The Other McCain

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

Feminists Against Heterosexuality

Posted on | April 6, 2015 | 70 Comments

Jenika McCrayer (@JenikaMc) has “a BA in Women and Gender Studies from The College of William and Mary” and is currently working on her master’s degree in the same field. This means she understands feminist theory, e.g., the “social construction” of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix. To translate this to plain English, if you are a normal (feminine) woman who feels normal (heterosexual) attraction toward normal (masculine) men, this means that you have been brainwashed by society into accepting your own oppression under the system of male supremacy. Feminists believe that heterosexuality is imposed on women by the patriarchy — women are “coerced into heterosexuality,” as Professor Marilyn Frye explained — and feminine behavior is simply the performance of inferiority. Gender “glamorizes the subordinate status of females” and creates an artificial appearance of male-female difference in order “to clearly mark the subordinate class [i.e., females] from the privileged class [i.e., males].”

Thus, there are no natural differences between male and female, according to feminist theory, only the oppressive hierarchy of “gender” by which society enforces male supremacy.

“The threat of violence alone affords
all men dominance over all women.”

Thus saith the feminists. Quod erat demonstrandum.

So, Jenika McCrayer wrote an article for Everyday Feminism, which was called to my attention by Aurelius Pundit:

Indeed, it’s a special slice of crazy:

Jenika McCrayer explains why men who are sexually attracted to women with breasts are misogynists.
McCrayer explains that “under a patriarchal system… we’re taught to believe that the female body exists solely for a man’s sexual pleasure and entertainment.” She then explains several reasons why liking breasts is a bad thing.
First, “It Dangerously Conflates Attraction and Fetishization.” She explains, “breasts are not solely for aesthetic or sexual purposes. They have a function. And there are painful consequences to fetishizing body parts associated with womanhood.”
More than that, “it’s cisnormative to equate breasts with femininity and womanhood. Not everyone who has breasts is a woman, and not all women have breasts.”
Second, “Fetishization Leads to Objectification and Dehumanization.” McCrayer writes, “Reducing people to their anatomy creates this space that some if not most of us exist outside of because we don’t fit into the male gaze’s narrow categories of what it means to be attractive or a woman.” . . .
McCrayer wrote this article because she received a letter from “a reader” whose husband wants equal rights for her, but also finds her breasts attractive, which she found “problematic.”

Normal men like normal women in a normal way. Normal women take this for granted, but feminists aren’t normal women.

Feminists want to abolish gender, because gender oppresses women. Therefore, normal male attraction to normal females is “objectifying,” “cisnormative,” “fetishizing,” etc. Male sexuality is phallocentric and heterosexual intercourse is male violence against women, according to feminist theory. Thus, the only reason any man could ever want to have sex with a woman is because he hates her.

Feminists believe normal sexual desire is dehumanizing to women.





 

Category: Sex Trouble

The Standards of Liberal Journalism Are Every Bit as Real as ‘Haven Monahan’

Posted on | April 6, 2015 | 25 Comments

How about we start speaking some blunt truths?

Rolling Stone magazine perpetrated a hoax against the University of Virginia, doing “journalism” about an alleged gang rape that evidently never happened. The source of the dramatic tale Rolling Stone published last November, “A Rape on Campus,” was a UVA student named Jackie who has been proven to be a liar. Her freshman year at UVA, Jackie invented a make-believe boyfriend she called “Haven Monahan” as part of an unsuccessful attempt to inspire the jealousy of her friend Ryan Duffin, on whom she had a romantic crush. This deceptive scheme apparently led to Jackie’s subsequent claim that she was gang-raped at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house during a date with this non-existent boyfriend on the night of Sept. 28, 2012.
We didn’t learn the truth behind Jackie’s lies, however, until after Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s sensational article in Rolling Stone described in lurid detail how Jackie was allegedly raped by seven men at the Phi Kappa Psi house her freshman year. One of the first journalists to raise questions about the article, Richard Bradley wrote, “Something about this story doesn’t feel right,” and cited the obvious problems that any veteran editor would have noticed about the story. To believe the Rolling Stone story, Bradley argued, “requires a lot of leaps of faith. It requires you to indulge your pre-existing biases.” Yet these biases — a willingness to believe the worst about fraternity members, and about men in general — were precisely what led Erdely and her editors to publish the 9,000-word article that, they believed, would expose once and for all the reality of what feminists have claimed is a “rape epidemic” on college campuses.
Rolling Stone’s story was a lie and there is no such “epidemic.”
A lengthy examination of Erdely’s article by the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism has exposed the inexcusable lapses in editorial judgment that resulted in Rolling Stone’s gross libel of UVA’s Phi Kappa Psi fraternity chapter. It is a near-certainty that the fraternity will sue for defamation, and it is difficult to imagine how Rolling Stone could successfully defend itself against such a suit. The magazine’s founder, Jann Wenner, told the New York Times that his staff was taken in by ”a really expert fabulist storyteller.” Yet as the Columbia review makes clear, Erdely and her editors did not take the most basic steps needed to verify (or debunk) Jackie’s tale.
Rolling Stone was grossly negligent, but this has been true of the entire profession of mainstream journalism in dealing with the claims made by feminists about the “rape epidemic” on America’s college and university campuses. These claims are as fictional as Jackie’s imaginary boyfriend “Haven Monahan.”. . .

