Story here. Excerpt:

'Clemson University [link added] is requiring students to reveal how many times they’ve had sex in the past month and with how many partners.

In screenshots obtained exclusively by Campus Reform, the South Carolina university is asking students invasive and personal questions about their drinking habits and sex life as part of what they’ve billed as an online Title IX training course.

“How many times have you had sex (including oral) in the last 3 months?” asks one question.
...
In a campus-wide email, the South Carolina university announced that all students, faculty, and staff would be required to complete a mandatory, one-hour long Title IX training course by November 1.
...
The training also makes the claim that one in four women will be sexually assaulted while in college, which according to one student Campus Reform spoke to, instills an atmosphere of fear on campus. According to the latest crime statistics provided by Clemson, two forcible sex offenses were reported in 2012, four in 2011, and two in 2010.'

Article here. Excerpt:

'There’s been a lot of conversation about domestic violence lately, thanks to theongoing controversy over the way the NFL has responded to a surveillance tape of former Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice punching his then-fiancee in the head. Public figures ranging from thenewly crowned Miss America to the president of the United States have weighed in about the fact that violence against women is never acceptable.
...
An increasing number of medical groups— including the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which helps determine what services are covered under the health reform law — now recommend that doctors should screen all of their female patients for evidence of intimate partner violence (IPV). Since domestic violence leads to both short-term and long-term health problems, medical professionals are uniquely positioned to be able to spot the signs. The federal guidelines specifically apply to women of childbearing age, since they’re most at risk for becoming victims of domestic abuse.

But what if doctors shifted the focus and also started looking for potential abusers? Although very little work has been done in that field so far, the men who engage in IPV are regularly coming into contact with medical professionals, according to a new study examining the characteristics of abusers. It may be possible to teach doctors about the warning signs that suggest a male patient could be abusing his partner.
...

Article here. Excerpt:

'The federal government is in desperate need of both rape and sexual harassment victims. These victims are needed in order to justify sweeping nationwide changes to the campus judiciary. These changes include holding quasi-rape trials on college campuses using a preponderance of evidence standard, instead of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Also included in these changes is suspension of double jeopardy protection so that women can repeatedly try accused rapists until they achieve the desired result of conviction, regardless of actual guilt or innocence.
...
Just how extreme are the changes in reporting practices? Here is what I’ve learned so far by questioning a couple of administrators here at UNC-Wilmington. If they are wrong about any of the following, that is problematic. (But if they are right, it’s even more problematic):

  1. No student can speak to a professor in confidence about an allegation of rape or sexual harassment. The professor must report the incident to his (or her, or its) supervisor who must then forward the information to the Dean.
  2. Warning students that they cannot talk to a professor about a rape or sexual harassment will not protect the alleged victim because the above rule also applies to hearsay. If the professor hears the story second-hand, or even third-hand, he must report it to his supervisor who will report it to the Dean. ...
  3. Even rape and harassment claims that a professor suspects or knows to be false must be reported by the professor.
  4. Even off-campus incidents must be reported. If you were raped in Alaska or sexually harassed in Russia it falls under UNC-Wilmington’s jurisdiction. Their jurisdiction is called “everywhere.”
  5. Incidents involving perpetrators from outside the university community must be reported to the university.

Article here. Excerpt:

'Last year, for the first time in Canada, the Movember Foundation — founded 11 years ago in Australia and now in 21 countries — began to add men’s mental health to its focus on prostate and testicular cancer.

As a result, new Movember Foundation grants immediately surpassed the total amount of money all levels of governments across Canada have devoted to targeted mental health programs for men. 

Two University of B.C. professors — John Oliffe from nursing and John Ogrodniczuk from psychiatry — are co-leaders of a project funded by a Movember grant of $2.9 million (including the photo exhibit). 

The professors cite chilling statistics: The suicide rate for men and boys is four times higher than it is for girls and women. Yet few Canadians talk specifically about men’s mental health.
...
“The $12 million that Movember Canada is spending on men’s mental health is unprecedented,” said Oliffe, explaining that it dwarfs what Canada’s government-funded health research bodies have spent in the field in the past 15 years.'

Related: Erasing the stigma of men's depression

Article here. Excerpt:

'Football player Ray Rice’s video-captured February attack on his then-fiancée has once again brought domestic violence into the public’s consciousness.
...
Critics would say that while it has placed a spotlight on violence against women, that isn’t at all synonymous with “domestic violence.”

Because studies show that most domestic violence may actually be violence against men.

