape victims or otherwise—into tools of a movement.
Re: Dan's Comment
Just because I'm still offended doesn't mean I'm a moron or that I didn't read the article. I'm certainly not a moron (I don't think a moron could maintain a 11.5+ gpa at CMC), nor am I a crazy feminist. Dan, you met me numerous times and I'm pretty sure you would never say what you just said to/about me to my face.
But since I'm a feminist moron, explain to me how I wasn't supposed to draw the conclusion that college rape victims are drunk sluts from reading the article, which quotes a girl who says she thinks it's often the victim's fault, then essentially says it's only us feminist morons who would disagree with her? Then how was I supposed to figure that Mr. Johnson believed differently when he CHOSE to highlight the paragraphs when she referred to rapes as the result of drunken boorishness that these loose girls would rather label as rape instead of accepting as consequences of their own behavior? Was I really that off in assuming based on Mr Johnson's own choice of emphasis that he's willing to blame the victim and pass her off as a slut?
And don't, Mr. Johnson and Dan, put words in my mouth. I never addressed the definition of rape, which I would agree is problematic. I'm not saying that the "role and scream" that Ms MacDonald refers to never happens- it surely does, and that's a problem. BUT I am quite offended that you and Ms MacDonald would write off every victim's experience as such, and that is what I addressed in my post.
I also never addressed prevalence other than to say that you can't really use statistics because most victims who seek counseling don't report it to the school or to legal authorities, and I have friends who were victimized that never sought counseling. I'm not accusing the school or anybody else of "secretly hiding the greatest crime wave in the universe," as Dan would assert. As I said earlier, my post was only directed at the insensitive manner with which rape was addressed. If you're going to make the assertions you made, you have to qualify them. Ms. MacDonald did that to some extent, but Mr. Johnson demonstrated once again that he has a problem with attacking people personally when he means to attack situations. I just think you both should think a bit yourselves before speaking so that it never comes off that victims are the ones to blame (as Dan's response to the Portside Article also did). I can only go off of what you guys wrote, and if you wrote such things without qualifying WHAT situations you were discussing, then the problem here is that you weren't clear rather than that I'm a moron.
In addition, who on earth do you guys think you are to tell me, a campus rape victim (not that it's your business, but, yes, the drugged and raped kind) what the situation is like here on campus? How am I the one who can't be taken seriously when I say it's difficult to recover from the bullshit assumptions people make about you after you've been raped? Why does being a rape victim with an opinion (a much more informed opinion than both of yours, if we're being honest) make me some feminist moron? How are you to tell me the truths about rape? You would know?
Let me tell you, it kills you each time someone hears you were raped and asks you what you were wearing, saying something like "You must have been showing off your boobs." (I wasn't.) It hurts when they ask you how much you had to drink. (Three drinks which I poured myself, an amount I usually handle just fine.) It's humiliating to have them say "Well, you don't remember, maybe you were into it?" (Right, I should really be held accountable for the "decision" I "made" after someone else slipped something into my drink.) Even if most people aren't going to say it bluntly the way you did, you know they're judging you, trying to figure out in what way you're responsible for your own victimization. It must be easier on you, Dan, to address me as feminist who doesn't think rather than as a rape victim whose personal experience contradicts everything you'd like to believe.
It's understandable why no one wants to think that someone was really truly raped, that deep down there might be some explanation or misunderstanding. It's human to not want to believe a rape exists. But you cannot write things that imply that victims were asking for it if you hope to maintain any personal integrity, especially if that's not what you mean to say. I didn't create the legal definition of rape, and you shouldn't blame me or anyone else (other than maybe those who crafted it) for it, and you shouldn't write off victims because you don't like the law.
Your girlfriend's right. Rape encompasses a lot of things, and you made a lot of assumptions based on one generalization that are really really hurtful to us (supposedly rare) real victims. You should be ashamed for lumping us all in that generalization, and you should apologize to us.
And did you ever stop and think that maybe the reason I'm posting anonymously is because I don't want to deal with "rape victim" being attached to my name anymore? I'm offended enough by the way you talk about people with my experiences. Why on earth would I want to give you my name so that you can take the opportunity to find me on campus and confront me about an experience that's difficult to share even with my closest friends? And why am I supposed to be apologizing when you are citing an article that says: "When we go out to parties and I see girls and the way they dress and the way they act ... and just the way they are, under the influence and um, then they like accuse them of like, 'Oh yeah, my boyfriend did this to me' or whatever, I honestly always think it's their fault."? Am I really all that wrong for saying that you were rude, (pardon the cruder term, my first reaction is always a little less refined), and addressed us like we were these subhuman irresponsible party-girls? You are really not one to talk about personal attacks. Your blog full of them, and you seem to be rather proud of that each time you're called out.
No one is saying that anyone deserves to be raped, First Poster. Likewise, no one is saying that someone who had sex with a drunk girl and was probably drunk themselves is a rapist. All we are saying is that rape ought not to be defined down, something you, ought to agree with. Campus feminists bandy about the 1-in-four women will be raped figure without thinking of the consequences.
I do know that if you were raped, you ought to press charges and that the current mechanisms on place at most schools for dealing with sexual harassment actually trivialize rape and make a mockery of justice by giving the accused very little opportunity to defend himself. I do not believe that colleges are properly equipped to deal with such violence and I believe that fewer "we had consensual sex and now she says I raped her" incidents would occur.
Of course few of these incidents would occur in the first place if fewer people drank to excess.
