The Other McCain

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

In The Mailbox: 08.18.15

Posted on | August 18, 2015 | 1 Comment

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
Da Tech Guy: Damn The Terrorism And Sex Slavery, The Narrative Is The Priority On Islam
Doug Powers: California’s Green Jobs Initiative Has Gone Full Solyndra
Twitchy: New CNN Poll Shows Trump With Commanding Lead, But GOP Voters Don’t Think He Can Win In November


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: “Route 29 Batman” Killed; Hit By Motorist After Car Breaks Down On Interstate 70
American Thinker: Rising Democratic Star Kamala Harris Goes For The Jugular On Conservative Nonprofits
BLACKFIVE: National Airborne Day 2015
Blackmailers Don’t Shoot: Horror Movie Review – Inner Demons
Conservatives4Palin: Governor Palin – America’s Most Wanted?
Don Surber: The Madman Behind The Gibson Guitar
Jammie Wearing Fools: Hillary Looking More Like Nixon As Email Scandal Deepens
Joe For America: Navajos Literally Chase John McCain Off Their Land
JustOneMinute: Gruesome, But…
Pamela Geller: US Military Caves, Cancels Hearings For Five 9/11 Suspects Held At Gitmo
Protein Wisdom: Blowout Cards, Blowout TV, and Blowout Forum – My Review
Shot In The Dark: News Flash
STUMP: The Danger Of Government Debt – Puerto Rico, Pension Obligation Bonds, And The Political Math Of Bankruptcy
The Gateway Pundit: GOP Elites Whine – If You Support Donald Trump, You Are A “Low Information Voter”
The Jawa Report: 50% Off Christians This Week Only All Raqqa Locations
The Lonely Conservative: Protesters Try – And Fail – To Derail Scott Walker Speech In Iowa
This Ain’t Hell: Los Angeles VA Caught Shredding Veterans’ Letters
Weasel Zippers: Man Accused Of Shooting At Police In Ferguson Previously Bailed Out BY Soros-Backed Organization…For Prior Gun Crime
Megan McArdle: In Clinton We Trust. Or Maybe Not.
Mark Steyn: Punching Back Twice As Hard


Shop Amazon Home – Save 20% on Select Dyson Fans

Category: Linkagery

Feminist Tumblr: Mentally Ill Lesbian Hates ‘Totally Useless’ Fathers

Posted on | August 18, 2015 | 73 Comments

Feminists believe everything any man does is wrong, simply because (a) he’s a man, and (b) he did it. No man can ever do anything to deserve praise from feminists, who never say anything about any male except to condemn him for his maleness. Tumblr is full of man-hating feminists like this one:

“I’m 23, female, a lesbian, white, mentally ill,
visually impaired, a recent college graduate,
an atheist, very left-wing, from the U.S.,
and seeking to learn more every day.”

The sum total of her achievements in life are (a) graduating college, (b) hating God, and (c) being a lesbian, and yet, by declaring herself to be a feminist, she thereby automatically qualifies as an expert criticizing everybody else’s life:

I get so annoyed when I observe willfully incompetent fathers. Last night my mom and I went to a restaurant that had a lot of families, and honestly, almost all of the dads I noticed were totally useless in their behavior. They mostly sat around and ate while the moms fed the kids, took the kids to the salad bar, refilled the kids’ drinks, cleaned the kids up, took the kids to the bathroom, entertained the kids, calmed the kids when they got fussy, etc.
So then it bothers me when people act like it’s “cute” or worthy of a sitcom trope when dads are clueless…because the subsequent assumption is that it’s not a big deal because his wife or some other woman will let him off the hook and take over (as she “should” because women are made to be caregivers and assumed to be naturally nurturing)! There’s nothing amusing about a grown man refusing to do simple things for his own children and essentially forcing his wife (and/or other women in his life) to pick up his slack.
I just feel sorry for all of the women out there who do so much work that is not appreciated or valued. Women in general work so hard.

