Lesson Learned From Feminism: Never Sympathize With Women

I’m an idiot.

I should know better by now than to read the New York Times, but I do it anyway. I should have more self-control than to be taken in by clickbait titles. But, my curiosity overwhelms my reasoning and I’m drawn in.

That’s how I came across an Op-Ed piece entitled, “Who Gets to Define Campus Rape?” written by two Sociology students, Miriam Gleckman-Krut and Nicole Bedera of the University of Michigan. It is a reaction to Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos deciding to review a 2011 decision by the Office of Civil Rights to impose a “preponderance of the evidence” on colleges that adjudicate claims of sexual impropriety as civil rights violations.

The general premise is that men don’t matter and that women should have the power to freely accuse and destroy men without any checks or barriers.

Who should have the right to define rape: survivors who have experienced sexual violence or those who are accused of perpetrating it?

Correction: Who should have the right to define “rape”? The accuser, who is not placed at hazard by the process? Or the accused, who is placed at hazard by the process?

The correct answer is neither one. The party that defines rape is the party that enforces the rule against rape. Feminists like to jump out of the box and frame the argument in a way that they cannot lose.

That is the core question raised by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’s decision this month to replace Obama-era guidelines on how universities handle sexual misconduct complaints. In a strongly worded speech, Ms. DeVos made clear that she believed the previous administration had used “intimidation and coercion” to force colleges to adopt disciplinary procedures that deprived accused students of their rights.

The Obama-era guidelines were likely issued in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946, which requires notice and hearing via a period in which the public can comment on the proposed rule before the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights can issue the rule.

Why do feminists have such trouble with due process?

To come to these conclusions, Ms. DeVos and her staff appear to have given special consideration to the concerns of men accused of sexual assault. After one hearing about campus rape policies, Candice Jackson, the top civil rights official in the Department of Education, said, “The accusations — 90 percent of them — fall into the category of ‘we were both drunk, we broke up, and six months later I found myself under a Title IX investigation because she just decided that our last sleeping together was not quite right.’ ”

Special consideration for men accused of sexual misconduct? Apprently that is any consideration at all if the pearl-clutching by ThinkProgress, Vox, and Slate are indicators.

Ms. Jackson has since called these remarks “flippant,” but they reveal a gross misunderstanding of sexual assault. Ms. Jackson essentially intimated that she believes either that alcohol-facilitated sexual assault and intimate partner violence are not real or that, at the very least, they are not harmful enough to merit disciplinary action. No wonder Ms. DeVos thinks many sexual assault complaints on campus are baseless. According to Ms. Jackson’s incorrect logic, almost any college man facing disciplinary proceedings would be falsely accused. And yet there is plenty of evidence that false accusations of rape are rare.

Stating that 90% of rape claims surveyed were the result of a drunken tumble and hurt feelings is “flippant.” Rattling off that “false accusations of rape are rare” is not flippant because it’s not like you go to prison, have your rights stripped away, are forever branded a felon and a sex offender.

Obama-era policies did not malign men. What they did was make it easier for victims to come forward. A 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter from the Obama administration advised universities to change the standard for how to determine guilt from proof that was “beyond a reasonable doubt” to a “preponderance of evidence” — or, more colloquially, more likely than not.

Publicly accusing someone of a felony without proof of their guilt is defamation per se. Despite the feminist whining about “rape culture” in a country that, for a large part of its history made rape punishable by death, having one’s name associated with felonious crimes is inherently detrimental to a man’s reputation.

Before 2011, most colleges had already voluntarily made these changes. There are several good reasons for that. The “beyond a reasonable doubt” evidentiary standard usually applies to criminal charges — and college tribunals are not criminal courts. Colleges can’t determine whether or not an assailant will go to prison. But they are required to keep students safe and promote equal access to education under Title IX, the civil rights law that secures nondiscrimination on the basis of sex or gender in federally funded educational programs. Sexual assault complaints are essentially civil rights disputes, and a preponderance of evidence standard is what is legally appropriate in civil rights cases.