At first, I was about to get angry with Mr. Johnson for still failing to apologize. On second thought, I think it's more imperative that Dan apologize. I spoke as a rape victim about my own experiences, which I know from my subsequent work at a rape center (not a college one, if you must know) that my reactions aren't uncommon among victims. It's very difficult to recover from the judgment that follows a rape (which is a statement that a non-rape victim can't really verify), and because I said so, I'm a campus feminist who is impossible to take seriously, lacking wisdom and restraint, an "emotional nut," a "loon" who knows nothing of the real world, and an exemplar of "the shallowness of feminist thought." So much for not blaming the victim.
I'm so glad there are so many reasonable conservatives around to inform me of the realities of rape... they certainly don't have the shallow viewpoint of it that I do. I'm so relieved that the "campus rape myth" has been debunked.
Sorry but the one-in-four statistic doesn't really exist. When you play games with numbers to try to advocate your agenda, I have a problem -- be you conservative or liberal.
I also have a problem when people try to force us to accept their word as law because they have witnessed something firsthand.
You aren't, unfortunately, the only rape victim I know. Many of them remain traumatized and are insulted by the idea that some of the regretted hookups are tried by a campus court as "rape."
You're again putting words in my mouth. I never advocated the 1-4. I don't accept statistics about rape because I don't believe it's possible to get down accurately. I said all this.
And I'm not trying to get you to accept my word as the rule. BUT I do have a problem with you trying to get my to accept your word as law, particularly on an issue I know more about. Stop being so self-defensive and address what I was saying: that you were insensitive in an issue that requires more sensitivity than anything else, that you repeated and praised sentiments that are very difficult to recover from, and that you should apologize. Part of not being a "dumb freshman" is learning when to admit you might have made a mistake and should apologize.
What are you even talking about? Why should I apologize? Because you say you have more experience? Please.
What ought to require more sensitivity is the sham legal process that campus feminists subject the accused towards.
As for your sensitivity remark -- I find it interesting how quickly people try to censor those who are by fiat declared "insensitive" --I don't have to walk on egg shells to make a point.
I must say, you've outdone yourself this time. Someone tells you that you should be respectful towards rape victims, and you cry censorship? The first poster never said not to discuss the issue, and she agreed with you that the "roll and scream" and warrantless accusations are a problem. But you're so intent on getting the last word that you'll keep putting her down? You're right, no one is forcing you to walk on eggshells. But just because a right exists (the right to drink, the right to part a fool from his money, the right to say anything you want) doesn't mean you should abuse it. Even if you have every right to be the guy who was an insensitive asshole to rape victims, do you really want to be that guy? I think you're digging yourself into deeper and deeper hole each time you open your mouth on the issue.
Also "No one is saying that anyone deserves to be raped, First Poster."
Did she not quote the article which you posted, which said that some girls do deserve to be raped? And did you not praise said article? I'm going to back her up- you owe her an apology. She's clearly got you beat.
Again, no one was being "disrespectful" so I don't recognize the validity of that claim. Again, the article simply said that some girls who claim to be raped were not -- an argument you both have conceded.
Read Tina's comment before you open your mouth and accuse me of being an "insensitive asshole to rape victims."
Reason, is a deadly foe, of emotionalism, but I nevertheless suggest you take it up.
Your girlfriend said you were great to the girl you know, and I applaud you for that, and I applaud her for a well-thought out response that clearly distinguished between those who "disguise" and those who "simply tell" what happened. My only complaint was that she said the first two posters used the word bluntly on one extreme, while I would have added that you used the word just as bluntly on the other.
As much as I liked her response, however, (maybe she should be writing this blog instead...), I'm reluctant to take into account the word of someone who's obviously going to be a bit biased when judging this post. I can judge you only on what you wrote and what you quoted... that's the only reasonable, objective thing to do, after all. I can't say you were at all polite to the first poster. You were insensitive, condescending, and, to be frank, a bit of an ass to her. Maybe she was a little emotional (and, first poster, I'm sorry if this is at all patronizing), but I don't think anyone can come out of being raped without being a little emotional... I certainly didn't. You use what seems to me like evidence of her trauma to portray her as some sort of feminazi idiot, which clearly isn't the case. I thought that, other than a couple sentences here and there that were a little emotional, she laid out a pretty reasonable case with each comment. By not really responding other than to tell her she's emotional and wrong, repeat all your points, and then repeat the same critiques of her even though she's already specified that you're misinterpreting her words, it looks like you didn't want to hear what she had to say and or entertain the notion that you might be wrong. She addressed the substance of your post (because, apparently, she could). Address the substance of hers, if you can. And if you need a translation, I think her critique boiled down to a really long version of "While it's true that some people, (who may or may not be drunk, and may or may not be loose), abuse the loose definition of rape, it's important to not issue such blanket statements about this abuse that imply that the real problem with rape is with the victims."
You are on the right track here and in many of your other posts, but again, you can take it too far. I felt the same way about Heather MacDonald's article: I agreed with her just up until the paragraphs you quoted, and I think it's rather sad that you would choose to highlight some of the more insensitive portions of an article that's otherwise well-written and reasonable.
And, while I'm at it, please learn how to correctly use the comma. Thank you.
When someone tries to use the phrase "how dare you," they immediately try to elicit an emotional response.
Her distortion of what was actually said is disturbing, to say the least.
I defend myself against unwarranted accusations.
Neither her, nor you, has yet to address the problem with those sham trials.
1) They define down rape
2) They afford the accused the very minimalist of protections to which he ought to be legally afforded.
Until you are willing to answer those points, I will not engage in ad hominem attacks. Niceness or kindness is a completely subjective issue. I don't deal in it.
Your "boiling down" of her statement -- that weak concession statement -- still doesn't address the very likely odds that someone will be wrongfully convicted.