Those 208 eight words of feminist expertise got 12,482 notes on Tumblr in three days, because feminists hate fathers, period.

Fatherhood is patriarchy. Fathers are oppressors. Nothing any father does for his wife and children can ever entitle him to respect or admiration from a feminist, because (a) he’s a man, and (b) everything men do is wrong. Take your wife and kids out to eat at a restaurant, and the feminist (although she is “visually impaired”) will scrutinize your every word and gesture, looking for some reason to hate you. She is “mentally ill” and doesn’t know anything about you, but her Superior Feminist Insight qualifies her to analyze your behavior and see that your wife’s work “is not appreciated or valued.” Dad, on the other hand, is “totally useless” and has never done any work at all, ever. He just sits around oppressing women and collecting the lucrative benefits of his male privilege, which is how he paid for the restaurant meal.

Feminism is the ultimate sour-grapes rationalization, empowering bitter misfits with theoretical analyses that explain away the apparent happiness of successful normal women. Everybody else walks through the restaurant and sees families enjoying a nice meal together, but feminism enables the mentally ill lesbian to see that this alleged “enjoyment” is an illusion. Obviously, they don’t see the patriarchal prejudice — “women are made to be caregivers and assumed to be naturally nurturing” — that is oppressing these married mothers. You need a college education to understand things like that, see.

From the feminist perspective, it is obvious that these women eating dinner with their husbands and children are all stupid and ignorant because (a) educated intelligent women are lesbian feminists and (b) only stupid ignorant women marry men and have babies.

No feminist would consider the possibility that mothers take care of their chldren because they enjoy taking care of their children. Nor would it occur to a feminist that perhaps children benefit from the division of labor wherein women specialize in being nuturing caregivers. Gosh, she carried them in her belly for nine months and probably breastfed them for several months after they were born, so why wouldn’t we expect that she is more involved (and more skilled) in the nurturing caregiver role than her husband? Doesn’t maternal devotion reflect an entirely natural response to the biological reality of a mother’s greater personal investment in her offspring? And isn’t it true that mothers generally receive an emotional reward for their nuturance, in terms of the special affection children have for their mothers? Doesn’t a mother take pride in the success of her children made possible by her nuturing? Are there no tangible rewards for being a good mother? Is all this caregiving stuff just a burden imposed on women by patriarchal oppression?

Here’s a radical idea: Men are not as stupid as feminists think we are.

Do men have to get married? Do men have to become fathers?

No. There are plenty of unmarried guys with no kids who do not envy the lives of men who are married fathers. Bachelors enjoy their independence. There are lots of single guys out there who go to great lengths to avoid marriage, guys who don’t want to take on the commitment of being a husband, guys who have no interest in the responsibilities of fatherhood. Heck, I know a guy who lucked into a relationship with an incredible bombshell blonde — stacked like the Ziggurat of Ur — and every time I saw him, I’d congratulate him on his good fortune. “So, when’s the wedding?” I’d ask, giving him my usual aggressive family-values spiel. Always my friend would say he just didn’t think he was ready for marriage. This went on for at least three years, until finally she talked him into getting married, although if you saw them together, you’d almost certainly say, “Wow, how did he get her?”

Anybody who knows anything about actual relationships knows how often it’s the woman pushing for marriage, while the guy’s trying to avoid the yoke of matrimony. Parenthood is also something that women often have to talk men into, and any feminist theorist who sees it the other way around is just crazy. Do they think all men are stupid?

Suppose that this visually impaired, mentally ill lesbian was accurate in her observation that, for the most part, the mothers did nearly all the childcare when these couples went out to eat at a restaurant. Can this be explained by something besides a feminist theory of patriarchal oppression? Yes — selection effects.

These were married women. They had been selected by men, who stuck around long enough to spawn children, and who were able to afford to take the family out for a restaurant meal. Are guys so stupid that they can’t evaluate women’s behavior and attitudes? Are guys unable to tell the difference between (a) a woman with an aptitude for nuturing and caregiving, and (b) a mentally ill lesbian feminist?