Read the whole thing at The American Spectator.





 

Category: American Spectator, Crime, Education, Journalism, Media Bias, Sex Trouble

Rule 5 Monday: Easter Weekend Double-Dip Edition

Posted on | April 6, 2015 | 22 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

After a fifteen-day delay imposed by a visit to family and friends in Minnesota (the weather was actually better than it was in DC) and illness contracted on the return flight, here’s your double scoop of Rule 5 for Easter Monday. To introduce our lineup of links, here’s the appropriately endowed Miss Gemma Atkinson.

As usual, some of the following links feature women in a state of (un)dress normally considered NSFW. Exercise discretion in your clicking, dear readers.

(Not So) Average Bubba leads off this week with Linette Beaumont, followed by Goodstuff with Hayley Atwell, Randy’s Roundtable with Valerie dos Santos, and Ninety Miles from Tyranny with Hot Pick of the Late Night, Girls With Guns, and Morning Mistress. We also heard from Animal Magnetism with Rule Five Friday and the Saturday Gingermageddon, to say nothing of First Street Journal and Basic Training. Second helpings were served by Goodstuff with the new SPECTRE chicks, Average Bubba with Tessa Fowler, Ninety Miles from Tyranny (Hot Pick, Morning Mistress, Girls with Guns), Animal Magnetism (Rule 5 Friday, Saturday Gingermageddon), and First Street Journal with military blondes.

EBL’s thundering herd included Christina Hendricks, March Madness Tears, Beau and Blaze Berdahl, Thunder Thighs, Sand Snakes of Dorne, Dagmar, and Melissa Benoist. Also, vintage Hollywood Easter Rule 5, Panda Sex, The Searchers, Alyssa Marino, Sinatra and Shirley, and On, Wisconsin!

A View from the Beach checked in with Bai-Lingual Rule 5, Killer Mermaids, Iceland Celebrates “Set Them Puppies Free” Day, “Georgia on My Mind”, Dreamer Charged in “Top Model” Killing, Live Action Review of “50 Shades of Gray”, The Perfect Guacamole Recipe, French Propose to Ban Thin . . ., A New Must See Movie Series?, and Did an Italian Eruption Kill Off Neandertal Man?. Easter additions included Brooke Shields, Drained!, “Maybeline”, The Best Thing About St. Barts?, Bring Back the State Sponsored Pirates to Fight ISIS?, Operator, Could You Help Me Place This Call?, “Gimme Shelter”, Move Over Hillary,, and Midnite Music – Featuring Heather Maloney.

Soylent Siberia’s single serving is a big one: your morning coffee creamer, Monday Motivationer Masterpiece, Overnighty Awesome Diffused Fur, Tuesday Titillation Trophy Taker, Evening Awesome Linky-Love Contender, Humpday Hawtness Rockin’, Evening Awesome Busy, Fursday Fantastic, Corset Cataract, T-GIF Friday – Or, How I Lost My Teeth, Overnighty Awesome Vanda, Weekender in Heels, and Bath Night Turbulence.

Proof Positive celebrated his 7th blogiversary with some vintage Marilyn, and also posted Friday Night Babe Bregje Heinen, vintage babe Alice White, Sex in Advertising with Blush, and Women of PETA XLII. For seconds, it was Khloe Kardashian, Doris Merrick, and Victoria’s Secret. Dustbury offered Nena, Carly Simon, and Cindy Crawford, and Loose Endz remarked on criticism of Gal Gadot’s boobs. Also, Lucy Lawless, Avril Lavigne, and Big Fashion.

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery! Deadline to submit links to the Rule 5 Wombat mailbox for inclusion in next week’s Rule 5 post is midnight on Saturday, April 11.

Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop

Category: Rule 5

FMJRA 2.0: Sometime To Return

Posted on | April 5, 2015 | 14 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

TV Reporter’s Cheap ‘Gotcha’ Story Incites Hate Mob Against Indiana Pizza Shop
Zion’s Trumpet
Batshit Crazy News
Political Rift
Regular Right Guy
Liberty News
Dyspepsia Generation
A View from the Beach

Death Toll 147 After Muslim Terrorists Target Christians at University in Kenya
Bert Powers
First Street Journal
Batshit Crazy News
Constantinople (Not Istanbul)
A View from the Beach

What the #EllenPao Verdict Actually Means About the ‘Rights’ You Don’t Have
Dyspepsia Generation

Asian Infrastructure Development Bank
Regular Right Guy
Batshit Crazy News

Nuance For Scalia: It’s The Commie Takeover Of Liberal Arts We Hammer
Batshit Crazy News

British Student’s Message for White Males: ‘It Is Time for You to Bow Down’
Political Hat
Regular Right Guy
Batshit Crazy News

‘Emerging Awareness’ Update
Regular Right Guy
Batshit Crazy News

Police: Middle School Teacher Had Lesbian Sex With 14-Year-Old Girl
Regular Right Guy
Batshit Crazy News

Did Mobsters Beat Harry Reid?
Lonely Conservative
Regular Right Guy
Batshit Crazy News
A View from the Beach

Do You Want to Be a ‘Male Feminist’?
Regular Right Guy
Living In Anglo-America
Batshit Crazy News

Two Men Dressed as Women Ram Their Vehicle into Gate at NSA Headquarters
Batshit Crazy News

Study: Lesbians in U.S. Earn 20% More Than Heterosexual Women
Megyn Kelly
Dyspepsia Generation
Lonely Conservative
Batshit Crazy News

Poll Confirms Public Education Has Corrupted the Morals of America’s Youth
Batshit Crazy News

‘Peak Hipster’ in San Francisco
Dyspepsia Generation
Lonely Conservative
Batshit Crazy News
A View from the Beach

Meet ‘Tony’; Senator Reid’s Occasional 6’2″, 225lb, Taciturn ‘Retirement Advisor’
Political Rift
Batshit Crazy News

The Tyranny of ‘Equality’
Zion’s Trumpet
Batshit Crazy News

Poll Finds ‘Clear Majority’ of Americans Are Hopelessly Gullible Fools
Batshit Crazy News

Is Sexual Desire Dehumanizing?
Regular Right Guy
Something Fishy
Batshit Crazy News
Living In Anglo-America

When Tony Scambilloni Brings The Chin Music, It Is Not Just “Mere Cash”
Batshit Crazy News

Feminism Requires a Theory of the Moral and Intellectual Inferiority of Males
Batshit Crazy News

Gender Insanity for $45,078 a Year
Living In Anglo-America
Batshit Crazy News

Rick Santorum on Tolerance
Batshit Crazy News
Regular Right Guy

How Irrational Is ‘Islamophobia’?
Batshit Crazy News
A View from the Beach

BREAKING: Lefties Flock At Poultry Farm, Say Chickens Refusing Event Support ‘A Bigoted Bunch Of Peckers’
Regular Right Guy
Batshit Crazy News

‘Islamophobia … Baseless Hatred’?
Regular Right Guy
Dyspepsia Generation
Batshit Crazy News

Who Are These Creepazoids?
Regular Right Guy

‘Recovery’ in the Obama Age
Batshit Crazy News
A View from the Beach

Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge
Batshit Crazy News
Regular Right Guy

Top linkers:

    Batshit Crazy News (26)
    Regular Right Guy (13)
    A View from the Beach (6)
    Dyspepsia Generation (5)

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery!


Hang Time

Category: Linkagery

President Jarrett Says: #NoMoreGOPWar

Posted on | April 5, 2015 | 64 Comments

by Smitty

Category: Democrats, Iran

Crazy People Are Dangerous

Posted on | April 5, 2015 | 79 Comments

Attorney Paul Pfingst said Thursday: “My client has a history of depression and has been undergoing treatment for some time.”

Before we talk about Mr. Pfingst’s client, let’s talk about the fact that for decades, liberals have tried to convince us that the mentally ill are victims of society’s unfair prejudice. If only we were more compassionate and understanding, liberals say, we could alleviate the suffering of these pathetic nutcases.