I believe rape is the most serious of human crimes and that if you are guilty, you ought to go to jail, not the Deans office. That's where we part ways. You are comfortable giving power to an unaccountable few administrators.
Clearly kindness and respect aren't things you deal with. If they were, this wouldn't have gone on so long.
You don't get it, do you? Neither kitty nor I tried to defend student courts. I took offense, and she backed me up, at the irresponsible manner in which you portrayed college rape victims. Making blanket statements based on generalizations is bad writing, and in this case, patently offensive (yes, I know I don't have the right not to be offended, you don't need to tell me). But if it will make you happy, fine:
I am clearly stating that I think trials of crimes should be handled by trained legal professionals rather than by a school. (Though, I know rape law in the state of CA pretty well, and the definition you take issue with is likely not one the schools chose, but that of the state. It sounds very similar to California's laws)
So I'm going to repeat myself:
As I said earlier, my post was only directed at the insensitive manner with which rape was addressed. If you're going to make the assertions you made, you have to qualify them. None of these problems would have existed if you were more clear in your writing. You were attacked for doing the same thing with Emily Meinhardt. Clearly, this is a pattern for you. Instead of writing off the critique that you don't have to try to be nice, why not trying learning from it?
On that note, you should stop writing off critiques as emotional, and therefore not worth a response, simply because you disagree with them. And just because we disagree with your portrayal of an issue rather than your conclusion, doesn't mean you don't have to listen.
I explained my train of thought and said exactly how I reached the conclusions I did, quoting the article you posted. I asked for an explanation on how I was to reach a different conclusion. I never got one. Why does that not surprise me?
Respect and kindness are in the eyes of the beholder, First.
You can take whatever offense you want -- you can believe in whatever you want, that is your right -- but you never have a right to censor others because your feelings got hurt. The real world doesn't care.
I will be as insensitive as I want to make my points. I don't much mind whether other people get angry or upset by them. I will not respond to emotionalism. I have only one duty -- to portray truth as I see it and as the evidence suggests.
I explained, very clearly, how I think Ms. Mac Donald is right on the money about the issue of promiscuity and drinking.
I said "favorite" paragraphs because I read the whole piece, something I recommend you do, next time.
You've yet to address the statical fallacies that riddle the Portside article. You've already conceded my point about how many "rapes" on college campuses aren't rape at all.
By the way, the standards in the law are much, more hard to prove than they are on college campuses. Why do you think so many college campuses insist that you go through their sham trial before you go to court?
I worked for an attorney for two years. You might have heard of him. Alan Dershowitz.
I quoted things in the article that weren't in your post... maybe that should be a hint that I read it? As I said earlier, "Just because I'm still offended doesn't mean I'm a moron or that I didn't read the article." Also, "And why am I supposed to be apologizing when you are citing an article that says: 'When we go out to parties and I see girls and the way they dress and the way they act ... and just the way they are, under the influence and um, then they like accuse them of like, 'Oh yeah, my boyfriend did this to me' or whatever, I honestly always think it's their fault.'?"
"I will be as insensitive as I want to make my points." But weren't you trying to defend yourself earlier as not being an asshole to rape victims? Which is it? You seem to want both.
It's nice you worked on Alan Dershowitz, who, if memory serves me correctly, is now focusing mostly on Israel. Ignoring the fact that that was a shameless and irrelevant bit of self-promotion, that doesn't make you an expert on rape, its psychological effects, and the laws concerning it. I'm a victim myself, and I worked in a community rape center for several years, and I wouldn't presume that I'm expert.
Again, learn to read. I said this many times: "I don't accept statistics about rape because I don't believe it's possible to get down accurately." I'm not going to denounce campus rape as a myth because I know that to be untrue, but I haven't proposed or defended any statistics.
"I have only one duty -- to portray truth as I see it and as the evidence suggests." Maybe that's my duty too, and maybe that's why I'm not leaving this post alone.
And if the real world doesn't care about my hurt feelings as a rape victim, then why is there so much funding for the rape centers you hate so much? It is, of course, so much easier to go through rape alone... no rape victim needs a counselor or a hand to hold or legal advice. You'd be better off not paying for it, after all. You might even get a digital camera for it... A new one each year! And for those who can't afford it, maybe they shouldn't have gotten drunk at the party. Maybe they'll do better next time. But I digress. If I understand your complaint of the problem correctly, it's not that the real world doesn't care, it's that the real world cares too much, and you're angry because that's wasting your money.
I also think you use the word censorship a little too broadly. I haven't stopped you from saying anything, I'm urging you to be responsible in the future and to admit and apologize for being irresponsible now. As kitty said, "But just because a right exists (the right to drink, the right to part a fool from his money, the right to say anything you want) doesn't mean you should abuse it. Even if you have every right to be the guy who was an insensitive asshole to rape victims, do you really want to be that guy?" I completely agree.
And you say you explained your position clearly. Maybe you did, after the fact. But if I'm reading correctly, your own personal words amount to "Here is this article. [article snippet] I agree with this article, which contradicts the Port Side." And since the article snippet you chose to highlight discusses college rapes as "A booze-fueled hookup culture of one-night, or sometimes just partial-night, stands." You should have qualified, as you did in the comments, what you were talking about beforehand. Even Heather MacDonald did that before quoting (and agreeing with) a person who says "I think it's sometimes their fault." What I immediately took you to task on was that: It is never your fault you are raped. Even if you made bad decisions, and even if there are things you could have done differently, you were never asking for it. It is solely the fault of the person who violated you. And it's really not your place to make a blanket judgment on rapes that involve alcohol. It's just as disgusting to have sex with a girl who's too drunk to know better and/or protest as it is to violently rape them.