What I’m saying is that women who exhibit the traits desireable in a wife and mother are more likely to attract a man who wants to be a husband and father. If a guy is smart, these are key criteria in how he evaluates a potential wife. Sure, looks are nice, but even if she’s stacked like the Ziggurat of Ur, a smart guy knows what Smokey Robinson’s mama told him: “Good looking girls are a dime a dozen. Try to find you one who’s gonna give you good loving.”

That nurturing caregiver stuff is important — it’s a very attractive trait, to a marriage-minded man — and so the women selected as wives and mothers are more apt to exhibit this behavior than are lonely feminists who do sour-grapes blogging on Tumblr.

This is why it doesn’t matter whether gender traits are natural or, as the feminists would have us believe, “socially constructed.” If any particular trait is desireable, that trait will be sought, it will be valued, praised and rewarded. Insofar as what men want from women and what women want from men are different, then the difference in their desires will tend to replicate themselves in a way that seems natural, even if you can explain as a matter of theory how these differences are “socially constructed.” Are guys naturally more competitive and aggressive than women? I think so, but if you disagree, so what? Competitive, aggressive men tend to be more successful in their careers than men who are passive and averse to competition, and (brace yourself for shocking news) women like men who are successful.

The same explanation works for why women with certain personality traits are more likely to become wives and mothers. Guys are not as stupid as feminists think we are. If men want to get married, they’re going to look for women who act like they would make good wives. If men also want to become fathers, they’ll look for wives who act like they would make good mothers. Selection effects — wives and mothers are not chosen randomly, which explains the difference between a married mother who naturally acts as a nuturing caregiver, on the one hand, and an embittered lesbian feminist, on the other hand.

Feminists sit around making sour-grapes rationalizations, pretending like normal women are helpless victims of oppression.

Ladies, if you want a husband and children, think about what is necessary to achieve those goals. You don’t have to be stacked like the Ziggurat of Ur, but you should develop an aptitude as a nurturing caregiver. Also, don’t take advice from mentally ill feminists on Tumblr. Otherwise, you might as well major in Women’s Studies, IYKWIMAITYD.

Loyal readers have been funding my research into radical feminism, thanks to the Five Most Important Words in the English Language:

HIT THE FREAKING TIP JAR!





 

Category: Sex Trouble

Feminism’s Radical Transvaluation

Posted on | August 17, 2015 | 127 Comments

Amy Austin (@amymarieaustin) is mentally ill and bisexual, and also a feminist, but I repeat myself. Last year Ms. Austin, a British university student, wrote a rant entitled, “Patriarchy and the Problem of Being Born Female”:

Social constructions of gender, like power, stem from patriarchal ideologies . . .
Environmentally speaking, gender is independent of sex . . . and signifies the social constructedness of what maleness and femaleness mean in a given culture. The hierarchy that implicitly positions men above women due to reproductive difference, is a harmful one.

Her 995-word rant went viral in the feminist blogosphere, which attracted my notice, and when I wrote about Ms. Austin, her Twitter admirers then came after me like the Furies pursuing Orestes, which prompted me to write a second post entitled “The Madness of ‘Gender Theory’“:

Attempting to explain gender theory to normal people is like attempting to explain a schizophrenic’s delusions to sane people. Normal men are masculine in the most common-sense understanding of that word, and normal women are feminine. Because the meanings of male/masculine and female/feminine are so obvious, from a common-sense point of view, normal people take these categories for granted.
However, radical feminists are not normal people. They are intellectuals, and the most eminent feminist intellectuals have spent the past four decades denouncing the common sense of normal people when it comes to men, women and sex. Anything that normal people believe about sex is a myth, according to feminist intellectuals, and in place of our oppressive patriarchal myths, they offer us feminist ideology and gender theory. . . .

