Posted on | March 25, 2016 | 28 Comments
The thing about covering feminism is that craziness piles up so fast that it’s hard to keep up. No sooner do I get through with one wacko — recovering cocaine addict and topless Bernie Sanders supporter Tiernan Hebron — than someone calls my attention to another nutjob. Or two, as in the case of Katherine Marino and Jennifer Suchland, who are both professors of Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Ohio State University. In 2003, Professor Suchland co-authored a journal article entitled “Gender Violence And Hegemonic Projects”:
We discuss why re-thinking the relationship between gender violence and hegemonic projects is important for feminist theory and activism. Moving beyond the narrow, representational approach to ‘violence against women’, we argue that the hegemonic projects of the state are constituted through gender violence. Rather than an effect of power, gender violence is thus instrumental to the very operations and existence of hegemonic projects. We insert the contributing essays within this framework, elucidating their examination of three key issues: (1) how hegemonic discourses operate through gendered violence; (2) how dominant political institutions, ideas and discourses determine what ‘counts’ as gender violence; and (3) how responses to gender violence engage metanarratives about gender, race, class and nation/state, both resisting and sustaining hegemonic projects.
Here’s a concept: “Word salad.” Look it up.
Professor Marino’s Ph.D. dissertation at Stanford was entitled “La Vanguardia Feminista: Pan-American Feminism and the Rise of International Women’s Rights, 1915-1946.”
Obviously, the taxpayers of Ohio and the parents who pay tuition to send their kids to OSU are getting their money’s worth from these two.
When they’re not busy spewing gibberish about “hegemonic discourses” or La Vanguardia Feminista, however, these OSU professors like to talk about rape, which is the subject of their Ms. magazine article, “4 (Intersectional!) Ways to Stop Campus Sexual Assault.” Professor Marino and Professor Suchland assert that ending the scourge of rape on university campuses will require “challenging binary understandings of ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’ that justify the beating up of genderqueer students and that sanction men’s sexual access to female bodies”:
Universities should broaden prevention strategies beyond the current focus on individual behavior . . . to include structural ways that the campus recognizes gender, sexual and racial diversity. For example, in order to combat the persistent harassment and violence that genderqueer and trans students face in gender-segregated bathrooms, universities should prioritize providing gender-neutral restrooms around campus. Campuses could also diversify student-housing options for LGBTQ students and provide readily accessible counseling and health services that include counselors who are not only attuned to the needs of a diverse student population, but who also reflect that diversity themselves. . . .
Curricula should also address intersectional approaches to sexual violence. . . . It is not a radical idea to require students to take courses that would deepen their grasp of sexual violence, racialized sexual violence, and violence against LGBT, non-cisgender, and differently abled people.
So, professors of Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies want to require students to take courses which sound very much like the courses taught in the department of Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies.
Here’s a concept: “Rent-seeking.” Look it up.
It might be too much to ask for actual data regarding (a) the number of “genderqueer and trans students” attending U.S. colleges and universities, and (b) how many “LGBTQ students” are victims of sexual assault as compared to, y’know, the typical male/female drunk hookup scenario. Because while I’m not sure exactly how “binary understandings of ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’ . . . sanction men’s sexual access to female bodies,” I know for a fact that more than 100 male students have sued their universities saying they were falsely accused of sexual assault and denied due process in campus disciplinary tribunals. Perhaps I am not “attuned to the needs of a diverse student population,” but it seems to me that heterosexual male students are being systematically demonized by the “hegemonic discourses” of the kind of feminism promoted by professors of Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies.
Here’s a concept: “Rape hoax.” Look it up.
— Return Of Kings (@ReturnOfKings) January 24, 2016
— SteveStewartWilliams (@SteveStuWill) January 8, 2016
(Hat-tip: @g56yu on Twitter.)
The young woman who was the central figure in Rolling Stone’s discredited story about a fraternity party gang rape is locked in a heated standoff with a University of Virginia dean seeking to depose her for a defamation suit against the magazine. . . .
The article made national headlines first as a shocking example of campus sexual violence and then as a journalism scandal when its central claims unraveled and Rolling Stone retracted it with an apology to readers.
Lawyers for “Jackie”, the anonymous protagonist of the article, are battling efforts by UVA associate dean of students Nicole Eramo to question her about what she told the magazine.
Ms. Eramo is suing the magazine over how it portrayed her in the story. The story, according to her defamation suit, cast her as “the chief villain” and falsely asserted that she discouraged Jackie from reporting her alleged gang rape to protect the reputation of UVA. . . .
Attorneys for Ms. Eramo, in a court filing Tuesday stated they have every right to want to question her:
The bottom line is that, as the Court has already held, Jackie is a highly relevant witness in this action. Rolling Stone published a completely false story alleging that Jackie was gang raped as part of a fraternity hazing ritual, and claiming that Dean Eramo sought to cover up and suppress Jackie’s supposed assault. The apparent source for virtually all of these falsehoods was Jackie, and therefore Jackie’s credibility — and whether Rolling Stone acted negligently or recklessly in printing what Jackie told them — are key issues in the case.
The filing says Jackie and her attorneys have “never offered any affirmative evidence or facts whatsoever to substantiate the claim that Jackie was a victim of a sexual assault,” noting that police in Charlottesville, Va. said last year that they found no evidence to support the rape claims made in the magazine.