Yet these pleas for compassion and understanding have an effect of blinding us to the fact that mentally ill people may pose genuine risks to public safety. Think about the Creepy Little Weirdo who committed the Sandy Hook massacre. Think about the Creepy Little Weirdo who committed the Isla Vista massacre. It was after Gus Deeds stabbed his father, Virginia state Sen. Creigh Deeds, in November 2013, that I put it bluntly: Crazy People Are Dangerous. And since then we have seen numerous stories that confirm this basic truth, including the German co-pilot who killed 150 people when he crashed a plane into a mountain.

Every time we see this kind of story — the murderous lunatic with a known history of mental illness — the media goes into hand-wringing mode, reporting on the “warning signs” that were overlooked before the kook committed his atrocity, yet at the same time striving not to stigmatize the mentally ill. It’s important not to hurt the delicate self-esteem of the deranged, the demented and the disturbed, you see, and then one day we see the headlines about Paul Pfingst’s client:

Police in Southern California say the son of a San Diego Padres minority owner attempted to kidnap a 7-year-old girl at an elementary school last week.
Jack Doshay, 22, was arrested late Wednesday night by the San Diego County Sheriff’s Office and charged with kidnapping, false imprisonment with violence and child cruelty.
Doshay’s father, Glenn Doshay, is a philanthropist and former investment manager who maintained his minority stake in the Padres after the franchise was sold to a new ownership group in 2012. Sheriff Bill Gore said at a news conference that Jack Doshay has been living with his parents.
The San Diego Union-Tribune has more on Jack Doshay’s arrest:

The arrest of Doshay came nine days after the brazen and violent midday incident on March 23 at Skyline Elementary that put the Solana Beach community, particularly parents of young children, on heightened alert.
According to sheriff’s officials and the girl’s parents, the intruder on campus lured the girl to the back of the school through a tree-lined courtyard, then tried to wrap packing tape around her head, and was attempting to pick her up when she kicked and screamed, alerting teachers. . . .

Jack Doshay’s lawyer, Paul Pfingst, helped coordinate his client’s arrest and said he’s suffering from depression.
“My client has a history of depression and has been undergoing treatment for some time,” Pfingst said in a telephone interview with the Union-Tribune on Thursday.

Oh, he was undergoing treatment before he tried to kidnap a 7-year-old girl. Guess the treatment didn’t work out so well, huh? Perhaps this Creepy Little Weirdo can get effective help with his “suffering” after they convict him and send him to state prison.

Here’s an idea: Crazy people are dangerous. Maybe we should try locking up more of these lunatics before they hurt somebody.

 

Category: Crime

‘Revenge Porn’ Operator Kevin Bollaert Sentenced to 18 Years in Prison

Posted on | April 5, 2015 | 19 Comments

Clearly the judge intended to send a message:

A San Diego man convicted of identity theft and extortion after posting more than 10,000 sexually explicit photos of women to his so-called “revenge porn” website was sentenced on Friday to 18 years behind bars.
The sentencing of Kevin Bollaert ended an all-day hearing where a number of victims told of the humiliation inflicted by his website. . . .
The sentence was at the high end of the range; Bollaert faced a maximum of 20 years. In explaining his punishment, the judge noted that he stacked the sentencing terms based on the multiple victims. . . .
It was the first case of its type in the United States, and California was the first state to prosecute someone for posting humiliating pictures online. . . .
Once they were published, Bollaert would then demand hundreds of dollars from individuals to remove their photos through a second website he owned.
Prosecutors called Bollaert “vindictive” and claimed he took pleasure out of hurting his female victims with the internet being his “tool of destruction.” . . .
The case centered on a now defunct website called YouGotPosted.com, created by Bollaert so ex-husbands and ex-boyfriends could submit embarrassing photos of victims for revenge. The photos also linked to victims’ social media accounts.
Prosecutors say those who wanted to get the pictures taken down were redirected to another one of Bollaert’s sites, ChangeMyReputation.com. There, the victims were charged $300 to $350 to have their photos removed.

This kind of sadism-for-profit scheme probably seemed like a clever idea to Bollaert. He’ll have lots of time to reflect on his error.

