The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

The Low-Hanging Fruit of Feminism

Posted on | February 9, 2015 | 98 Comments

Andrea Grimes (@andreagrimes) used to be a pro-life Christian, until she went to college: “Suddenly: I was the dirty, filthy slut. I was the horny bitch.” By 2009, she had apparently contracted human papillomavirus (HPV) which resulted in cervical dysplasia — “atypical squamous cells” — a potentially pre-cancerous condition that required $5,000 in treatment.

This biographical background about Andrea Grimes is prelude to this: Did you know Columbia University has something with the Orwellian name of “Office of Gender-Based and Sexual Misconduct”? I did not know this until I read Cathy Young’s article at the Daily Beast describing Paul Nungesser’s nightmare as the Columbia student accused of raping feminist Emma Sulkowicz. The Daily Beast article spurred a lot of screeching from feminists last week, with Julie Zeilinger ranting about “a disheartening ignorance . . . gender stereotypes . . . idealized virginal purity and simplified fallacies.” It seems that the one possible explanation no feminist can accept in cases like this is the most obvious explanation: “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.”

The source of that saying, William Congreve, was probably a sexist pig, but (a) he’s been dead nearly 400 years, and (b) it’s true.

It is possible (although not necessary) to speculate what actually transpired between Nungesser and Sulkowicz on the night of Aug. 27, 2012. Both parties agree that they had sex, but Sulkowicz claims Nungesser began “choking and hitting her and then penetrated her anally while she struggled and screamed in pain.” Nungesser says none of the choking, hitting or screaming occurred, and that everything was consensual, including the anal penetration. It was more than six months later, in spring 2013, that Sulkowicz went to the aforementioned Office of Gender-Based and Sexual Misconduct, claiming Nungesser had raped her. In between, however, there were friendly communications between Nungesser and Sulkowicz — reproduced verbatim in Cathy Young’s article — that certainly seem sufficient as exculpatory evidence, considering that there is absolutely zero evidence to support Sulkowicz’s version of the story. Furthermore, it appears that Sulkowicz decided to accuse Nungesser of rape only after Sulkowicz talked to a girl who had been Nungesser’s girlfriend during their freshman year. After comparing notes, we might imagine, the two of them concluded that Nungesser was a selfish creep and (this being the Rape Culture Era) that they were victims of sexual assault. Nungesser was ultimately exonerated, which feminists say is an injustice, but to repeat: There was zero evidence against him.

And now it’s time to hear from Andrea Grimes:

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: But what if she’s lying?
That’s the gist of yet another take on yet another high-profile rape case, this time in the Daily Beast, whose writer Cathy Young trotted it out as the least counterintuitive of all possible premises when it comes to sexual violence. . . .

(Much ranting about victimhood and then . . .)

But there is patriarchy. A perfect, many-armed monster, which lives and thrives in this perfect universe of its own design. And it wields the perfect weapon: rape culture.
The longer we wait for the perfect case to try in the court of public opinion, the more opportunities this many-armed monster has to craft its ongoing attack on justice, to perpetuate a culture of shame and skepticism that silences those who would challenge it.
The monster is smart, and it knows where and when to hide and when to strike. Of course it does. The world is its playground, its lair, a welcoming cavern outfitted with comforting amenities like the phrase, But what if she’s lying. . . .
The monster moves with a kind of vicious grace, countering every attack with cool, collected reserve. Just, you know, asking honest, innocent questions: Why was she wearing that skirt? What was she doing out so late? . . . Why did they have so much to drink? Why did they keep dating? What’s up with those text messages?
Couldn’t it all just have been … a misunderstanding?

You can read the whole thing, if you care to see what kind of paranoid rationalizations feminists use when “the perfect case” they were attempting to “try in the court of public opinion” turns out to be no case at all. Rape is a serious crime, a felony, and given what we now know about the Nungesser case, he could not possibly be convicted of rape in a criminal court. If he cannot be proven guilty of a crime, how can Columbia University justify disciplinary punishment against Nungesser for “Gender-Based and Sexual Misconduct” which he denies and which his accusers cannot prove?

Exactly what system would this “dirty, filthy slut” Andrea Grimes wish to substitute for the due-process protections guaranteed by our Constitution to those accused of crimes? Exactly how is any male supposed to protect himself against the possibility of what we shall henceforth call the Sulkowicz Scenario, the casual sex partner who retroactively decides that an unhappy hookup was rape? Let us stipulate, arguendo, that Nungesser is a Bad Boyfriend and not very thoughtful or considerate as a sex partner. This does not make him a criminal, and trying to brand such a person a rapist is an act of spiteful vengeance.