Colleges shouldn’t adjudicate felonies. If a college suspects a felony has been committed, they should contact the police. College is not its own little pocket universe. A person kicked out of college for a “civil rights dispute” based on a woman saying “he raped me” will not be dealt with by the public as a “civil rights violator”; he will be regarded as a “rapist” without ever having received the benefit of the protections that defendants are entitled to before having that label attached to them (to use the subpoena power, to take depositions, to call witnesses in his own defense, to speak on his own behalf, to submit evidence in his own defense, and a neutral trier of fact).

Feminists are calling Brock Turner a rapist, even though he was never convicted of rape and did not commit rape as defined by the state of California (finger-popping is not sexual intercourse).

The preponderance of evidence standard is also survivor-centered. When judging whether someone has been raped, it’s almost impossible to assert that a sex act constituted violence “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Many survivors struggle to produce what campus hearing boards would consider evidence, especially when it comes to acquaintance- or date-based sexual assaults in which alcohol made it impossible for someone to physically resist. Sexual assaults also commonly occur away from third-party witnesses, limiting the potential for corroborating testimonies. Finally, trauma can make survivors seem disorganized to campus administrators who are untrained.

The standard for rape is not “violence beyond a reasonable doubt”; The standard at common law is sexual intercourse, obtained by force or coercion, and lack of consent by the victim. Physical resistance is not required to prove a rape.

The burden of proof affixed to a crime is typically commensurate with the weight of the crime and the severity of the penalty associated with the crime. A man is not carried off to prison when he is falsely accused of rape and kicked out of college, but feminists, as pointed out with Brock Turner above, have no problem playing fast and loose with the label of “rapist.” The ordinary person will not distinguish “rape as a civil rights violation” from “rape as a felony.” And that’s a problem. Even taking the typical penalty for rape off of the table doesn’t address the social stigma sufficiently to justify a reduced burden of proof.

The difficulty in providing hard evidence has long presented a devastating barrier for victims’ access to recourse and remedies, and it discouraged survivors from coming forward. The Obama administration responded to survivors’ needs by lowering the burden of proof necessary to gain access to institutional support. That more survivors than ever are reporting their sexual assaults to their universities shouldn’t lead us to the conclusion that more college students are being raped or that more students are lying — just that more feel comfortable coming forward.

Feminist Barbie: Evidence is harder than math.

Of course, being accused of sexual assault hurts. And there are things that we can and should do to help accused students — namely, providing them with psychological counsel. But accused men’s pain does not excuse rape, and men shouldn’t be the ones defining it. Most rapists, even those who have been criminally convicted, will never label themselves as such. More broadly, there is a tendency on the part of college-age men to define sexual assault according to their own standards, not according to campus guidelines.

Psychological counsel? Are you fucking kidding me? How about providing the accused with a lawyer, you miserable fucking assholes? How about protecting a man’s rights before torpedoing his college career and his reputation? It doesn’t matter whether or not a criminally-convicted rapist labels himself as such or if any felon personally rejects the idea that they are a felon. The law and the state have attached the label to him AFTER it overcame the presumption of his innocence and AFTER he had the opportunity to defend himself against being labeled as a rapist.

The ramifications of sexual assault are severe. Especially when they don’t receive services, survivors often experience post-traumatic stress, depression and suicidal ideation. They are at a higher risk of chronic health conditions, future sexual victimization and lowered academic achievement. Though they vary, the approximations of how many women have been sexually assaulted in college are always high.

That should be the education secretary’s biggest concern.

And the ramifications of a false accusation of rape are severe. The accused experience post-traumatic stress, depression, and ACTUAL suicide.

“Catherine Comins, assistant dean of student life at Vassar, also sees some value in this loose use of “rape.” She says angry victims of various forms of sexual intimidation cry rape to regain their sense of power. “To use the word carefully would be to be careful for the sake of the violator, and the survivors don’t care a hoot about him.” Comins argues that men who are unjustly accused can sometimes gain from the experience. “They have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration. ‘How do I see women?’ ‘If I didn’t violate her, could I have?’ ‘Do I have the potential to do to her what they say I did?’ Those are good questions.”