 

Category: Crime

Columbia Review of Rolling Stone’s UVA Rape Hoax Story to Be Released Tonight

Posted on | April 5, 2015 | 30 Comments

Associated Press:

News organizations following up on Rolling Stone’s horrifying tale of a gang rape at the University of Virginia exposed serious flaws in the report and the Charlottesville Police Department said its four-month investigation found no evidence that the attack happened — or that the man who allegedly orchestrated it even exists.
Now the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism is about to explain how it all went so wrong. The school’s analysis of the editorial process that led to the November 2014 publication of “A Rape on Campus” will be released online at 8 p.m. EDT Sunday.
The article focused on a student identified only as “Jackie” who said she was raped by seven men at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house more than two years earlier.
It also described a hidden culture of sexual violence fueled by binge drinking at one of the nation’s most highly regarded public universities. Charlottesville Police Chief Timothy Longo said at a March 23 news conference that his investigators, who received no cooperation from Jackie, found no evidence to support either.
The article prompted protests on the Charlottesville campus, but the story quickly began to unravel. Other news organizations learned that the article’s author, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, had agreed not to contact the accused men. Three of Jackie’s friends denied the writer’s assertion that they discouraged the alleged victim from reporting the assault, and the man described as the person who led her to an upstairs room in the fraternity house to be raped could not be located.

Let’s be clear: Jackie is a proven liar. Her elaborate “catfishing” scheme — using her make-believe boyfriend “Haven Monahan” in an unsuccessful attempt to attract the romantic interest of her friend Ryan Duffin — destroys her credibility. Period.

It is as if she said, “I was gang-raped at a frat party and I’m under surveillance by the CIA and the Bavarian Illuminati.”

There is no such thing as being semi-credible. A person who has demonstrated a habit of dishonesty cannot be accepted as a reliable authority. Sometimes liars do tell the truth, but once you know someone to be a liar — and Jackie’s “Haven Monahan” ruse was clearly a premeditated deception — you can never accept their word for anything without independent corroboration. So when the Charlottesville police investigated Jackie’s claims and found no evidence to support her story, and when she refused to cooperate with their investigation, this was tantamount to proof that the entire Rolling Stone story was a fiction.

However, this does not mean either (a) rapes don’t happen at UVA and other universities, or that (b) Jackie was never raped.

The New York Times has published former UVA student Jenny Wilkinson’s account of what happened to her in 1997:

We met while working at the same restaurant, we had mutual friends and we had gone out before. The night it happened, a Friday in late January, he attended my sorority’s date function with me. Late in the evening, he brought me a drink, my fourth of the evening; I started to feel sick shortly thereafter. Back on a daybed in the living room of my apartment, he sexually assaulted me. I have never remembered all of the details from that night, but I do remember thinking that he was raping me and that I needed to get away. Finally I did just that, dragging myself into my bedroom.
After he left, one of my roommates, who had been sleeping in her bedroom down the hall, helped me call my parents, who lived in Richmond. When they arrived 45 minutes later, my father called 911 to report my assault. The police met us at the hospital around 6 a.m. on Saturday.
A police officer was present during my entire medical examination. A gynecological exam showed some evidence of trauma; a blood test documented a blood alcohol content of 0.13, over the legal limit for driving a car; a toxicology report revealed trace amounts of three benzodiazepines in my system, including Valium and Librium. After the examination, the police took my statement. My attacker was arrested later that morning, charged, and released on bail.

The presence of those sedatives in her system certainly seems suspicious, and having a blood-alcohol level over the legal driving limit hours after she left the party indicate that she was too intoxicated to consent. The fact that she immediately reported this incident to police would seem to support the belief that she was indeed victimized — and yet the man she accused of rape was acquitted at trial. This may seem astonishing and outrageous, but Wilkinson explains why:

After the prosecution rested, the defense made a motion to strike the commonwealth’s case. The judge granted the motion, dismissing the charge. My attacker’s fraternity brothers cheered. The judge concluded that there wasn’t enough evidence to prove that the defendant knew that I was incapacitated and that he was acting against my will. The defense never had to call a single witness. The man who assaulted me walked away.

Read the whole thing, and understand what this is really about: Rape is a felony, requiring criminal intent or disregard.

While the presence of sedatives in Wilkinson’s system might raise the suspicion she had been “roofied,” (a) there was no evidence that her date was responsible for this, and (b) an 0.13 blood-alcohol level would have been sufficient to impair her judgment without any drugs whatsoever. In other words, why would a guy need to put a date-rape drug in a girl’s drink if she was drinking so heavily as to be “incapacitated” anyway?

Furthermore — please excuse me for playing the Devil’s Advocate defense attorney here — how drunk was the guy? This is highly relevant to understanding how such cases play out in court. Over and over as feminists have pushed their “rape culture” discourse in the past year, we keep hearing different versions of the same story: Two college kids, usually both teenagers and therefore too young to drink legally, go to a party, get drunk and have sex. “Rape!” says the girl. “No way!” says the guy. We are then plunged into a public “he-said/she-said” mystery involving two young people we don’t actually know, and everybody starts a sort of speculative guessing-game as to what really happened.