I'm so, so, so tired of you and people like this. I don't understand why some people have it in their heads that they can talk to us this way, and no matter how much time you spend trying to defend yourself, you'll never get them to change because they're too self-righteous. I think you're one of those people who will always remain a boor.
First Poster, in your latest post, you have strayed away from the high quality of you previous posts. You (and many others) are correct to claim that Charles urges posters to not to make ad hominem attacks but uses them quite liberally himself. But do not let your posts be tainted by such attacks as "boor." It is much better to take on Charles' writing.
Charles, you finally made the point that campus rape courts are a sham and don't do either the accuser or the accused justice. Good job. Unfortunately for you, this is not something anyone takes issue with. Both Kitty and First Poster acknowledge this as a problem. They merely ask for you to recognize that your method of getting to that point is particularly rude. They ask for an apology, which I would urge them never to expect. No, you don't have to be kind in your postings. But you do have to be specific. No where in your post do you limit the issue to campus rape courts. You claim that your job is merely to portray the truth as you see it. Wouldn't it be much more effective (and more likely to actually convince someone) if you were careful and specific?
No one is attempting to censor you, Charles. If someone tried to have your blog shut down because they disagree with you, that would be censorship. These posters merely ask you to be respectful and to not lose your valid arguments amongst the trash.
To close, I have a question for you Charles. Do you believe in moral or cultural relativism? Or do you believe that there are absolute morals, that there are things which are universally right and things which are universally wrong? Normally, my guess would have been the latter, but after reading your statement that "respect and kindness are in the eyes of the beholder," I am not so sure. Respect and kindness are not just in the eyes of the beholder. Sure, some people are too easily offended, but I have not seen evidence of that by anyone on this post. You were disrespectful, and owe all your readers an apology for that.
Thank you for reinforcing CMC's reputation as a haven for rapists. Attacking victims and deriding those that speak on their behalf helps no one. For someone who attacks the "flawed statistics" you depend entirely on your own opinion, which is clearly isolated from reality.
Post script: Anonymous posting does not imply incorrect information. Deal in facts, not fallacies.
Fellow Starkie here buddy, you know who I am! Believe it or not, I actually have to say I believe you on this one. I have seen so many girls get drunk and try, purposefully, to hook up with the nearest guy, and then when sober the next day act like it never happened.
I never believed it before coming to college, but I think that alot of people cry rape for the sake of feeling that they had no part in it. NOT that it isn't a crime, but you are right in that feminists are always ready to crucify the men.
Though all of you should look twice in a mirror. Anonymous said that "being raped doesn't mean we are/were drunken sluts...we weren't.
Somehow you generalized a whole bunch of people. There are a huge number of girls who get drunk, and, do tell, act like drunken sluts.
Tell that to the girl on 501 who was drunk and giving a prospy a lap dance and trying to get it on, only to sober up a while later and say "Oh thank god...he had BO".
You tell me that doesn't say something.
I guess I would first like to commend First Poster for her commitment to telling her story-- an admittedly difficult thing for a rape survivor to do. Please never let someone feel your voice does not count. Second, I want to provide the rebuttal that was posted in the LA Times, not assert anything about numbers, just acknowledge that rape is a problem everywhere- including college campuses, and that yes-- that usually involves one or both parties consuming alcohol.
Here is the LA Times (opinion section) response to MacDonald's article that is interesting... I've pasted it below, but can be found at http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-macdonald27feb27,0,6130673.story
Interwoven in the article, the words are marked as links to the specific studies and whatnot so I suggest looking at those
:
I was appalled this Sunday to see the headline "What campus rape crisis?" pop up on my newsfeed, especially when I realized it came from a major news source. I am grateful to The Times for the opportunity to respond to Heather MacDonald's rehash of author Katie Roiphe's discredited attacks on studies of rape on college campuses, although I question why such an outdated and deliberately misleading piece was published in the first place.
To refute MacDonald's claims, I could dwell on her right-wing think tank credentials and the ideological biases that come with such funding sources. I could cite peer-reviewed academic sources, anecdotal student survivor sources or Department of Justice statistics, [pdf] all of which demonstrate that sexual assault is a common occurrence on college campuses. I could link to dozens of articles from the last month alone detailing students raped by friends, Resident assistants and ex-boyfriends. But MacDonald clearly does not care about such evidence, and my real concern is not with her. Instead, I want to reach out to the survivors, students, parents, administrators and lawmakers who might have read her opinion and been misled by her distortions and circular logic, and I want to discuss what is really happening on college campuses, from the perspective of those who graduated recently or are there now.
MacDonald gives herself away halfway through the article with her reference to what "students in the '60s demanded." Apparently she is still fighting old battles, and her fear of women who drink, have sex and have orgasms is out of touch with the reality of young men and women today. Certainly there are problems with sex on college campuses, but I don't think the solution is, as MacDonald seems to suggest, a return to the days when "fraternization" was prohibited by college administrations. (Just look at the recent statistics on rapes in the U.S. military and at military academies, which do have strict rules about fraternization.)
Along with MacDonald's deep distrust of female sexuality, her lack of respect for men [pdf] is evident in her obsession with women's actions, because the only excuse for focusing on the victim and not the perpetrator would be a belief that men are unable to control their behavior. But is that really a tenable position on which to base school policies or our lives? Most men are not rapists, and I believe that all men are capable of being responsible for their actions. I also believe fewer men would be rapists with better guidance on the definition of consensual sex and a decrease in the kind of victim-blaming in which people like MacDonald engage.
