The Other McCain

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

Feminists Are Raping Journalism

Posted on | August 4, 2015 | 49 Comments

Rolling Stone‘s UVA rape hoax continues to echo in discussions of the legal and cultural consequences of bad journalism:

Tamara Tabo is a summa cum laude graduate of the Thurgood Marshall School of Law at Texas Southern University, where she served as Editor-in-Chief of the school’s law review. After graduation, she clerked on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. She currently heads the Center for Legal Pedagogy at Texas Southern University, an institute applying cognitive science to improvements in legal education.

Ms. Tabo’s impeccable credentials are relevant to her blistering critique of the media’s irresponsible coverage of “rape culture”:

What is surprising is, even after the Rolling Stone debacle, how many dubious beliefs persist about women who allege that they have been sexually assaulted, the men those women accuse, and how the media reports on it. . . .
The folks at Rolling Stone were apparently so afraid of throwing shade on a woman who claims to have been raped that they were tripping over themselves to seem as sensitive as possible, even once her story began to crumble. . . .
When men say that it doesn’t matter whether a woman is telling the truth about a sexual assault because what really matters is the “big issue,” those men have internalized their own oppression too. They’ve adopted the attitude that any harms done by a woman lying about a rape are not important. They’ve bought into the lie that “good guys” continue to focus on the suffering of women, even when facts suggest that a woman has inflicted suffering on men she has falsely accused.
A man blaming “campus rape culture” or “the patriarchy” or whatever instead of blaming an alleged rape victim whose story unravels is no more noble than a woman telling another woman that she must have been “asking for it” if she was raped.
How many false gang-rape allegations need to happen before everybody cultivates some healthy skepticism?

(Hat-tip: Instapundit.) The astonishing thing is how, despite the clear evidence that the “campus rape epidemic” is non-existent (i.e., sexual assault has actually declined signifcantly in the past two decades) and despite indications that feminists have created a witch-hunt climate that has produced numerous false accusations, we see lawmakers and university officials acting as if there really is such an “epidemic.”

If there is an epidemic of anything on campus, it’s a Binge Drinking epidemic, which leads to a Bad Sex epidemic, and that in turn has created a Maybe My Bad Drunk Sex Was Rape epidemic. It is ridiculous to expect teenage college kids to responsibly negotiate “affirmative consent” after they’ve been doing tequila shots all night.

In October 2014, before the Rolling Stone hoax, but after Jesse Matthew had been arrested in the murder of UVA student Hanna Graham, the feminist “rape culture” discourse was critiqued by Heather MacDonald. She quoted a Duke University coed who had described to Laura Sessions Stepp the morning-after reaction to a typical drunken hook-up: “You roll over the next morning so horrified at what you find next to you that you scream.” It is this reaction, I believe, which provides the emotional energy behind the “campus rape epidemic” hysteria.

Robert Tracinski has suggested that “the emotional dark side of promiscuity” is a major factor in this phony crisis. I’ve made this point more bluntly: “Why Do Drunk Sluts Get Drunk?” Alcohol can function as moral anesthetia that suppresses the qualms of conscience, enabling people to overcome their inhibitions and do bad things they want to do, but would have difficulty doing if they were sober. When they wake up with a hangover, they are overcome with a sense of shame about their drunken revelry, which they may barely remember.

Given the prevalence of the Bad Drunk Sex phenomenon on our college campuses, how are we to discern the difference between the roll-over-and-scream morning-after remorse reaction and actual incidents of sexual assault? In a he-said/she-said scenario, is there no room for skepticism? Must we cast aside all doubt and embrace policies that effectively void the due process rights of male students who are accused under such circumstances? Is it too much to expect female students to stay sober, keep their britches on and avoid the situations in which these incidents typically occur? We know that feminists don’t give a damn about facts, but must we allow these unscrupulous ideologues to destroy what little credibility still remains in the news media?


This is part of the Sex Trouble series, which has been funded by contributions from readers. Your support is deeply appreciated.



49 Responses to “Feminists Are Raping Journalism”

  1. joethefatman
    August 4th, 2015 @ 10:54 am

    “In a he-said/she-said scenario, is there no room for skepticism?”

    Not unless you’re willing to be pilloried as a heretic.