Alas, if it weren’t for spiteful vengeance, there would be no feminist movement, inventing scapegoats — the “perfect, many-armed monster” of patriarchy — to exempt foolish women from responsibility for their own bad decisions. In the feminist worldview, all women are victimized by all men, so that the only question is how to inflict on men the punishment they deserve, for the crime of being male.



98 Responses to “The Low-Hanging Fruit of Feminism”

  1. RS
    February 10th, 2015 @ 11:52 am

    Indeed. As P.J. O’Rourke once quipped, “the Sexual Revolution is over. The microbes won.”

  2. Jim R
    February 10th, 2015 @ 11:53 am

    What IS the legal recourse for a person who’s been “convicted” by one of these campus kangaroo courts?

  3. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    February 10th, 2015 @ 11:55 am
  4. RS
    February 10th, 2015 @ 11:56 am

    Suits under Title IX and the 14th Amendment and 28 USC 1983 for violating due process under color of state law which is applicable to public universities and those which take federal education dollars. There are also state remedies for defamation as well as due process violations.

  5. RS
    February 10th, 2015 @ 11:59 am

    Actually, it’s not that draconian. It’s very simple: Don’t go to a girl’s room. Don’t invite a girl to your room. Engage in those old-fashioned courtship rituals which feminists decry. Don’t engage in premarital sex. Don’t place yourself in a position where the accusations are easy to make. (And, as I added to my college aged son, “Find your wife at church, not in a bar.”

  6. Gunga
    February 10th, 2015 @ 12:22 pm

    That comment is rape…no tap-backs…

  7. Lee Also
    February 10th, 2015 @ 12:25 pm

    I do think it’d be a good idea for young men to make sure they’re never alone with a women. I saw “Oleanna.”

  8. Eidolon
    February 10th, 2015 @ 12:42 pm

    Another possibility is that they deliberately choose weak cases so as to have something to agitate about. Consider:

    Girl goes back to dorm room, guy throws her down and rapes her forcefully. She has pictures of the bruises, and contemporaneous accounts from friends and family. Goes after him for rape.

    What’s the likely outcome? Speedy trial, likely conviction. What’s left to agitate about? How can we blame the patriarchy for rape culture if it efficiently puts the offender in jail?

    On the other hand, you can use mattress girl forever, because the cops will never prosecute. It’s the Michael Brown/Trayvon Martin strategy: pick a loser of a case so you can demonstrate how “the system” is against you.

  9. Adobe_Walls
    February 10th, 2015 @ 1:00 pm

    In neither of the cases you’ve cited is the false accuser or the media personalities helping to perpetrate the hoax suffering in any way, least of all in any court including the court of public opinion. If any thing the fact these case are proven to indeed be hoaxes seems to add to their stature. In fact those who endeavor to expose the the truth are berated as the villains. In the UVA case if anyone winds up in court it won’t be the lying coed or Rolling Stone but more likely the university. The only punishment meted out thus far has been the ”collective punishment” suffered by the entirely innocent fraternities.

  10. Matt_SE
    February 10th, 2015 @ 1:01 pm

    In the same way that poverty is never eliminated, educational attainment never improves, racism is never wiped out, etc.
    Things have gotten so “bad” for the SJWs that they had to invent the micro-aggression movement so they could MANUFACTURE outrages!

  11. ExiledOnMainStreet
    February 10th, 2015 @ 1:07 pm

    When I was in college in the late ’70’s, I remember some kids being homesick and others (like me) exulting in our newfound freedom (until we received our first grades, and were sharply reminded that while, yes, we were free to hang out in the student union and drink beer every night instead of going to the library and hitting the books, there were consequences if we didn’t buckle down.) I don’t remember people having severe mental health issues, but of course, that doesn’t mean they didn’t occur. Like most 18 year olds, I was self-absorbed and so maybe I didn’t notice it.

    However, I wonder if the fact that so many kids are so sheltered these days – as many of us born before, say 1970, know, those long summer days spent roaming and exploring the world without any adult supervision whatsoever are long gone- has something to do with the seemingly increased frequency of those who fall apart the first time they’re away from Mom and Dad. College students today seem to have nervous breakdowns over things I would have thought completely trivial and so the ThoughtPolice work overtime to make sure nobody’s “offended.”

    Because that’s the main purpose of college these days: Let’s make sure everyone has a nice time and nobody is offended. Well, except for white males, conservatives and Christianists, that goes without saying.

  12. arcadius
    February 10th, 2015 @ 1:11 pm

    SJWs don’t want to stop oppression any more than a mechanic wants to stop cars from breaking down.

  13. arcadius
    February 10th, 2015 @ 1:13 pm

    Hmm, so is he /she a victim now?

  14. arcadius
    February 10th, 2015 @ 1:14 pm

    Her choice of the word “therapeutic” was probably a bit more revealing than she intended.