So what are the problems with sex and rape on college campuses? The biggest is many students' lack of a clear understanding of the difference between the two. Students today are being inundated by two contradictory cultures, neither of them healthy. On the one hand, we have the continual commodification of sex in America. Women's bodies are everywhere, selling cars, movies and pop stars in increasingly explicit terms, but with little focus on mutuality, emotions, knowledge, conversation or consent. On the other hand, we have abstinence-only education and MacDonald-like calls for chastity, which also focus very little on mutuality, emotions, knowledge, conversation or consent. So when it comes to an in-person sexual interaction between two students with these two cultures to draw on, is it any surprise that some men are picking the elements that justify forcing a woman to have sex or that some women are confused about what happened to them and whose fault it is? In all of America's high-volume arguing about sex these days, why aren't more people simply teaching our students to talk to each other, honestly and openly, before having sex?
In 2002, fewer than half of colleges and universities had sexual assault prevention programs, and the programs that did exist could have been as basic as a skit during orientation that half the freshmen slept through. This is an unacceptable failure to put resources into prevention, given the prevalence of sexual assault on campus. And sexual assault is a problem no matter what numbers you use - did MacDonald really mean to imply that rape isn't a problem if it is only impacting one woman or two women or 10 women a month per campus? Multiply out those numbers, and I'd say that's a pretty big problem.
The services available to survivors are often not much more extensive. Every week, the organization I work with, Students Active for Ending Rape, hears from students who feel re-victimized by the lack of services or by administrators who did not believe their accounts or blamed them for their assaults.
I work with SAFER because I feel that the voices that need to be heard are those of students, not those of writers bankrolled by conservative think tanks. Students are the ones surviving assault and committing assault, and colleges and universities need to turn their attention to what students want and need in terms of prevention programs, survivor services and disciplinary proceedings. The answers will be different for each campus, as each campus has a different culture and different students. The solution to the rape crisis on campus can only come from active responses to what college students say they need today, not from conservative ideologues 30 years out of college repeating tired stereotypes from their desks at the Manhattan Institute.
Wes,
I am a moral absolutist, but I do not believe that notions like respect or kindness are lofty and difficult to pin down.
Was it disrespectful for First Poster and Kitty to immediately assume I was saying rape doesn't happen on campus?
I think so. Whenever someone uses the phrase, "how dare," they are trying to do a form of censorship. This concept of "we have the right to declare what others may dare do" is alien to me. Indeed the notion that they have the right to say what is good and what is not good, that they have the right to put words in my mouth, is particularly offensive.
Perhaps I should be kinder to weaker arguments. Though both Kitty and First Ponder would afford me no such kindness, perhaps I ought to hold myself to a standard that makes response impossible.
I don't walk on egg shells when I deal with matters of principle. I say what I believe forthrightly, even if it offends. I do not believe in concessions predicated upon faulty principles.
Kitty and others have argued that sometimes you can "abuse" rights. This is where we part ways.
I do not believe that there is such a possibility of abusing rights. Freedom of speech and of the press extends, in my view, to absolutes. Because I cannot control how my words are construed or misconstrued by my opponents, I will always walk to that edge of expression and go further. Ideas, even bad, ones know only the marketplace. Even if I were to accept the premise that I was being disrespect -- I was not -- I believe ideas ought never be constrained by subjective standards of decency.
I'm glad to see that Kitty and others accept my points. They must, of course, because they are logically reasoned. I'm saddened to see that they do not address the issue of faulty statistics. As statistics are often collected to further policy, addressing those statistics are important.
I'm saddened that Kitty and First Poster and maybe a few others feel that I have disrespected them. First Poster says that "bullshit like this is as hard to recover from the rape itself." You do damage to your own cause. Words are never as dangerous as overt acts. Of course, those who believe in limits to speech often believe in criminalizing speech. This attempt to equate my speech with rape is disturbing indeed. I find it unworthy of respect.
As for MMoris10, that you would suggest that I am building a stereotype of rapist CMC guys is also offensive. As many of you know, I am hardly the partying type. I am more likely to be the guy collecting cans than to be knocking them down.
I addressed in earlier posts about why the straw polls used by the Portside are ridiculous. (They simply asked all of their friends if they had heard of a rape on the 5Cs.) The Portside, which tries to push for policy on the 5Cs, uses faulty statistics and must be called account even if the ends they are pushing are substantiated in some other way. Of course, I don't believe they will be, but that's another matter.
I hope I've addressed the substantive points. If I missed any, please point them out to me.
I will need to respond to the first poster, but since there is so much for me to go back through, for now I'll just respond to the most recent post. (And don't worry folks, I'm not apologizing for the sham accusation that somehow Charles and I are accusing the victims.)
I hope the most recent poster did not actually read the MacDonald piece. Then I could forgive their intelligence for thinking that the half-assed response by some girl at Stanford remotely understood--let alone refuted--MacDonald's points.
Her links and data do not in fact prove that rape is any more prominent than MacDonald in fact asserts. Which is to say to say, not very common (though again, not non-existent, as her opponents try to make it seem like she believes). Instead she lazily tries to argue that rape numbers are really bad and that they are especially bad at military facilities. Then she cites one congressional testimony to back this up. Sounds to me like someone really has a problem with our military, and really needs an excuse to believe her work is important.
Her real-back up is the claim that because MacDonald works at a conservative think tank that gets money from conservative sources, well she must be an "ideologue" out to destroy facts with her research. She can't possibly be capable of someone genuine work and thought herself.
Here's a good example. She says MacDonald is afraid of women having orgasms and that her solution is really to ban all fraternization. Her's her characterization of the position: "MacDonald-like calls for chastity, which also focus very little on mutuality, emotions, knowledge, conversation or consent." Now, anyone who actually got what MacDonald was saying that yes we should encourage sexual propriety and stop indulging a campus culture of free love. But it's nuts to say this is a ham-fisted form of chastity that ignores all conversation about emotions and consent. I'm sure it would be nice to think of conservatives are incapable of thinking about any subtly to ensure yourself of your own intellectual superiority. I suspect this author, so closes off in he own "biases" about conservatives, would be surprised to learn that MacDonald is an outspoken atheist.