  2. texlovera
    August 4th, 2015 @ 10:56 am

    “moral anesthetic”.

    Yep. And it has been for millenia…

  3. PCachu
    August 4th, 2015 @ 11:28 am

    To be fair, whenever it’s around feminists, journalism does tend to get all “tarted up” and dress in a manner most would regard as “provocative” with a very short skirt. Basically the same way it tends to dress around most (D)s, really.

  4. Dana
    August 4th, 2015 @ 11:30 am

    Our esteemed host wrote:

    Given the prevalence of the Bad Drunk Sex phenomenon on our college campuses, how are we to discern the difference between the roll-over-and-scream morning-after remorse reaction and actual incidents of sexual assault? In a he-said/she-said scenario, is there no room for skepticism? Must we cast aside all doubt and embrace policies that effectively void the due process rights of male students who are accused under such circumstances?

    That’s the problem: with the standard of proof being guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the feminists believe that many, if not the majority, of actual rapists get away with it, because he said/she said is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Thus, they want a different standard, one in which the alleged victim’s word is given sufficient legal weight that the complaint itself is sufficient for conviction absent proof beyond a reasonable doubt that her story was false. That won’t happen under the law, but it can be made to happen in college disciplinary hearings.

    One might ask here why the feminists are so little concerned with women who don’t go to college, but they’re just convenience store clerks and laundresses, and don’t really count to the elites.

    Is it too much to expect female students to stay sober, keep their britches on and avoid the situations in which these incidents typically occur?

    Why, of course that’s too much to expect, and you are a victim-blaming cisheterosexist patriarchist pig for even thinking that! You should be ashamed of yourself, and I hereby denounce you!

  5. Dana
    August 4th, 2015 @ 11:33 am

    If you exhibit skepticism, you are a rape-apologist, trying to help a real rapist get away with his horrible crime!

  6. Hillary: Yes, Dorothy, There is an Oz | Regular Right Guy
    August 4th, 2015 @ 11:35 am

    […] Feminists Are Raping Journalism […]

  7. RS
    August 4th, 2015 @ 11:40 am

    “Journalism,” as we knew it or believed it to be, has gone the way of all flesh. That is, it is no longer about obtaining facts and reporting them dispassionately. Rather, journalism is now an endless series of moral crusades, where the “morality” has been determined not by transcendent references, but by Leftist “utopiaphiles.” Certainly, there have always been exaggerated and sensational less-than accurate narratives in the past, but those were designed to sell papers and make money for the publishers. Now, the purpose is different, but no less whorish.

  8. RS
    August 4th, 2015 @ 11:46 am

    The irony is, in attempting to gain “power” by controlling their sexuality for their own pleasure, they have ceded that power which they heretofore possessed. A woman used to guard her virtue and society supported her. That virtue, the feminists believed, was weakness and prevented women from being truly equal. Now they are equal in our society of due process and burdens of proof with respect to sexuality and they have no power.

    Consider, a hundred years ago, if a woman accused a man if improprieties and her virtue was known, she would be automatically believed. Today, women’s virtues are a day-to-day thing and therefore, they are not automatically believed. (Nor should they be.) “Equality” is a cruel master/mistress sometimes.

  9. Jeanette Victoria
    August 4th, 2015 @ 2:19 pm

    The latest BIG non-story evil trophy hunter killing “one of God’s creatures.” But killing live born babies and selling them, no such outrage. This is the evil fruit of feminism and the female vote has given us. Look at this sissified man Twitter post. I past being disgusted.

  10. DeadMessenger
    August 4th, 2015 @ 2:24 pm

    And I’d argue that group dynamics also provide moral anesthesia, as does allowing one’s brain to turn to oatmeal through lack of exercise.

  11. DeadMessenger
    August 4th, 2015 @ 2:26 pm

    Journalism doesn’t just stop there, either. It rips its bodice and allows upskirt photos, too.

  12. Dana
    August 4th, 2015 @ 2:39 pm

    “Equality” has a price, but the price is just as often paid by someone other than the person demanding it.

    The demands for equality in the workplace came from the professional women, the ones who were making careers for themselves. But it couldn’t be kept just to them; the ability to work soon became the need to work, and that became true for the convenience store clerks and laundresses and waitresses as well as the corporate attorneys.