  15. ExiledOnMainStreet
    February 10th, 2015 @ 1:21 pm

    Andrea Grimes is the personification of what every Christian pro-life parent fears when they send their child to a secular college: that the beliefs and values you’ve worked hard to instill in your kid will be swept away by radical instructors who, to an unworldly 18 year old’s eye, seem much smarter and more sophisticated than mom and dad. You send your darling daughter off to school to get an education and she returns to you an angry indoctrinated harpy.

  16. Quartermaster
    February 10th, 2015 @ 1:23 pm

    Often there are red flags waving before you send her off. I saw them with my daughter, but she had already reached the point where she thought mom and dad were idiots that wanted to keep her from having a little fun before she died.

  17. Adobe_Walls
    February 10th, 2015 @ 1:23 pm

    I wonder what happens when a university cites the coercion from the education and justice departments as a defense in these cases.

  18. Quartermaster
    February 10th, 2015 @ 1:26 pm

    I denounce Zohydro for it. He made me do it.

  19. ExiledOnMainStreet
    February 10th, 2015 @ 1:28 pm

    My sympathies. Of course, she might wise up eventually. I was a liberal at age 20 and a conservative by age 31 or 32 so these things are never set in stone.

  20. trangbang68
    February 10th, 2015 @ 1:34 pm

    Homie raped himself, pulled an act of auto-Lorena Bobbittism .. Pity the fool. Can we have this be declared a capitol offense? Take the rest of his pathetic self to the city dump with the departed Johnson?

  21. Dana
    February 10th, 2015 @ 1:47 pm

    At which point he said, “Well, Dad, can I at least look for girlfriends at bars?” 🙂

    Maybe the University of Missouri’s most famous grad, Michael Sam, was just trying to avoid women trouble?

  22. Dana
    February 10th, 2015 @ 1:51 pm

    There is just so much potential for karmic justice here . . . .

  23. Dana
    February 10th, 2015 @ 1:53 pm

    The only question being: how much harm shall befall her before she wises up?

  24. Ba-bye, Rosie O’Donnell… Again | Regular Right Guy
    February 10th, 2015 @ 2:28 pm

    […] The Low-Hanging Fruit of Feminism […]

  25. Jeanette Victoria
    February 10th, 2015 @ 2:32 pm

    Please add NEVER EVER be alone with a single woman. Chaperones do indeed have value!

  26. Southern Air Pirate
    February 10th, 2015 @ 2:39 pm

    Actually unless you specify that you be tested for HPV there is a chance that you have it or one of your 6 degrees of separation has it. The CDC estimation say that 1 in 6 has one version or another of the HPV. So most of the time doctors and labs dont test for this disease because it is so prelevent in the population and the low rates of those with the versions that actually cause cancer or some warts. It just isn’t cost effective.

    Quick tangential discussion about the anti-vax charges against the GOP. Some of that is tied directly to the idea that some feminists are pushing where it should be mandatory by 12 (or whatever the latest social philosophy studies say is the current young age of sex) in girls. The GOP and conservatives have pushed back on this. That it should be a voluntary not mandatory vaccine. Note that Guardasil the current HPV vaccine protects against 3 of the 170 different strains and specifically 3 of the 30 different associated with cancer. Not against the one that causes warts nor against the ones that cause cold sores. So it’s really not a major game changer in the realm of sex nor protection from the other issues of sex. That said the feminists view this attempts to shut down the Guardasil as an answer is evil and corrupt and further evidence of the patriarchal oppressors. Other SJWs who believe in Scientism have taken and spun the idea that being anti mandatory a vaccine like Guardasil is anti vaccines all the way. Hence the debate and argument with the GOP canidates about vaccines in the last few months.

  27. Dana
    February 10th, 2015 @ 3:00 pm

    I was being considered as a bone marrow donor, and they ran a very thorough medical panel on me. Turned out that I wasn’t the closest match.

  28. Durasim
    February 10th, 2015 @ 3:49 pm

    He/she/it wants to resume estrogen treatments so he/she/it can get pregnant.

  29. Kirby McCain
    February 10th, 2015 @ 4:58 pm

    Women make bad decisions? Do tell.

  30. SouthOhioGipper
    February 10th, 2015 @ 6:47 pm

    Umm.. no. I’d rather just take the risk of a rape charge than enter into institutional slavery to a woman just for sex. I don’t need a woman for anything else.

  31. Finrod Felagund
    February 10th, 2015 @ 6:49 pm

    I’m told the Rev. Billy Graham would always have an assistant with him so he was never alone in a room with a young woman, so there could never be even a suggestion of impropriety.

  32. RS
    February 10th, 2015 @ 6:54 pm

    With Columbia mattress person, the accused is back in Germany. He was exonerated by Columbia, so there’s no cause of action there against the college. With respect to the alleged “victim,” he admits he had anal sex with her. Defamation wouldn’t be a very good case because he admits the main portion of her story, to wit, the sex. That’s the point. If she had made up the whole encounter and it could be proven that it was a fabrication, it’s a different story.