But to do so would be to recognize that we think seriously about these things and aren't animated by some hidden streak of male supremacy would open up the cracks in your own crusade. You might come to see that some cases of rape are preventable by the very things feminists don't want to argue you against. You might see that rape is so serious that Dean Huang is not the man to handle it (hint: the policy are). You might come to recognize that people like me and Charles are never saying that the victim is at fault, but we are saying that several cases don't hold water and this is why they aren't prosecuted in real courts.
If the LA-Times response is the best rebutal out there, than I am no less confident that these far-left fringe movements that only fester at college campuses are devoid of any substantive thinking.
Um, is there a way I can rework that last post to get rid of the horrible grammar?
"I am a moral absolutist, but I do not believe that notions like respect or kindness are lofty and difficult to pin down."
Even if kindness and respect are difficult to pin down, ask yourself a few questions before posting something- be it a question or a comment: Would you want someone to talk to you that way? Your girlfriend? Your family? I suspect if your girlfriend had been raped and was trying to come forward with her story, that you would not appreciate if someone essentially rolled their eyes and told them to stop being so emotional. While being nice might mean slightly different things to different people and different cultures (which is where it would be more understandable if you were a relativist), you clearly left the grey area and landed somewhere in no man's land in the "disrespectful" portion of the spectrum. The fact that so many people are taking the time to respond should show you that maybe somewhere you messed up on this one.
"Was it disrespectful for First Poster and Kitty to immediately assume I was saying rape doesn't happen on campus?"
If you didn't specify you weren't in your post, how were they to assume otherwise? First Poster provided a step-by-step look into how she reached the conclusion, including a quote from the MacDonald article. As she pointed out, you never challenged it, and it might appear you aren't learning from it. It would have been much easier if you said at the beginning "I have a problem with campus courts for trial because I feel that it would prosecute the following situation unfairly [insert article here]. This doesn't do justice to rape victims, who deserve more." Then, maybe the tag "Campus Rape Myth," might not have led anyone to believe that you think all campus rapes are a myth, the result of drunken mistakes. You shouldn't have waited until after people pointed out this mistake to say what you really meant. In issues that you know might cause a little controversy, you would do well to narrow down your statements. You've only succeeded in making yourself look bad and hurting people. I doubt that was your intention.
"You do damage to your own cause. Words are never as dangerous as overt acts."
I'm sure you won't like this, but I'm going to be another person who comes forward and says that she was raped, and that she knows for a fact that this statement simply isn't true. Rape is so much more than a single event. You're violated in the worst possible manner short of being killed, and it's very, very difficult to recover psychologically. When you speak ill of rape victims and imply that it was their fault (or post articles implying such), it re-opens that psychological wound. When enough people are telling you it's your fault (and I'll have to say, First Poster was absolutely right in her description of what it's like to deal with the judgmental sentiments. It's hard to rehash it over, and over again in your head, and to constantly have people saying "You could have walked away from the guy who molested you at any time, so stop and think about whether or not you wanted it," or "You were blacked out, so you never know... maybe you were into it, maybe you even started it" and you start to wonder, is it my fault? To constantly relive your rape over and over and over... yes, I would say it's much more difficult to be raped once (or several times over the course of several years). And if you contribute to that psychological decay in someone else, then yes, I'll go out on the emotional limb and say you ought to feel ashamed (or at least a little bad).
"As for MMoris10, that you would suggest that I am building a stereotype of rapist CMC guys is also offensive. As many of you know, I am hardly the partying type.
That's not exactly what he said. The stereotype he was referring to was CMC being a haven for rapists. If you're suggesting we get rid of our rape support programs (which I admit you did not say, but the idea that they're an unnecessary expenditure figured prominently in MacDonald's article), that might contribute to this stereotype.
"I worked for an attorney for two years. You might have heard of him. Alan Dershowitz."
If you stand for only addressing the substance of posts, you should probably limit yourself to the substance of posts. Working for a foreign policy guru doesn't make you rape law expert any more than working at a rape center would make the first poster a doctor. If we're reading this blog, we all know you think really highly of yourself. You don't need to drive the point home- especially in this conversation. The condescending tone with which you address those who disagree with you gets tiresome, but it's simply embarrassing here.
Also, Dan, I'm a little disappointed in you. I've always had a lot of respect for you as a conservative who escaped the "patronizing, clueless white man" stereotype, but I was completely disgusted by your first post. I'm going to repaste the first poster's response, which was buried somewhere in the middle of all these posts:
"I spoke as a rape victim about my own experiences, which I know from my subsequent work at a rape center[...]that my reactions aren't uncommon among victims. It's very difficult to recover from the judgment that follows a rape[...]and because I said so, I'm a campus feminist who is impossible to take seriously, lacking wisdom and restraint, an "emotional nut," a "loon" who knows nothing of the real world, and an exemplar of "the shallowness of feminist thought." So much for not blaming the victim.
"
And... I'm done for now. Going through every single phrase that was offensive and/or simply incorrect in here is simply too exhausting.
To correct myself:
To constantly relive your rape over and over and over... yes, I would say it's much more difficult than to be raped once (or several times over the course of several years, [as I was]).
Katelyn,
Perhaps my sarcasm is not well received in this forum. But you should know my intent is not to attack people who were raped or say they are emotional. I have not been discussing personal circumstances because I want to address the politics of the matter, because those specific circumstance don't change of affect the argument, and because those are specific circumstances that I can't speak about with any authority.