We are not detectives or prosecutors. Nor are we judge or jury. We’re just people reading news stories and opinion columns, bystanders to what is in fact an attempt to redefine the meaning of “rape,” and thereby strip a specific group of citizens — male college students — of their due-process rights. A student who could never be convicted of rape in a court of law can nevertheless be found “responsible” for sexual assault in a university disciplinary proceeding, effectively branded a rapist and expelled. In some cases that have come to public attention in recent months, what appears to happen is one of two scenarios:

  1. A girl feels shame or remorse about a drunken hookup and, to absolve herself of responsibility and expiate her sense of guilt, accuses a guy of rape;
    or
  2. A girl feels she has been disrespected by an ex-boyfriend and, resentful of the emotional injury she feels, decides that their previous sexual activity was rape.

Understand that neither of these scenarios necessarily involves a woman deliberately and maliciously lying. Emotions like heartbreak, remorse and envy can exert a powerful influence over the way we remember past events. If those events occurred while we were drunk, and we have been brooding over them for days or weeks or months, it is entirely possible for our minds to distort reality. And we have seen multiple accounts of these “he-said/she-said” cases where several months transpired between the drunken hookup and the claim of rape. Paul Nungesser hooked up with Emma Sulkowicz in August 2012 — not their first sexual encounter — and it was not until April 2013 that Columbia University officials informed him she had claimed this hookup was rape. Cathy Young’s article about this high-profile case suggests Sulkowicz decided to accuse Nungesser of rape only after she compared notes with his ex-girlfriend, who claimed her relationship with Nungesser was abusive.

Really? Are feminists willing to die on this kind of hill?

A guy dates two girls his freshman year. One of them is a regular girlfriend and the other is what is sometimes called “friends with benefits” or, more bluntly, a “f–kbuddy.” He and the girlfriend breakup and, after he has a third hookup with the other girl, he seems to lose interest in her, too. The guy has no reason to believe that either of these girls bears him any particular grudge. He’s moving on with his life, dating other girls, and then these two ex-girlfriends get together and start talking to each other and — BOOM! — he’s a rapist?

What part of “cold-blooded spite” do you not understand?

Common sense is more useful than an advanced degree in psychology in understanding this. Nothing can enrage a woman to burning resentment more than getting dumped by a guy and being left behind while he moves on with his happy life:

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.

I don’t know Paul Nungesser, and maybe he’s a total jerk. I don’t know Emma Sulkowicz and maybe she’s an innocent victim. In that case, as in any “he-said/she-said” case, it is simply impossible to know with certainty what happened. A common-sense understanding of human nature, however, tells us that teenage romance is fraught with emotion and that conflicts between ex-lovers often involve acrimonious accusations of wrongdoing. (Ask a few attorneys what kind of scorched-earth tactics they’ve seen in divorce cases.) Yet we are not being asked to evaluate these college sexual assault claims on a case-by-case basis. Rather, we are hearing about these cases because feminists are trying to convince us that there is a “rape epidemic” on college campuses, and that this crisis of sexual violence requires drastic intervention.

All the actual data, however, point in the other direction. The incidence of sexual assault has declined significantly, down 64 percent from 1995 to 2010 and remaining stable at that lower rate. Whereas feminists (and their Democrat allies) have repeatedly claimed that 1-in-5 female college students are victims of sexual assault, “the actual rate is 6.1 per 1,000 students, or 0.61 percent (instead of 1-in-5, the real number is 0.03-in-5).” And, in fact, female college students are less likely to be raped than are females of the same age who don’t attend college.

So, the rate of sexual assault is at or near the lowest level in several decades, and yet feminists have manufactured a “rape epidemic” that has made headlines for months? There is clearly a political agenda involved, and what we learn about the hoax perpetrated by Rolling Stone may help us understand what’s really happening. We have already seen enough of these hoaxes to know that feminists lie about rape.

The question we need to ask is why feminists are lying now, other than their usual motives of hate, greed, and revenge.

“Political careers, administrative jobs, government grants, book and lecture contracts are just some of vast financial benefits that rest upon continuing the ‘rape culture’ crusade on campus.”
— Wendy McElroy

People need to wake the hell up.





 

Category: Crime, Journalism, Media Bias, Sex Trouble
« go back — keep looking »