    People wonder, “Why can’t a man support an entire family anymore?” The answer is women’s liberation and the civil rights acts. Prior to those, white men were all, in effect, unionized; with all but the worst jobs closed to all but white men, white men had to be paid enough to support a family, or the employer couldn’t retain them. Once the workforce was really opened to blacks and women, the number of available workers expanded much more rapidly than the demand for labor, bringing down everyone’s wages. More, since women were now entering the workforce in large numbers, men no longer had to be able to support the whole family; it was only necessary that a husband and wife, together, could support the family.

  13. DeadMessenger
    August 4th, 2015 @ 2:40 pm

    Hunting babies in the womb is probably more up Drew’s alley. What a girlie-man.

  14. Art Deco
    August 4th, 2015 @ 2:53 pm

    “You roll over the next morning so horrified at what you find next to you that you scream.”

    What’s next to you is another human being, and that in and of itself is not horrifying. Neither is what you remember of the previous night. That might disgust you, but screams are not a common response to disgust.

  15. Mike G.
    August 4th, 2015 @ 3:09 pm

    I believe that was hyperbole. Haven’t you ever been so drunk and hooked up with a girl and the next morning you wanted to chew your arm off to keep from waking her up? It’s called a ” Coyote Date.”

  16. Dana
    August 4th, 2015 @ 3:19 pm

    No, I haven’t.

    I really haven’t copulated with that many women, but the ones with whom I did get lucky were all pretty cute. 🙂

    I figure if you were really so drunk that you picked up a beast, you wouldn’t be able to do all that much with her anyway.

  17. Dana
    August 4th, 2015 @ 3:20 pm

    I think that it means, for the LUGs, that they woke up next to a man and not a woman.

  18. Art Deco
    August 4th, 2015 @ 3:54 pm

    No it is not, because hyperbole instructs by emphasizing tones and features present. Her description is false in and of itself and cannot be rendered illustrative of anything but her own disordered sensibilities.

    Haven’t you ever been

    I’m vaguely amused at people who seem to think decadence is not only normal, but well-nigh universal. I did not grow up in a Victorian era, or even in the world of my parents, where a certain panache and reserve was standard practice. Even so, what you describe was not normal in my social circle. People paired off and limited their sexual escapades to their steady (of which there was a discrete number).

  19. Art Deco
    August 4th, 2015 @ 3:56 pm

    Ha ha. Actually, I’ll wager it’s a common feminine attitude in our time about males who are not high-status. It is neither graceful nor appealing.

  20. Art Deco
    August 4th, 2015 @ 4:04 pm

    Um, no. Union penetration was at it’s apogee in 1955, at which time about 28% of the workforce belonged to unions.

    About a quarter of the non-agricultural workforce was female in 1930 and about a third was in 1957. The notion that women were sequestered prior to Betty Friedan hitting the town is nonsense. As most women in 1955 were married by their 21st birthday, you can guess that these working women were not, by and large, single or widowed. As marital attrition rates were such that you might expect 20% of marriages to end in divorce, you can guess they were not divorcees either.

    What’s changed since the 1950s would be the range of professional-managerial employments which do not have effective hire bars to female aspirants and the marital state of women in the professional managerial sector. As a college student ca. 1950, my mother had a mess of female professors. Just about every last one was a spinster. It was the common assumption at that time and place that professional women were celibates. The law firm my parents made occasional use of had a female partner, admitted to the New York bar in 1928. Same deal for her.

  21. Art Deco
    August 4th, 2015 @ 4:07 pm

    While we’re at it, professional-managerial employments account for about 13% of the labor force. In the wage earning sector, trade employments are still almost exclusively male and clerical employments are female outside retail trade. There is not much ‘discrimination’ incorporated into that (though there is some). The last two companies I worked for had almost no men employed in the personnel office – and almost no women in any trade occupation except for a few IT techs.

  22. Dana
    August 4th, 2015 @ 4:46 pm

    I suppose that I wasn’t clear enough. When I wrote that “Prior to those, white men were all, in effect, unionized; with all but the worst jobs closed to all but white men,” I meant that most decent jobs were, in effect, a closed shop, limited to white men.