But here's the thing. I might be overly disrespectful, but I think the crudest form of respect on these blog posts is the assumption that anyone--me, Charles, Heather, whoever--would ever entertain the ideas that A) rape doesn't happen, or B) victims are the ones to blame. As you put it in reference to the first claim: "If you didn't specify you weren't in your post, how were they to assume otherwise?" You should assume otherwise by assuming a basic level of intelligence about me. And you would assume otherwise by recognizing that the "'patronizing, clueless white man' stereotype" is with out substance. It's a target created by bitter left-wing groups as the enemy of all things good and just. So yes I get irked when ANYBODY assumes that I might not believe rape happens or that it's bad.
It is interesting though, that you're allowed to say you respect me as a "a conservative who escaped the 'patronizing, clueless white man' stereotype." You don't find something kind of shameless about this? I mean you'd never say you were proud of someone for escaping the clueless woman stereotype or the clueless Latino stereotype. "Way to be good for your kind." People would tar and feather you--rightfully. So why is it okay to have these gutter assumptions about conservative thought?
Also, I'm not a moral absolutist. I associate that type of position with Kant, who would avoid any action that remotely had a tie to self-interest and who believes all moral action must be consistently applied in different circumstances. I don't live in such a neat world. The right action changes with different circumstances, and it's an exercise of prudence to show us which is proper for the here and now. But of course this position isn't relativistic or nihilistic or historicist either. It's basically the classical stance on moral virtue.
Dan, it's because I know you and respect you that I chose to believe that you just spoke a little quickly and didn't say exactly what I figured you intended. But, if I didn't know you, I might not have reached the same conclusion. If you go based on what you said, rather than what I assumed you meant having met you, it was still... a bit rude, to say the least.
And I'll admit that saying that you escaped the stereotype might have been a poor choice of words on my part. However, political stereotypes exist for a reason, and you were happy to stereotype feminist thought as tending to be utterly moronic. The only thing I will say, however, is that categorizing people on beliefs they freely chose and espouse isn't exactly the same as categorizing people for something they didn't choose, such a skin color and gender.
I don't live in such a neat world. The right action changes with different circumstances, and it's an exercise of prudence to show us which is proper for the here and now.
I think that is what the battle over this post is about. Was his admitted willingness to be insensitive prudent? As you might guess, my answer is no.
"Yes, promiscuity is a problem. Yes, alcoholism is a problem."
First Poster, why?
Katelyn, to comment on your choice of words,
"If you're suggesting we get rid of our rape support programs (which I admit you did not say, but the idea that they're an unnecessary expenditure figured prominently in MacDonald's article), that might contribute to this stereotype."
Nothing of the sort was even said...and you seem to defend MMoris10 . When you say that CMC is a haven for rapists, if not stereotyping the students, who then? The townies who visit? Somehow I highly doubt that was his intention.
Charles and Dan,
On behalf of what I assume is the vast majority of men at CMC, stop! Whether you are right on the merits or not is at this point largely irrelevant. You have chosen to take on a topic that takes great tact and sensitivity and you have displayed neither. Despite what Charles claims, words do have real power, and the words you have used can create real pain. It would have been far better to not bring this topic at all, then to go about it in the insensitive way you have. Whatever your intent, the original post and your follow-ups, have offended and angered many of your classmates. The fact that you have a right to do this is beside the point. Why would you want to? If you think so little of your classmates that you are willing to risk seriously insulting them and do not care what they think of you, why do you go here?
You are both bright guys, which is why I expect better of you. We should never use our gifts to demean or harm others, even unintentionally. I hope that you can learn from this incident and learn how to use your intellects for good rather than evil.
Jules Dormady
Jules, with all due respect, you are completely wrong on several fronts. Forgive me beforehand if my response is a little too blunt, my friend, but I wouldn’t have it any other way.
For starters, you don’t speak on “behalf” of all CMC men in much the same way as the alleged rape victim on this blog does not speak for all women who have been raped. You speak only for yourself.
1. The points aren’t irrelevant. They are the reason to bring up the issue in the first place.
2. Words do have real power. No one is claiming that they don’t, but they are not the equivalent of rape as the first poster suggested.
3. Insensitivity is the eye of beholder. I feel like I addressed the topic adequately. I will never tip toe around something. How people take my words are entirely up to them.
4. I don’t think little of my classmates. Many of my classmates agree with me on this very issue. To ignore their voices is to minimize the issue.
5. I can’t be held accountable for the effect some words have on a few people. The right to speech extends far beyond the so-called right not to be offended.
6. Whose good? Whose evil? Whose gifts? I use my right and my intellect to depict the world around me as I see it.
There is nothing evil about suggesting that some of the people who claim to be raped were not legally raped, that rape is a subject that ought to be tried in a courtroom, not by an administrator, and that faulty rape statistics do violence to women.
How is this an “incident”? This is simply a discussion - the first of many we are going to have on the blog that challenges the conventional wisdom.
"Insensitivity is the eye of beholder. I feel like I addressed the topic adequately. I will never tip toe around something. How people take my words are entirely up to them."
Of course you would feel that way... but a lot of people have commented, most of whom admit to agreeing with your point of view that false accusations of rape are a problem (including First Poster and Kitty, whom you seem to enjoy vilifying), say you've gone too far. If you've managed to offend that many people who agree with you, the problem is you, not the liberal world that takes your comments out of context and is out to get you.
And if you don't like it when people try to speak on behalf of others (men, rape victims, etc), isn't it rather hypocritical to say that many of your classmates agree with you on this issue and you shouldn't ignore their voices. A lot of people who responded agreed with you and took offense that you would communicate a shared belief so irresponsibly.