You can read the rest of that. That was a year ago, and since then I’ve plunged even deeper into the Mariana Trench of radical feminism which is, as I’ve said, a totalitarian movement to destroy civilizationa as know it. Sunday afternoon, my Twitter feed erupted after Ms. Austin saw me retweeted (sarcastically) by a British writer named Emily Stockham (@Emily_Camilla), who mocked me as an ignorant bigot. You see, feminists are so morally and intellectually superior to everyone else that to disagree with feminism proves that you are a stupid and hateful person. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Because I was just procrastinating, I ping-ponged tweets back and forth with Ms. Austin and Ms. Stockham a while. At some point, Ms. Stockman mentioned witchcraft, and I tweeted to her my recent post, “Feminist Tumblr: Justifying Hatred With Radical Ideology and Also, Witchcraft.” The point being that it is not me saying that feminists advocate witchcraft, it’s feminists, including eminent Women’s Studies professors. And then I called their attention to a provocative post by Ashton Blackwell, who described “a mainstreaming of dark, gothic, alternative culture” among some feminists:

These young women think they are “feminists” because feminism appeals to their frustrations, insecurities, and their bitterness over being used for casual sex. . . .
[Y]oung women in general have become darker and more bitter, and with good reason . . .
The dress style of the alternative scene — piercings, black apparel, combat boots, and surly expressions — broadcasts, “Stay away from me, I’m dangerous.” . . .
Septum piercings and unnatural hair colors have become so common that they have lost their whiff of punk subversion . . . The witchy, neo-pagan look is trendy . . .
I posit that it stands to reason that young women are attracted to alternative culture because the social breakdown and erosion of sexual decorum over the past half century or so has fostered conditions that make it more likely that they will have traumatic experiences. . . . Female psychology does not respond well to licentiousness, as much as feminists peddle so-called “sexual liberation.” Sadly, this dysfunction has been fully imbibed by the culture, and of course the consequences explain women’s receptivity to feminism — an ideology that purports to empathize with their pain, gives them a scapegoat, and thereby eclipses feminism’s own pivotal culpability in their plight.

Ms. Blackwell illustrates this with photos posted by self-proclaimed feminists, some of whom display pentagrams, crescent moons and other symbols associated with neopagan Wicca. The significance of this should not be dismissed because, you see, I have studied the history of feminism far more deeply than have these young feminists.

Mary Daly’s 1973 book Beyond God the Father not only celebrates witchcraft, but has a chapter called “Transvaluation of Values: The End of Phallic Morality,” in which advocates rejection of Judeo-Christian morality in favor of a “revolutionary morality.” Daly denies that “the life of the fetus is an absolute value,” denies also that there is such a thing as “nature” involved in human reproduction, and calls for “social change . . . to eradicate sex role socialization and the sexual caste system itself,” an “overturning of the sex role system.” In the next chapter, Daly speaks of “the significance of the women’s revolution as Antichrist . . . a spiritual upraising that can bring us beyond sexist myths” and as “the Antichurch . . a communal uprising against the social extensions of the male Incarnation myth.” Daly urges feminists to express “the witch that burns within our own true selves.”

Certainly, any Christian must recognize Daly’s feminist arguments as “doctrines of devils” (I Timothy 4:1), an explicit and deliberate embrace of evil. Knowing where feminist theory ultimately leads, should we be surprised to see that the “witchy, neo-pagan look” is “trendy” with young feminists? And are we surprised that Amy Austin claims her sexuality is gender-neutral:

Personally, I identify as somebody who has a changeable and emotional attraction to people, regardless of gender. Although generally I find women more attractive than men, gender is not really a defining factor in my romantic relationships . . .
The notion that women form relationships with other women as a result of childhood trauma is a harmful, almost laughable, stereotype that lesbian and bisexual women continually face. It is simply untrue . . .