    Unions work by limiting the available labor force for a particular company or industry to union members; this forces wages higher by limiting the supply of labor vis a vis the demand for labor. When only white men were eligible for most good jobs, that also limited the supply of labor with respect to demand for it. I wasn’t trying to say that all white men were officially in unions, but that the restriction operated in the same manner.

  23. Art Deco
    August 4th, 2015 @ 5:22 pm

    When only white men were eligible for most good jobs,

    Salaried employments in 1955 were seldom if ever subject to collective bargaining.

    It’s not clear what you mean by ‘all but the worst jobs’ in a workforce wherein nearly 40% of the jobs would have been held by women or by non-white men (overwhelmingly black at the time). While we’re at it, sectors where you had industry-wide master contracts (e.g. autos) did in fact have a black work force.

    Labor force participation has fluctuated less than is commonly believed. In 1948, about 59% of those over the age of 15 were in the work force. In 2005, the figure was 66%. The share of income repairing to labor has varied between 60 and 70% over the last 80-odd years. Given that per capita income has about trebled since 1948, I would be quite skeptical of the notion that male wage earners have suffered such an absolute injury from changing patterns of labor force participation or unionization and its demise to account for the decline of single-earner families (even were the decline as radical as is often imagined). People’s changing preferences about how to order their life and spend their time need to be considered.

  24. Demonrat Plantation
    August 4th, 2015 @ 5:33 pm

    The same old story:

    The feminuts who cried “men are wolves”

  25. Mike G.
    August 4th, 2015 @ 5:33 pm

    It’s a joke son. Sort of like “one bagger, twobagger in case hers falls off and Coyote Date” where you chew your arm off to keep from waking her up.

    It was a joke. Perhaps my comedy is too high brow or low brow for you to understand.

    I came from the same era as you, I’m sure and I wasn’t a “slut puppy” like some of my friends. But that being said, I was in the service and I did go to college back in the 70’s, so perhaps I did have one of those unfortunate episodes one likes to forget. I think we all do and anyone who says they don’t is not only lying to the world at large, but is lying to themselves.

  26. Kirby McCain
    August 4th, 2015 @ 5:40 pm

    It’s all a matter of motives on the part of the media and white men are the targets just as they were in the UVA rape hoax. The idea that the Stone was worried about casting any doubt on the alleged victim’s story is ludicrous. The media is all about making white women look like whores when the perp is a black man. Remember LeBron James victim?There’s plenty of violence against women on our nation’s campuses that merit attention but goes mysteriously under reported. After sitting out a year Joe Mixon is returning to the Sooners line up. He was caught on video punching out a female student last year in a restaurant. FSU’s De’Andre Johnson was also caught on video punching out a female student and ESPN couldn’t have devoted more air time to his attorneys. Incredibly, the night before in the parking lot of another bar Florida State’s star running back Dalvin Cook is accused of beating up another woman.And let’s not forget Heather Graham’s accused killer Jesse Mathew, a failed football player, chased from two schools for sexual assault. And so I’m reading about a group that’s stated purpose is to stop violence against women coming to the defense of Ray Rice in a bid to see him return to the NFL. And I’m thinking WTF? Turns out the group is run by two black men!So we’re talking about the liberal left and it’s media allies crusade to strip white men of due process. To ruin a life based just upon an accusation. At the same time, the same people say of violent athletes their lives shouldn’t be ruined and that everyone deserves a second chance. And on the subject of race, it’s all that matters to the left and the media. The way the media uses race to determine it’s narrative is indisputable. To say that someone cannot comment upon the facts of this situation in our cultural sphere is shameless shutuppery.

  27. Art Deco
    August 4th, 2015 @ 5:56 pm

    It’s a joke son.

    I take it you’re about 85 years old or an incorrigible ass.

  28. Kirby McCain
    August 4th, 2015 @ 5:57 pm

    Apparently it is too much of a burden for these women to report the crime to the police in a timely manner so that hard evidence can be collected and accounts verified.

  29. Mike G.
    August 4th, 2015 @ 6:05 pm

    I’m neither, but thank you for playing.