    As to UVA, there a suits pending or contemplated. Public Opinion is not the same as a jury verdict, which will have to play out. The problem there is that she fabricated the actual “boyfriend” who facilitated this. Whether the fraternity in question has causes of action is another matter.

    Again, the point is a complete fabrication, i.e. where no sexual contact occurred, constructed from whole cloth, carries the potential for substantial penalties. That’s why my original comment was to recommend the young men return to the era of Victorian mores.

  33. Zohydro
    February 10th, 2015 @ 7:00 pm

    Riiiiight… Next you’ll be telling us you experimented with tobacco and watched TV whilst at university!

  34. RS
    February 10th, 2015 @ 7:00 pm

    Also, merely making a report of a crime–where the half the crime’s corpus, i.e. the sex–occurred is not enough for criminal liability for a false report. The sex part was not fabricated, because the alleged perp admitted it. Thus, the dispute was about consent, which is highly subjective. People are charged on the basis of police reports all the time and are acquitted. The complaining witness never faces sanction unless the report is a complete fabrication. (Motive to lie, BTW, is nice to show, but it’s never an element of a crime.)

    If, however, she had made a completely fabricated report and it was shown to be so, that’s another story. Again, that’s why I said it’s wise for young men in college to avoid recreational hook-ups.

  35. Adobe_Walls
    February 10th, 2015 @ 7:24 pm

    Proving the negative i.e. the fabrication would be just as difficult and the police would be reluctant to bother is as difficult as proving the original charge.

  36. Adobe_Walls
    February 10th, 2015 @ 7:44 pm

    The ”potential for substantial penalties.” in this case is largely theoretical. The Charlottesville police are certainly not going to go that route absent intense public pressure. Columbia reached the correct conclusion so their obviously off the hook. The fraternity could but probably won’t sue the university. Mattress girl is a feminist hero, the UVA hoaxer ”brought awareness” to an important issue, Rolling Stone and it’s lying reporter had to make some lame apology for the way they ”brought awareness” to an important issue and are feminist heroes. Non of the actual perps in either of these cases have been sanctioned . For them what was/is the repercussions for lying? Not even opprobrium let alone sanctions.

  37. kilo6
    February 10th, 2015 @ 8:19 pm
  38. Dana
    February 10th, 2015 @ 8:45 pm

    I did watch television, and I used to set tobacco on my Uncle Joe’s farms, but that’s as much experimenting as I did with it; I never smoked.

  39. The Low-Hanging Fruit of Feminism | That Mr. G Guy's Blog
    February 10th, 2015 @ 9:10 pm

    […] The Low-Hanging Fruit of Feminism. […]

  40. tricknologist
    February 10th, 2015 @ 9:18 pm

    There’s also the fact that if they use genuine cases of actual rape, then they could be accused of “racism”, if DOJ statistics are to be believed.

    Since apparently the most pandered too minority in the country commits a grossly disproportianate amount of rapes.

    They need the rapists to be the right color to fit the narrative.

  41. TheAmishDude
    February 10th, 2015 @ 9:31 pm

    “Rape culture” is the subject and college campuses are the venue because the demographics of rape are decidedly politically incorrect.

  42. Nichole
    February 11th, 2015 @ 5:00 am

    Shop beautiful bags/handbags at 65% off!

    JUST CLICK ==>>L0UIS /UITT0N Online Outlet

  43. RS
    February 11th, 2015 @ 10:55 am

    DOE and DOJ letters of “advice” do not trump enacted law.

  44. Adobe_Walls
    February 11th, 2015 @ 12:38 pm

    True but these institution’s funding was threatened plus the implicit threat of investigation and civil suits. This smacks of coercion. As a defense it might not be effective but it would be enlightening.

  45. Robert What?
    February 11th, 2015 @ 7:48 pm

    Can any one tell me where I can get in on this Patriarchy thing I’m supposed to be enjoying? Is there a secret password or handshake or something?

  46. Daniel Freeman
    February 12th, 2015 @ 2:28 am

    In this case, it’s a hermaphrodite — what is now called “intersex” — so he doesn’t need any surgery to be a she. You should really read the article. It’s effed up.

  47. Daniel Freeman
    February 12th, 2015 @ 2:36 am

    No, all you have to do is treat life like a game instead of a minefield: venture forth, and bounce back from setbacks with lessons learned and more determination. The Patriarchy doesn’t actually do anything for you except equip you with the right attitude for doing for yourself. You’ve probably already received your membership benefits without even noticing.

  48. Robert What?
    February 12th, 2015 @ 4:25 pm

    But what about the secret handshake? Can’t we have a secret handshake?