Damaged, you say? How dare you imply Amy Austin is damaged? Despite her claim that gender is not a “defining factor” in her sexuality, Amy Austin is contemptuous of men because she can’t stand to be “a tool for the arousal of men . . . this object of sexual desire.” She finds normal male sexuality inherently repulsive, because “patriarchal ideologies” or something. If feminism is a “spiritual uprising,” as Daly said, what sort of spirits are these? If there is no “absolute value” in life, nor any such thing as “nature” in “the sex role system,” who can say what meaning or purpose there is in life at all?

“See, I have set before thee this day life and good,
and death and evil . . . I call heaven and earth to
record this day against you, that I have set
before you life and death, blessing and cursing:
therefore choose life, that both
thou and thy seed may live . . .”

We live in dark times, my friends. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Loyal readers have been funding my research into radical feminism, thanks to the Five Most Important Words in the English Language:

HIT THE FREAKING TIP JAR!





 

Category: Sex Trouble

Rule 5 Sunday: Rebel Girls

Posted on | August 16, 2015 | 9 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

I don’t know about colleges in your neck of the woods, but the University of Nevada Las Vegas is having its Welcome Day this Friday, so it seems only fitting that this week’s appetizer focuses on the Rebel Girls, the UNLV cheerleading squad.

One of the Rebel Girls with mascot Hey Reb

As usual, the links that follow are often to pictures normally considered NSFW. Keep this in mind and exercise discretion in your clicking.

Randy’s Roundtable leads off this week with Cris Urena, followed by Goodstuff with Christina Lucci (aka Christina Model) and Ninety Miles from Tyranny with Morning Mistress, Hot Pick of the Late Night, and Girls with Guns. Animal Magnetism checks in with Rule 5 Trigger Warning Friday and a Saturday Asian Invasion featuring Anri Sugihara. Also, First Street Journal with On Active Duty.

EBL’s herd of heifers this week includes Uggie the Player, Huma in the Crosshairs, Victory in Japan, In the Cool of the Evening, plus Hillary and Huma in Orange Is The New Black.

Postaldog returns with Anne Hathaway and Katie Holmes, Anne Hathaway solo, Charlotte McKinney, a trifecta of Rachel McAdams/Kelly Reilly/Levin Ramblin, Ana Braga, and Alyssa Milano.

A View from the Beach brings us Barbara Di Creedo, Not Only Does Fishing Keep You from Going Crazy…, Busted Flat in Baton Rouge, Climbing the Stairway to …, “Didn’t it Rain”, Bar-B-Q Wednesday, Note: Before Running for Congress Pay Your Effing Taxes!, Answering Life’s Big Questions One at a Time, CBF Gives Up Cow Trampling Suit, and “Secrets”.

At Soylent Siberia, your morning coffee creamer, Leonard’s Lunchtime Lesbian Car Wash, Monday Motivationer Kyla Queen of Fur, Tuesday Titillation Silhouette, Humpday Hawtness Lovely Rita, Happy Hour Hawtness, There’s Fur and Then There’s…, Corset Combo Platter, T-GIF Friday Peter’s Rabbit, Weekender, and Nice Pomegranates.

Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babe is Megyn Kelly, his Vintage Babe is Olga Schoberova, and Sex in Advertising is covered by Guess. At Dustbury, it’s Teen Beat week with Kylie Jenner and Madeline Stuart.

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery! Deadline to submit links to the Rule 5 Wombat mailbox for next weekend’s Rule 5 post will be midnight on Saturday, August 22.

Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop

Category: Rule 5

FMJRA 2.0: Automotive High School

Posted on | August 15, 2015 | 6 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Feminist Tumblr: Justifying Hatred With Radical Ideology and Also, Witchcraft
Living In Anglo-America
Dark Brightness

Why I Got Suspended
The Pirate’s Cove
Constantinople Not Istanbul

FMJRA 2.0: All My Bloggy Friends Have Settled Down
Regular Right Guy
The Pirate’s Cove
BlurBrain

Rule 5 Sunday: Good Witches
Animal Magnetism
Ninety Miles from Tyranny
A View from the Beach
Proof Positive

The ‘Free Stuff’ Party
A View from the Beach

#DonaldTrumpsDiary Oh: Paul the Younger. Hey, Rinse Peabody! How About We Ditch ‘Curls’ & Bring In Carly, Who At Least Has A Clue About Business
Regular Right Guy

In The Mailbox, 08.11.15
Proof Positive

Feminism’s Attack on ‘Institutionalized, Normative Heterosexuality’
Living In Anglo-America

The ‘Self-Abnegation of … Gender Identity’
Living In Anglo-America

Feminists, and How to Avoid Them
Living In Anglo-America
A View from the Beach

In The Mailbox, 08.13.15
Proof Positive

Media as Islamic Publicity Agents
First Street Journal

Nobody reached the five-link requirement for Top Linker this week. 🙁

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery! Remember, if your links aren’t showing up here (because WordPress hates you) you can get credit by e-mailing me your links before noon on Saturdays. Links need to be to posts published between the previous Saturday and the Friday before the FMJRA is posted. Multiple links to the same post will only be counted as one link.


Puttering About a Small Land

Category: FMJRA Award

Miraculous You

Posted on | August 15, 2015 | 32 Comments

If you are ever discouraged by failure or the disadvantages you face in life, consider what the odds were against you ever existing:

Scientists calculated the probability of your existing as you, today, at about one in 400 trillion . . .  Some factors taken to reach this figure include the chances of your biological parents meeting and mating, probability of fertilization, and the survival rate of a fertilized egg.

Your mere existence is in some sense miraculous, and the fact that you are alive today and able to read this is testimony to your ability to overcome enormous odds. You are a survivor, and all your ancesters were survivors, too, or otherwise you wouldn’t even be alive today. Not only do you exist, but you are literate and have access to the amazing technology of the Internet, which empowers you in ways that your ancestors never could have imagined. You have enormous opportunities, and there is no reason to despair. No matter what disappointments you may experience in life, never quit. Never surrender. Never lose hope.

You’re already a winner. Science proves it.





 

Category: Science

Media as Islamic Publicity Agents

Posted on | August 14, 2015 | 48 Comments

One of the best books you’ll ever read is Thomas Sowell’s The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy, and in Chapter 6 (“Crusades of the Anointed”), Sowell observes the tendency of liberals to divide the world into “targets” and “mascots.”

For example, the U.S. military and evangelical Christians are common targets of the Anointed, whereas homosexuals and criminals are among their favorite mascots. You see how this plays out especially in media coverage of different groups. During the “Occupy” movement, when college kids took part in riotous protests against big business, this made college kids mascots, because they were attacking a target of the Anointed. The media were willing to ignore reports that women were being sexually assaulted in Occupy encampments. However, once the anti-business protests ended and the kids returned to college, sexual assault was suddenly big news because, in that context, heterosexual males are targets and feminists are mascots.

The media narrative must always conform to the particular prejudices of the Anointed, which is why the media are always more concerned about “Islamophobia” than about, say, guys named Muhammad flying jets into skycrapers. Generally speaking, of course, the American media is hostile to religion, because in America, “religion” means Bible-thumpers who vote Republican. However, in terms of foreign policy, the Anointed always sees foreigners as mascots, and if the foreigners are Muslims, this means Muslims are automatically mascots, too. This was especially true after 9/11, because the U.S. military was fighting Muslims and the media hate the U.S. military almost as much as the media hate Bible-thumping evangelical Christians. You can tell when the Anointed have picked a group as mascots, because the media will always portray mascots as victims of “prejudice” and “stereotypes”:

During a segment on the recent New York Times piece detailing the systematic and ideological slavery and rape perpetuated on thousands of young girls by ISIS soldiers, CNN host Chris Cuomo wondered whether the story might feed negative stereotypes about Islam.
“Let’s finish this part of the discussion on a point that you feel often needs to be made,” Cuomo said to Muslim woman’s rights activist Qanta Ahmed. “This feeds the impression that these Muslims are animals, savages and their faith makes them that way.”
“And it feeds an impression of what Islam is,” he continued. “What is your response to that?”