– Catherine Comins, assistant dean of student life at Vassar to Time Magazine, June 24, 2001

I add the Comins quote because it captures attitude of authors and of feminists in general: They do not give a damn about what happens to men. Despite the propaganda of women being more empathetic than men, these women don’t give a damn when an injustice is done to a man based on the word of a woman. They are silent when Brian Banks has his life destroyed based on a false accusation. They are silent when Emmett Till is murdered based on a false accusation. They are silent when Kevin Baruxes is thrown in prison for 7 years or when Howard Dudley is thrown in for 25 years.

As Comins states above and the authors intimate, Feminists don’t care about injustices done to men by women, they care about power.

This not an attitude unique to feminists. When men articulate their problems, concerns, or fears, they are answered, by women in general with standard feminist pablum about “women have it worse than men, so shut up” and “well, it’s ONLY 2-10% of false rape accusations, so shut up.”

The chance of being attacked by a shark are 1 in 11.5 million, but when the lifeguard spots a shark fin, everybody runs out of the water.

So I offer women the same thing Comins and the authors of this opinion offer when I see women suffer some injustice. When I read about “woman beaten by boyfriend” she should seek psychological counseling. When a woman gets raped, especially by an acquaintance or a date, it should “initiate a process of self-exploration” about what it is she finds so personally appealing about rapists. Woman gets killed by her boyfriend or husband, just like men should be taught not to rape, women should be taught not to fuck murderers.

Archived Source

Advertisements

FBI And Homeland Security Recognize Antifa as Domestic Terrorists

The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.

– Karl Marx, The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna

Yesterday, Politico published an article entitled, “FBI, Homeland Security warn of more ‘antifa’ attacks.”

The article cites internal government documents from April 2016, identifying Antifa as the primary instigators of violence at public rallies on various targets. This is a sensible conclusion. The German Antifa perfected this tactic as seen most notably in Leizpig where Antifa will arrive at demonstrations unmasked, blend into crowds before forming a “Black Bloc” and attacking their targets.

The “mostly peaceful”Progressive/Socialist demonstrators will never be forced to take responsibility for acting as a Trojan horse for Communist violence. Less than 5% of the participants in a “free speech” march bring NSDAP flags, and the whole thing is a “White supremacist rally.”

But, I digress.

The April 2016 documents also reported that federal law enforcement suspects that Antifa may begin bomb attacks similar to those committed by Communists in Greece, Italy, and Mexico.

Antifa is just another Communist movement, that has not yet flowered into full-blown terrorism, but they are inching ever-closer to that end. Antifa is the brainchild of German Communists who picked up their ideology from the Italian Autonomist movement.

Here are a few examples of where Communist “militancy” eventually end:

Action Directe

In 1977, Jean-Marc Rouillian, a French Marxist/Internationalist, created Action Directe for the purpose of carrying out, as the name suggests “direct action” (an anarcho-communist euphemism for political terrorism) in France. The group committed approximately 50 crimes, ranging from property destruction, to robbery, to murder before French authorities arrested and disbanded the group in 1987.

– May 1, 1979: Action Directe shoots up the headquarters of the CNPF (National Council of French Employers) in Paris.

– May 25, 1979: Action Directe bombs a real estate agency in Sceaux.

– March 16, 1980: Action Directe attacks the DST (Directorate of Territorial Surveillance) office in Paris.

– March 18, 1980: Action Directe shoots up the Ministry of Cooperation, hitting minister Robert Galley several times.

– August 2, 1984: Action Directe bombs the European Space Agency, wounding six.

– August 23, 1984: Action Directe leaves a 23-kg car bomb outside of the Western European Union office. Authorities defused the bomb before it detonated.

– January 25, 1985: Action Directe kills René Audran, Engineer-General of the Corps of Attainment, in front of his home.

– June 26, 1985: Action Directe attempts and fails to assassinate Henri Blandin, Comptroller-General of the military.

Japanese Red Army

In 1971, Shigenobu Fusako, founded the Nihon Sekigun, or the Japanese Red Army, after having been radicalized as a student at Meiji University. She traveled to Lebanon and allied with the Palestinian Liberation Front with the aim of creating a worldwide socialist revolution.

– May 30, 1972: Three members of JRA attack Lod Airport (now Ben-Gurion Airport) in Israel with guns and grenades, killing 26 people and wounding 80.