Read what you actually wrote in your original post. It didn't explain anything; you left the article to explain itself, quoting one of the most questionable portions of a mostly good article. Sure you've explained yourself after the fact... but would have not been easier to explain it up front, before you angered so many? Is it really so difficult to say "My original post apparently wasn't clear, and that lack of clarity led to some grave misunderstandings, and I'm sorry to anyone whose feelings I inadvertently hurt?" You had an idea which in itself was not bad. You didn't communicate it well. People were offended, and your message got lost. End of story. You say you don't have control over how people respond to your words. This is true. This is why it's important to say EXACTLY WHAT YOU MEAN TO SAY, AND NOTHING LESS. Is it worth having so many angry with you if that's not even the point you wanted to make?
And while we're on the subject of hypocrisy, either be an absolutist who admits to being insensitive, or a relativist who hides behind the weak "Respectful is relative, so I can't help it when my words offend. " Clearly you can't be both.
Dear Anonymous,
Sorry, but I don't agree with you there. I think you are creating a straw man with the liberal world issue.
I also don't really recognize the concept of "irresponsibly" using my rights. Many people have come up to me and said they agree with me but they fear going on this blog. I write for them, but most importantly, I write for me.
I don't believe I was unclear. I said exactly what I believe in my initial post. I'm not ashamed of it. Some people were offended. Others were not. Some posted comments. Others did not. Simply talking to your friends who agree with you about my writing style isn't representative.
My critics concede to my points because they know they can't address them but then go after me personally. It's kind of a shame.
On your final point, about relativism, some community standards are developed from faulty premises and so, they must be disobeyed. Though it is often preferable to agree with some community standards than to fight against them, I've already made the case for why my position is tenable. So it is that I feel emotionalism ought not be the basis of policy. It is now up to you to explain why emotionalism should be the basis of policy.
I'm afraid we aren't going to agree on this topic. I don't believe I was being insensitive because I do not recognize the concept of insensitivity. I think people who disagree with me politically are using that charge because it's a subjective one rather than assessing my actual argument: that a majority of campus rape are myths.
You are welcome to address those arguments. I'll allow you the final word. Again, thank you all, critics and friends alike, for reading my blog.
Jules, congrats, you already sound like a schoolteacher—a powerful one at that, since you speak on behalf of the “vast majority” of CMC men, and as becomes evident throughout your post, the “vast majority” of CMC women as well.
How exactly, Jules, have Charles and I not taken “great tact and sensitivity”? It’s an easy accusation to throw around, as nearly everyone on this forum has done, but no one really makes the attempt to substantiate it. So let’s face it, when it comes to rape itself, Charles and I pretty damn sensitive. We think it’s evil. Period. But we also think that since this is a position held by the vast, vast, vast majority of CMC men and women, we don’t feel the need to echo it every time we write a paragraph.
What is insulting and pathetic is the number of posters who can’t stop pissing themselves long enough to say that Charles and I either do not believe rape exists or that the victim is the one to blame. This knee-jerk reaction to our presumptive Neanderthal ways is indicative of the warped mentality we are attacking. I don’t believe that warped mentality—call it feminism or liberalism or progressivism—deserves any tact or sensitivity. It admits of no error and no dispute. It demonizes anyone who wants to talk about sexual responsibility or morality, and it trivializes the criminal aspect of rape. The former makes both rape and regrettable hook-ups more likely. And because the line is blurred between the two, college campuses have to resort to fake judges and fake juries to assure swift penalty of the accused, rather than encourage women to take their case to real courts. Now I happen to believe—and I know this is controversial—that rape deserves a little more punishment than expulsion. But I also believe—again, controversially—in due process. Now when I say this, I know I’m showing little respect for the cult that raffles vibrators, stages vagina monologues, and takes back the night. But this cult has no respect for men when it suggests that a vast minority of us are on the prowl for innocent women. I can’t think of a better way to think so little of your fellow classmates.
But when you speak up for my classmates, you sound like Jesse Jackson. You say they are in pain. They are offended. Therefore, I am in the wrong. Well, you know it’s not that simple. The next question you should have asked is why are they in pain? Is theirs a fair or unfair reaction?
Now, you damn well know that we don’t say want we do simply because we “have a right to.” But we will gladly speak up when our classmates are being foolish or reckless. I’d say that’s a pretty huge form of respect—much more than coddling their childish reactions to things being said that they don’t agree with, especially when they use those reactions to “demean and harm others” (like the innocent men they presume are guilty or the men and women of both sexes who they encourage to act without moderation or inhibition).
As to your last question (which is really a trap, but I’m going to take the bait), you know that we find many people here that we respect and like. There are intelligent and smart people who recognize silliness when they see it. You usually do, and I’m surprised you haven’t in this case. But why am I here? To get an education. I’d be here if only for the professors. Teaching students about good, beautiful, noble, and just things is what college is about. It’s not supposed to be a playground for wild behavior or wild accusations.
But if you still believe that I use my intellect for evil rather than good, then so be it. I shall relish my sinful depravity with wicked delight.
>>How exactly, Jules, have Charles and I not taken “great tact and sensitivity”?
In reponse to someone who shares conflicting opinion, you stated:
1. "Perhaps you should take some time and actually read the article. You know, think a little bit."
2. "The second poster also reveals why campus feminists tend to be utter morons."
3. Calling her words "trope,"
4. Dismissing her words as immature by saying, "Please, grow up."
5. Calling her an "emotional nut,"
6. A "loon,"
7. And urging them to "learn about the real world."
None of those statements were tactful, sensitive, or necessary.
Post a Comment