See? The problem for Chris Cuomo isn’t that Muslim terrorists are raping little girls. No, the real problem is that this “feeds the impression” that Muslims are terrorists who rape little girls. Maybe if some of these ISIS guys enrolled at Amherst or Columbia, Chris Cuomo would stop worrying about our “impression” of them.

 

Category: CNN, Islam, Media Bias, Terrorism

‘This Unfortunate Incident’

Posted on | August 14, 2015 | 51 Comments

If Zachary Kane is a brutal rapist, whose fault is that? This is the central question at the heart of a lawsuit filed against Virginia Wesleyan College (VWC), which is either (a) a small Methodist college in Norfolk or (b) Rapeville, USA. Amid the nationwide furor over claims of a “campus rape epidemic” that allegedly claims 1-in-5 female college students as victims, the case presented in the $10 million Jane Doe lawsuit against VWC highlights the nature of the controversy.

Is there or is there not an “epidemic” of sexual assault on America’s college and university campuses? Consider this: The Jane Doe lawsuit against VWC includes a chart (Exhibit A) demonstrating that this small Methodist college had “the highest per-capita rate of sexual assault” of any campus in Virginia. VWC boys are on a notorious rampage in Norfolk — this is from federal data — and so, we might expect, these Methodist monsters would be perpetrating sexual assault at rates even higher than the 1-in-5 national statistic touted by President Obama and Vice President Biden, among others. Yet a look at Exhibit A in Jane Doe’s lawsuit shows that the reported per-capita rate of sexual assault at VWC in 2010 was less than 0.5%. Fewer than one in 200 VWC females reported being sexually assaulted, and this at the campus that led the entire state of Virginia in such reports.

It is impossible to reconcile this data with the 1-in-5 statistic. There were a total of six sexual assaults reported at VWC in 2010. According to U.S. News, VWC’s total enrollment is 1,459, of whom 61% (890) are female. In order to calculate the likelihood of any student being raped during her four-year college career, we must take the average number of annual rapes, multiply it by four, and then divide that number into the total female enrollment. So if 2010 was an average year for rape at VWC, then 6 times 4 equals 24, and 890 divided by 24 equals 37, so that the reported sexual assault rate at VWC is 1-in-37* — a frightening statistic, but far below the 1-in-5 rate claimed nationally. This number, keep in mind, is based on federal data for a school that led the state of Virginia in reported sexual assault cases in 2010, and as Elizabeth Nolan Brown of Reason magazine points out:

In 2011, zero sexual assaults were reported and in 2012, there were three. Virginia Wesleyan is a small school, with only about 1,300 students at any time, so that works out to a sexual assault rate of about 0.2 percent. Even making the fair assumption that there are more assaults than get reported, the picture is hardly one of a rape culture so widespread that school officials should treat every freshman female as one party away from being attacked.

However, the situation at VWC was bad enough that freshmen were specifically warned “students could be provided drinks spiked with drugs to facilitate rape,” according to Jane Doe’s lawsuit, and officials at the college “knew that female students faced an especially high risk of rape from lacrosse team members, as acknowledged by Dean [David] Buckingham.” This is exactly what the lawsuit says happened to Jane Doe, on her third day at Virginia Wesleyan in August 2012, immediately after the orientation where freshmen were warned about the risk of rape.