– July 20, 1973: Five JRA members hijack Japan Air Lines Flight 404 after takeoff from Schiphol.

– September 13, 1974: JRA members take the French ambassador and ten others hostage at The Hague, Netherlands.

– August 5, 1975: The JRA takes 50 hostages at the American Insurance Associates building in Kuala Lampur, Malaysia.

– August 11, 1976: JRA and PFLP members kill four people at Ataturk Airport in Istanbul, Turkey.

December 4, 1977: JRA hijacks and crashes Malaysian Airline System Flight 653, killing all passengers and crew aboard.

– April 12, 1988: A New Jersey State Trooper arrests JRA member Kikumura Yū on the New Jersey Turnpike with three pipebombs in his car.

– April 14, 1988: The JRA bombs a USO club in Naples, Italy, killing one and wounding four.

The Red Brigades

In 1970, Renato Curcio, Margherita Cagol, and Alberto Franceschini. Curcio and Cagol were radicalized at the University of Trento. Franceschini was the grandson of the founder of the Italian Communist Party. In the beginning, the Red Brigades satisfied themselves with industrial sabotage of factories in Milan and burglarizing factory and union offices. In 1972, the Red Brigade kidnapped a factory foreman and photographed him with a placard declaring him to be a “Nazi.” Despite the arrest of the founding members in 1974, they continued to direct terrorist activities to members outside of prison until 1988 when the majority of its members were either dead or in jail.

– April 18, 1974: The Red Brigades kidnaps Assistant State Attorney Mario Sossi.

– June 17, 1974: The Red Brigades attack the headquarters of the Italian Social Movement, killing two.

– November 16, 1977: The Red Brigades shoot and kill Carlo Casalegno, deputy editor of La Stampa, in Turin, Italy.

– March 16, 1978: The Red Brigades kidnap and murder Aldo Moro, president of the Christian Democratic Party, along with five of Moro’s bodyguards.

– May 20, 1981: The Red Brigades kidnap and murder, Giuseppe Taliercio, an chemical engineer and manager of Montedison.

The Red Army Faction

The Red Army Faction was a West German Communist militant group, originally supported by the East German Stasi (State Police). The group was inspired by various murdering “revolutionaries” such as Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, and Che Guevara, and based its thinking on the Italian Autonomism, as well as Gramscian and Frankfurt school culture criticism.

All of that “thinking” they imbibed led to them blowing up a lot of stuff, robbing a lot of places, and killing a lot of people.

The surviving members of the group rationalized their campaign of violence by arguing that former Nazis, real or perceived, were in positions of authority in Germany and came to the conclusion that any negative they saw in German society was akin to “Naziism.” There was also an element of “sinfulness” in their actions and the need to purge themselves of the taint of their parents’ sin of being Nazis, or complying with Nazi rule.

The fall of the Soviet Union and the reunification of Germany cut the RAF from its primary sources of funding. Many of the RAF members fled Germany with new identities, supplied by the Stasi in its last days, to Yugoslavia, Poland, and the Middle East.

– October 22, 1971: The RAF kills Sergeant Norbert Schmid.

– December 22, 1971: The RAF kills police officer Herbert Schoner during a bank robbery.

– May 11, 1972: The RAF kills US Army Lt. Paul A. Bloomquist in a bomb attack in Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

– May 24, 1972: The RAF kills three Army personnel in Heidelberg by bomb.

– April 24, 1975: The RAF kills two in an attack on the West German embassy in Stockholm, Sweden.

– April 7, 1977: The RAF kills Attorney-General of Germany Siegfried Buback by shooting into his car at a stoplight.

– July 30, 1977: The RAF kills Jürgen Ponto, chairman of Dresdner Bank, in the course of attempting to kidnap him.

As the above quote and history indicate, Communism is a political philosophy of unjustifiable political terrorism and all Communist movements eventually end up engaging in terrorism in service to it.

Antifa, and its various American organs and derivations, drink from the same philosophical well as Action Directe, the Japanese Red Army, the Red Brigades, and the Red Army Faction. They already have their justification in place when they giggle to each other about “Bash the Fash.”

It’s a short leap from beating a man in the name of politics, to killing him for his politics.

Source

Archived Source