  30. Quartermaster
    August 4th, 2015 @ 6:16 pm

    Alcohol “giveth the desire, but taketh away the ability.” Read that somewhere…..

  31. Quartermaster
    August 4th, 2015 @ 6:17 pm

    I’m not sure your all there.

  32. Quartermaster
    August 4th, 2015 @ 6:20 pm

    What you are seeing is both the final result of Darwinism and a serious case of cognitive dissonance.

  33. Daniel Freeman
    August 4th, 2015 @ 6:57 pm

    And then it does a strip tease and blows a donkey. Our media is a donkey show.

    A vulgar analogy, but as our host has elegantly demonstrated before, it really looks like this is all about the (D).

  34. Daniel Freeman
    August 4th, 2015 @ 7:10 pm

    You’re getting lost in the weeds. How many of those working women were married to working men?

    When you have to either pay a family-supporting wage or leave a position empty, then you do the former. When you can fill it at half — because there are enough applicants that can accept that, because there are enough two-income families — then you do that instead.

  35. RS
    August 4th, 2015 @ 9:02 pm

    IIRC, back in antiquity during the O.J. Simpson trial, Tammy Bruce was forced out of the L.A. chapter of NOW or resigned in protest because NOW refused to take a strong stand against the violence perpetrated on Nicole Simpson. It would appear this is not a new phenomenon.

  36. Art Deco
    August 4th, 2015 @ 9:37 pm

    How many of those working women were married to working men?

    I addressed that point.

  37. Daniel Freeman
    August 4th, 2015 @ 10:06 pm

    No, you speculated, handwaving the young women not yet married. And then admitted that professional women were assumed to be celibate.

    Of course poor women always had to work; but what does that have to do with wage trends in industries that used to pay family wages?

  38. Art Deco
    August 4th, 2015 @ 10:29 pm

    An inspection of Census and BLS figures from the period indicates that the number of unmarried women exceeded the number of working women among women under the ages of 25 and over the ages of 55. However, labor force participation rates for women 25 to 34, 35 to 44, and 45 to 54 stood at about 35%, 41%, and 44% ca. 1955, with a noticeable upward trajectory for all of the coarse age strata between 35 and 65.

    While labor force participation rates varied between 1950 and 1960, the distribution of the female population over 14 between marital status categories hardly varied at all. In 1960, looking at populations of women in the age groups of 25-34, 35-44, and 45-54, the share unmarried would have been 11%, 12%, and 22% respectively, and unmarried women would have accounted for a maximum of 30%, 32%, and 50% of the women in those age groups who were in the labor force ca. 1955.

  39. Dana
    August 5th, 2015 @ 5:23 am

    And now you know why I don’t drink.

  40. Dana
    August 5th, 2015 @ 5:30 am

    Not sure how much status has to do with it. Think about the gentlemen next to whom the ladies wake up. He was dashing and virile when they went to bed, but as the early morning sunshine streams through the Venetian blinds, he looks like any drunk looks in the morning: hair messed up and greasy, really, really bad breath, maybe some spittle drooling down the side of his mouth, still wearing dirty socks, and perhaps his awesome pecs somehow settled down to his stomach overnight.

    Of course, the lady in question is a bit disheveled herself, and her breath ain’t so great, either. The sheets are stained, and she had to sleep in the wet spot.

  41. theoldsargesays
    August 5th, 2015 @ 12:28 pm

    “…blows a donkey.”
    So then, by former President Bill Clinton’s standards, they can deny having sex with that donkey.

  42. DJF
    August 5th, 2015 @ 12:59 pm

    Has anyone been charged for the real crime of vandalizing the UVA fraternity house?