In alleging negligence by VWC, Jane Doe’s lawsuit points to the role played by a student “peer advisor” named Troy Katzer, who “invited numerous teenage freshman students to an on-campus party at his townhouse” where alcohol was served. According to the lawsuit, “Katzer had previously himself exhibited predatory behavior towards freshman teenage girls,” behavior that the lawsuit alleges “was known to agents of the school.” This upperclassman was assigned as a “peer advisor” and — surprise! — Jane Doe alleges she and her friends began feeling dizzy after having just one drink at the party. She ended up in the dorm room of Zachary Kane, a lacrosse player who “repeatedly and brutally raped, sodomized and forced Plaintiff to orally copulate him until she vomited, for approximately five hours,” according to the lawsuit.

In February 2013, there was a campus hearing at which Kane was found responsible for sexual assault and expelled from VWC, although subsequently the record was changed to allow Kane to “voluntarily withdraw.” Now, as part of the discovery process in Jane Doe’s lawsuit, “VWC is seeking to compel Doe to identify ‘any individuals with whom (she has) had sexual intercourse at any time and… any individuals with whom (she has) had a romantic relationship’ since the alleged assault,” Brown writes at Reason:

The school says this is necessary to determine Doe’s credibility in regard to the trauma she says she’s suffered and whether she was, as claimed in the school hearing, a virgin before the attack.
Why should Doe’s virginity matter to the case? It doesn’t per se. But Doe testified (of her own accord) during a school adjudication hearing that she had been a virgin before the rape. The college claims to now have “a good faith basis for believing” that this was not true. While her virginity or lack thereof has no bearing on whether she was raped, lying about her virginity unprovoked might not bode well for her broader credibility. The school states that “if they knew (Doe) had provided false testimony” during the hearing, campus officials may have come to a different conclusion in the original case. . . .
“Virginia Wesleyan College has carefully reviewed the facts of this unfortunate incident and the allegations in Jane Doe’s Complaint,” it said in a statement last fall. “While the College sympathizes with Jane Doe, Virginia Wesleyan denies any allegation of improper conduct and will vigorously defend this lawsuit.” . . .
“VWC acknowledges that Plaintiff’s sexual history is a sensitive subject,” the school states in its motion to compel the info. “However… Plaintiff has put her sexual history at issue by arguing she is unable to have sex, does not have any interest in sex, and has experienced difficulties in romantic relationships due to her inability to have sex and lack of interest in sex. Given the significance of these claims in a case where $10 million is at issue, VWC feels compelled to explore Plaintiff’s sexual history.”

For the record, Zachary Kane “claims the two participated in consensual sexual activity, including intercourse, for about 45 minutes. He apologized for any pain he might have caused Doe, but insisted that he was neither aware she had been drugged nor that she didn’t want to have sex with him.” Whether we believe Kane is irrelevant to the problem that concerns Elizabeth Nolan Brown, namely that college officials are not qualified to investigate rape cases:

Regardless of how this all turns out, the story already embodies everything that’s wrong with colleges handling violent assault cases. First, we have a student who feels her rape allegations were diminished by the school, causing her even more distress. Second, we have someone accused of assault whom, if innocent, was wrongly kicked out of school and branded a rapist without ever having the chance to mount a real defense and, if guilty, was merely kicked out of school and not subject to punishment, a criminal record, or any measures that may limit his ability to commit future assaults. And finally, we have a college now forced to spend time and money defending its lack of crime precognition while also dragging a former student’s sexual history into the public record. Why do so many people find this preferable to leaving rape cases to the criminal justice system?

This is the problem: Federal law (Title IX) has forced college administrators into this situation of setting up campus hearings to adjudicate sexual assault accusations in cases where no criminal charges are filed and no police investigation occurs, and where the due process of law is effectively null and void. Feminists who supported these policies in the name of “equality” now denounce the consequences of these policies, using exaggerated statistics to depict all male college students as a menace to all female students, while denouncing as “rape apologists” anyone and everyone who dares to question feminist propaganda.

ADDENDUM:

* In the comments below, John Bradley explains how I’ve miscalculated the rate. According to his math, the likelihood of a female VWC student being sexually assaulted is no more than 1-in-65, not 1-in-37.

 

Category: Sex Trouble
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin