Image 01 Image 03

Feminism Tag

I've written previously about California's new "Yes Means Yes" law, which codifies a strict definition of "affirmative consent" as it applies to students on college campuses. It's a terrible bill, but some liberals are touting its absolute failure to address any real problems as its greatest achievement. A group of professors at Harvard Law School recently published a joint letter in the Boston Globe begging the university to rethink its implementation of a similar standard:
We call on the university to withdraw this sexual harassment policy and begin the challenging project of carefully thinking through what substantive and procedural rules would best balance the complex issues involved in addressing sexual conduct and misconduct in our community. The goal must not be simply to go as far as possible in the direction of preventing anything that some might characterize as sexual harassment. The goal must instead be to fully address sexual harassment while at the same time protecting students against unfair and inappropriate discipline, honoring individual relationship autonomy, and maintaining the values of academic freedom.
28 professors from one of the finest law schools on the planet believe that these laws go to far. They're not just a change in policy; they redefine the meaning of "sexual assault," and "consent." They're a gross overreach into the lives of students that flies in the face of the basic concepts of justice and due process. Chief Voxsplainer Ezra Klein recently penned an article explaining why he believes affirmative consent regulatory overreach---and subsequent overregulation of the sex lives of young Californians---will eliminate the alleged culture of "sexual entitlement" on college campuses. In Ezra Klein's illiberal utopia, we achieve that goal by making examples out of men whose only crime is that they are male:

Somehow, this seemed inevitable. Just-resigned Secret Service Director Julia Pierson allegedly is the victim of male privilege, and was treated differently than a man in a similar position would be treated. This video clip -- just before the resignation -- led to charges of sexism: Those charges increased after the resignation.
At The New Republic, Secret Service Director Julia Pierson Was a Victim of the "Glass Cliff": On Wednesday, Julia Pierson, the first woman to ever lead the Secret Service in its nearly 150-year history, resigned her post amid heavy criticism over an intruder who was able to get as far as the East Room of the White House. Reasonable people can disagree about whether, ultimately, she deserved to lose her job or whether anyone in charge during such an incident would have to resign. But it’s probably not pure chance that Pierson, who held that position for just a year-and-a-half, was a woman. Time and again, women are put in charge only when there’s a mess, and if they can’t engineer a quick cleanup, they’re shoved out the door. The academics Michelle Ryan and Alex Haslam even coined a term for this phenomenon: They call it getting pushed over the glass cliff.
On Twitter, the claim was made that Pierson was just the fall gal for male failure reflecting male privilege:

There are seemingly endless programs and advocates to increase the participation of women in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) as a means of addressing the gender imbalance, which is particularly dramatic at the graduate and doctoral levels. The National Science Foundation has special grant programs.  The White House emphasizes the issue.  Efforts are made at the elementary and secondary school levels to increase participation by girls. One of my daughters was a computer science major in college (the only female CS major that year), so I'm well aware of the extensive outreach to women. Despite years of concerted efforts, the STEM gender imbalance has barely moved. Men still dominate, by a lot. But the gender imbalance is equal or even more dramatic in fields dominated by women, as this chart shows (via AEI, h/t Ron Coleman): Total Graduate Enrollment by Gender 2013 AEI continues, Women earned majority of doctoral degrees in 2013 for 5th straight year, and outnumber men in grad school 137.5 to 100
The Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) recently released its annual report recently on US graduate school enrollment and degrees for 2013, and here are some of the more interesting findings in this year’s report:

A few weeks ago, we covered the story of Columbia studentEmma Sulkowicz, who alleged she was raped by another student. Rather than pursue the matter all the way through the legal system (she dropped her case), Sulkowicz took her case to the University tribunal. Her alleged rapist was not found guilty by the campus tribunal, so Sulkowicz decided to protest her trauma through performance art (and college credit) and carry a mattress around campus as long as her alleged rapist remained on campus.  Carrying the mantel of Sulkowicz's cause, what was supposed to be a national day of action and a million mattress march, was not widely protested.  The only two protests we could find are at Texas Tech and Cornell. At Texas Tech:

Some Texas Tech University students have demonstrated against what they say is a "rape culture" on campus by laying bed sheets spray-painted with "No means No" at three locations.

The women's actions Wednesday came a day after university officials sent an email to students and faculty that called activities at a recent off-campus fraternity party "reprehensible."

A picture of a banner at the Sept. 20 Phi Delta Theta fraternity gathering, briefly posted online, read, "No means yes," followed by a graphic sexual remark.

University spokesman Chris Cook said the school learned of the banner the day after the party and began investigating immediately. Last week the university established a task force to review Greek organizations.

The bed sheets displayed Wednesday were removed by police after about 30 minutes.

Cornell took the call to action more seriously and approximately one hundred students showed up to protest. According to Casey Breznick at The Cornell Review (he also writes for Legal Insurrection and College Insurrection), a National Day of Protest Against Rape Culture took an odd turn yesterday. The protest was co-sponsored by Students for Justice in Palestine, Black Students United, Crunch: The Kinky Club at Cornell, Cornell Organization for Labor Action, the Cornell Progressive, DASH: Direction Action to Stop Heterosexism,Women of Color Coalition, and Grrls Fight Back. The protest was meant to be the decisive blow to "rape culture" on Cornell's campus. To that end, students read poems aloud. Breznick reports:

We've written previously about California's proposed "affirmative consent" bill, which codifies -- for lack of a more delicate terminology -- what constitutes acceptable foreplay between consenting adults on college campuses. On Sunday, that bill became law. Via Fox News:
[Bill author Sen. Kevin] De Leon has said the legislation will begin a paradigm shift in how college campuses in California prevent and investigate sexual assaults. Rather than using the refrain "no means no," the definition of consent under the bill requires "an affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity." "With one in five women on college campuses experiencing sexual assault, it is high time the conversation regarding sexual assault be shifted to one of prevention, justice, and healing," de Leon said in lobbying Brown for his signature. The legislation says silence or lack of resistance does not constitute consent. Under the bill, someone who is drunk, drugged, unconscious or asleep cannot grant consent.
The bill holds hostage funding for colleges and universities unless "the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions shall adopt a policy concerning sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking..." That policy is strictly defined within the bill, and mandates new, uniform procedures for the reporting, counseling, and investigation of alleged sexual misconduct on campus.

There's nothing more offensive to me than an article that leaps off the cliff in the first sentence by dropping the "as a woman, I..." bomb. It doesn't matter how the sentence ends; what matters is that the author, whoever she may be, believes that on some level her gender proves her point for her. We're meant to accept everything that follows because to dissent is to deny not only her opinion, but her equal footing in society. Fortunately, conservatives are doing the work to fight back this flawed idea that feminism consists entirely of the full acceptance of womanhood as victimhood:
Women in America are the freest in the world, yet many feminists tell us women are oppressed. They advocate this falsehood through victim mentality propaganda and misleading statistics, such as the gender wage gap myth. In five minutes, American Enterprise Institute's Christina Hoff Sommers tells you the truth about feminism.

Last March we covered how California Seeks to Redefine Consensual Campus Sex as Rape, and we asked the question: "How does classifying most consensual sex as rape help rape victims?" It doesn't, of course. The California affirmative consent legislation was not about preventing rapes or other sexual assaults, which already are crimes, but about redefining inter-personal relationships in accordance with radical feminist demands which always view the female as victim of the male patriarchy. The affirmative consent obligation now is on the verge of becoming law (emphasis added):
To address the problem of rape on campuses, California colleges and universities would have to adopt a standard of unambiguous consent among students engaging in sexual activity under a proposal passed by state lawmakers Thursday. If signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, such policies would be required at all public colleges and other institutions that receive state funds for student aid. They would have to include a detailed protocol for assisting victims of sexual assault, stalking, domestic violence and date violence.... Students engaging in sexual activity would first need "affirmative consent" from both parties — a clear threshold that specifically could not include a person's silence, a lack of resistance or consent given while intoxicated.
Campus relationship regulation now is about the predominance of "rape culture" theory which ensnares men into kangaroo campus courts, and even opposes objective preventative measures, like "Undercover Colors" nail polish that reacts to date-rape drugs. The normal sequence of romantic interaction now is a violation of law unless there is something more than objectively willing conduct. It's no longer "against our will," but rather, a matter of procedural steps imposed on willing, consensual participants in order to avoid creating a crime where none exists:

If you went to college, you probably know someone who became the victim of sexual assault after a night out with friends. Now a group of engineering students at North Carolina State University are developing a tool that can help young women avoid becoming victims of sexual assault. Stephen Gray, Ankesh Madan, Tasso Von Windheim and Tyler Confrey-Maloney teamed up to develop "Undercover Colors," a new type of nail polish that changes colors when it comes into contact with common "date rape" drugs like Rohypnol, Xanax, or GHB. In their mission statement, the four developers state that, "[o]ur goal is to invent technologies that empower women to protect themselves from this heinous and quietly pervasive crime... Through this nail polish and similar technologies, we hope to make potential perpetrators afraid to spike a woman’s drink because there’s now a risk that they can get caught. In effect, we want to shift the fear from the victims to the perpetrators." Via the International Business Times:
"With our nail polish, any woman will be empowered to discreetly ensure her safety by simply stirring her drink with her finger. If her nail polish changes colour, she'll know that something is wrong." The team was granted $11,250 (£6,600) from North Carolina State's Entrepreneurship Initiative, which aims to develop solutions to "real-world challenges". Each of the students personally know someone who has been sexually assaulted.

God bless Cheerios for their latest ad campaign. Forgoing the tired and insulting schtick of the 'dumb dad' who is too inept to tie his kid's shoes, General Mills decided to highlight the awesomeness of dadhood to promote Peanut Butter Cheerios. The longform web ad begins with a man waking up to find his kid sitting on top of him wearing a horse head mask. The man's response? "Is that a new mask? I like it. It's really creepy. Good stuff." And it just gets better. Getting right to the point, "Hey, let me introduce myself. My name is Dad and proud of it and all dads should be." Take a look: Far too many companies choose to portray fathers as bumbling morons or inconsiderate burdens. Take this cringeworthy Kraft commercial for example, "here we go again, Dad always messes up everything! Thank goodness Kraft Mac N Cheese is here to save the day, otherwise Dad would really be an intolerable oaf." Not an exact quote, but that's the gist:

Some privileges are permissible topics for discussion on campus and in the media. For example, White Privilege is the obsession of some faculty and students. George Will pointed out that there is another privilege on campuses -- false or contrived claims of victim status.  Will did not argue that real victims, be it of actual racism or sexual assault, share some special privilege, but rather, that there are people who contrive or encourage others to falsely create victimhood where none exists. We see it in theories such as microaggression, where in the absence of proof of actual racism, critical race theorists find racism in routine everyday interactions where the participants do not even realize they are being "racist," much less have any racist intent. We see it in repeated instances of fake, self-inflicted "hate crimes" in which the victim is, in fact, the perpetrator. We also see it in the lowering of the standards of proof and definitions of what constitutes sexual assault. I think everyone agrees that sexual assault as used in the criminal law deserves condemnation and punishment. But colleges, under pressure from the Justice Department and supposedly feminist groups, have started using definitions of sexual assault that can reach absurd results.

This video comes a little round-about. It started with a post by Dr. Helen Smith (h/t Instapundit) regarding some feminists trying to blame the Pick-Up Artist community for the mass murder by Elliot Rodger. Revelation No. 1: There's a " Pick-Up Artist community"? Do they have rights? Revelation No. 2: A reference to a 2012 incident in Toronto with which I was not previously familiar:
Perhaps it is the feminists and their supporters who block funding and education going to boys’ and men’s issues that are to blame. Case in point? Warren Farrell tried to give a talk in Toronto about suicide in young men and other topics and was accosted by nasty feminists who did not want him to speak.
The link is to this video about Warren Farrell: Here's some more videos about the protest (Language Warning):

Columbia University has been the focus of heated arguments over the university's handling of sexual assault complaints. In recent days, the names of alleged "rapists" have been scrawled on bathroom walls and in flyers, as reported at The Columbia Spectator, The NY Daily News, and The Columbia Lion, and Jezebel, which provided this redacted image: http://jezebel.com/rapist-list-mysteriously-appearing-in-columbia-universi-1575660992/1575819470/+morninggloria Also this week, a former Columbia student went public with her story of an alleged rape: Against this backdrop of claims that sexual assaults are not addressed adequately by administrators, there has been substantial pushback at many campuses that the definitions of sexual assault and consent used on campuses are overly broad and that males are not given sufficient due process protection: Earlier today in federal court in New York a Complaint was filed by a former Columbia student alleging that he was unfairly found to have committed a sexual assault based upon allegedly flimsy and inconsistent evidence, without due process protections. The Complaint is embedded at the bottom of this post. The heart of the Complaint is that the sex was consensual, as evidenced by the lack of contemporaneous complaint and a delay of 5 months in complaining:

The last time we visited the Dominican Republic, the only English-language news channel in the hotel was CNN-International. Which is like not having access to the news. This time, however, all of the major network and cable news channels were carried. I saw this live on Megyn Kelly's show, and found it of great interest. Here's the trailer from The Honor Diaries:

Yeah, me too. Donald Trump. But I don't think that's what the Ban Bossy campaign is about. The #BanBossy movement pretends to protect little girls from the humiliation of being called "bossy," and thereby will empower a generation of strong, powerful female leaders (so long as you don't call them bossy, because that would crush them). The movement is backed by "Lean In" Sheryl Sandberg and The Girl Scouts, for whom every girl is a potential victim. (Put aside all the objective evidence that girls are outperforming boys in almost every measure.) A slew of major corporations and celebrities have lined up behind the banning of bossy. ) There nothing wrong, and much good, at encouraging young girls to lead. But this campaign has a strong victimization narrative. This teaches young girls that they are victims and need the emotional protections that little boys don't. At best that is a mixed message. And why now? Why have the word police suddenly descended on us to shape our speech? Can't boys and men be bossy too? Has there been some epidemic of bossy such that now is the time to act. A follower on Twitter made the connection to prepping the battlefield for Hillary:

Prof. KC Johnson, best known for his investigative work regarding abysmal university and faculty handling of the Duke Lacrosse case, has a post at Minding the Campus regarding a disturbing appointment at Dartmouth, 'Why Have a Hearing? Just Expel Him':
"Why could we not expel a student based on an allegation?" That astonishing question was posed at a conference on how colleges respond to sexual assault issues by Amanda Childress, Sexual Assault Awareness Program coordinator at Dartmouth. According to Inside Higher Ed, Childress continued: "It seems to me that we value fair and equitable processes more than we value the safety of our students. And higher education is not a right. Safety is a right. Higher education is a privilege." Give Childress credit for candor--even the campus spokespersons for increasing the number of guilty findings in campus tribunals usually aren't so bald in their disdain for basic principles of due process. Childress' jarring remarks coincided with news that Dartmouth had promoted her, and given her additional power over the college's sexual assault policies. Last Friday, the college announced that Childress will head the newly-created Center for Community Action and Prevention, which Childress said would "be the focal point on campus for Dartmouth's sexual assault and violence prevention initiatives" and "drive the College's mobilization efforts around preventing sexual violence and increasing the safety and well-being of all members of our community." (All members, it seems, except students facing unsubstantiated allegations of sexual assault.) Incredibly, Dartmouth theater professor Paul Hackett suggested that despite Childress' appointment, the college isn't going far enough on the issue.