  43. Southern Air Pirate
    August 5th, 2015 @ 1:47 pm
  44. robertstacymccain
    August 5th, 2015 @ 6:45 pm

    “… about males who are not high-status.”
    We have a winner, ladies and gentlemen! This is exactly the problem. Women are extremely status-oriented in their attitude toward men. What matters to her is not the act itself, but whether the guy is perceived as a “catch.” Women very much want to be with a guy that they can display as a trophy to their peers as proof of their own success and popularity.
    Grant that some guys are this way, too, but most guys (in the “hunt” mode) are just like, “Is she hot? Am I horny? OK, let’s do it.” They don’t give a damn about where she’s from, who her family is, what her career prospects are, or what social repercussions their might be to their tryst.
    Notice that this description applies to male behavior in “hunt” mode, rather than guys seriously evaluating a woman as a potential wife. In the male mind, these are two entirely different situations, and guys evaluate women according to whether they perceive her as wife material or just another antelope grazing near the watering hole.
    Women, however, generally have different incentives and different habits of looking at sexual activity, and the Status Factor is something a lot of guys just don’t understand. As a rule, women are always wondering, “What will my friends think?” So when a girl goes to a frat party, gets tanked and hooks up with an available stranger, her morning-after remorse can be extreme.
    Also, if you look at the Sulkowicz-Nungesser case, you see another way the Status Factor comes into play. Nungesser was a fairly high-status male at an elite school. Sulkowicz wanted him as a boyfriend, gave him “free samples” of the merchandise, and wanted to close the sale. When Nungesser walked away from the deal — banged her and then moved on — Sulkowicz perceived a loss of status (she was just a pump-and-dump) and sought revenge by attempting to destroy his reputation.
    From Nungesser’s point of view, Sulkowicz and he had an honest transaction, “working on their night moves,” and he never promised her anything in return. From Sulkowicz’s perspective, however, Nungesser’s decision to move on and seek other relationships was a betrayal. Her perspective was irrational, but then on the other hand, Nungesser should have spotted her for a crazy one from the start. To me, Sulkowicz looks like a serious BPD case, if not indeed a full-blown sociopath.
    Trust me, I’ve repeatedly warned my sons: STAY AWAY FROM CRAZY WOMEN. It’s just way too dangerous out there nowadays.
    True, it was dangerous Back in the Day, but I was a Democrat then and it was the Seventies — an excuse my kids don’t have.
    Also, there was no Internet and no cell phones back then, and in case you haven’t noticed, the social-media/text-messaging mode of 24/7 contact now plays a crucial role in a lot of these Psycho Girlfriend scenarios.

  45. Fail Burton
    August 6th, 2015 @ 2:21 am

    One aspect of this new feminism not often discussed is the idea of how many of these women (and men) are aware of its origins. It seems you have the almost hysterical aversion to men and heterosexuality intact from the handful of mostly gay women who started the ideology but now smoothed over so it seems like a more plausible type of social justice. Gay feminists have been remarkably successful in mainstreaming the idea gender is a construct without their madness coming along for the ride all these years later. That will happen when you have non-gay women like Jessica Valenti and Anitia Sarkeesian adopting gender as “performance” on a non-emotional level and instead treated almost as settled science. However stupid they may be, people like SF author John Scalzi mainstreaming what might otherwise be seen as insane screeds about “white privilege” is given a sheen of credibility because of the emotional detachment

  46. Toastrider
    August 6th, 2015 @ 11:12 am

    Ayup. Between OJ and Bill Clinton, Tammy Bruce decided she had no place in NOW. Their loss, but our gain; I rather like Tammy 🙂

  47. Art Deco
    August 6th, 2015 @ 11:27 am

    It seems you have the almost hysterical aversion to men and
    heterosexuality intact from the handful of mostly gay women who started
    the ideology

    Betty Friedan was a long-married divorcee with children and rather anxious about the possibility that lesbians would take over the organization she founded. Karen deCrow was also a divorcee, albeit childless. Eleanor Smeal and Bella Abzug were married women with children and vociferously pleased with their husbands. Letty Cottin Pogrebin has been married for 50-odd years and also has children. Gloria Steinem was a vocational spinster, but she was not lacking for male attention (e.g. Mortimer Zuckerman).

  48. Brook River
    August 6th, 2015 @ 4:09 pm

    Tamara Tabo? Did someone say Tamara Tabo?

    Dude, those are some nasty tats on those arms. Call for laser tat removal asap.

  49. Please Follow @SexTroubleBook : The Other McCain
    August 7th, 2015 @ 3:24 pm

    […] of skepticism toward any narrative that portrays white heterosexual Christian males as oppressors. Dishonest activists know that dishonest journalists will amplify these hoax stories, because blind loyalty to the Democrat Party unites them in promoting a false narrative that […]