This has just been brought to light by Guardian columnist Glen Poole, who recently asked why British actress Kelly Brook has “got away with punching two men”? Complaining that there “is little room for the female perpetrator or the male victim in mainstream modern discourse around violence and [sex],” he goes on to point out:

"Women are committing violence against men and boys on a daily basis.... International research suggests that as much as half of domestic violence is committed against men, but in the UK, fewer that [sic] 7% of convicted perpetrators are female. So what can we learn from Brook’s refusal to take responsibility for her own celebrity violence? She is clearly no ordinary women [sic], but the gender script she is performing is predictably ordinary."

Yet not only is this information about sex and violence nothing new, some would say Poole is understating the case. For example, Sophie Goodchild reported in a 2000 Guardian piece on a study showing that women were actually more likely to initiate violence in relationships, writing:

Article here. Excerpt:

'As I said, I identify as a feminist because I believe in equality. And also as a feminist I love men. Seriously, why wouldn't I? I was a total Daddy's girl. I now have a loving husband, my brother is one of my best mates and I utterly adore my son.

Men are amazing - how on Earth would we live without them? Who would want to live without them?

So, I am a feminist because I want my son to grow up to be a better, fairer, happy and moral man. I don't want him to live in a world where he is judged solely on his physical prowess, his career or his income.

I want my son to live in a world where he feels comfortable taking time out to care for his family, where he respects men and women alike and where he has the moral courage to speak out against rape culture, discrimination and sexism.

I don't want him to grow up in a world where he feels second-rate or surplus to a woman's needs. I want him as a would-be father to feel that his opinion on birth and abortion are valued. I want him to have all the support he needs in a world where the male role is changing and where we are starting to understand that the old patriarchal system of man equals provider and woman equals carer are changing.

Which is why, when I go to meetings or conferences where these issues are being discussed, I am always surprised at the dearth of men attending them.

Are they not invited? Do they not feel welcome? Or don't they care?

Similarly, whenever I take part in media discussions about these issues, the panels tend to be all-female (for a change!) or occasionally may have the token man as a feminist concession.

Article here. Excerpt:

'What's next, Mika? Giant alligators in the sewers of New York City? On today's Morning Joe, Mika Brzezinski perpetuated the hoary twenty-year-old urban legend that domestic violence spikes on Super Bowl Sunday.

Brzezinski's blunder came in the context of the panel's discussion of the NFL's domestic violence mess. Arguing that football is a violent game and that "there's a connection" with what happens at home, Mika continued, "domestic violence on Super Bowl Sunday. We've seen the numbers. Why is that?" Actually, Brzezinski has apparently not seen the numbers, since that myth has been thoroughly debunked, often by organizations fighting domestic violence, as here, here and here.
...
"...
BRZEZINSKI: ... But there's some connection between all this. This is a violent game. And domestic violence on Super Bowl Sunday? We've seen the numbers. Why is that?"'

Wikipedia on Mika B.

Article here. Excerpt:

'In 1985, with feminism still at its height, U.S. sociologist Lenore Weitzman published a book,The Divorce Revolution, in which she claimed to have analyzed a sample of Los Angeles-area divorced individuals in the 1970s, and found that the living standard of the men increased by an average of 42% after their divorce, while the women’s living standard decreased by an average of 73%. Her methodology was flawed. Since then, more rigorous peer-reviewed studies have proven her conclusions false — she later admitted it herself — and that in fact both sexes are worse off after divorce.

Nevertheless, “facts” such as those supplied by Weitzman were used to justify the 1997 Canadian Federal Child Support Guidelines. Allegedly designed solely to support the best interests of children, the Guidelines were in fact largely concerned with righting purported gender wrongs. As a result, untold numbers of non-custodial parents, mostly fathers, have been paying an unfair, often financially crippling share of their income to custodial parents.'

Story here. Excerpt:

'It is impracticable for the government to require students to obtain consent at each stage of a physical encounter and to later prove that consent in a campus hearing. Under this rule, implications would be that a student could be found guilty of sexual assault and deemed a rapist simply by being unable to prove she or he did obtain explicit verbal consent throughout a sexual encounter.

The kicker to this law is that the college administration will become the judge, jury and the executioner of those students accused — along with many colleges not allowing students to have due process rights during the process.

There have been cases where the accused have been denied legal counsel, the right to call their own witnesses or to cross-examine the evidence against them, and they are convicted on the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, which only requires administrators to be 50.00001 percent sure of the verdict.

While campus administrators are in many cases doing their best in these situations, they are neither qualified nor equipped to respond properly. The administrators lack the investigative ability, impartiality, professional training and legal knowledge required to deal with sexual assault cases.'

Article here. Excerpt:

'Administrators are under intense pressure to hold students accountable for sexual misconduct. If that pressure results in eviscerated due process and ideological fact-finding—­basically, deciding cases before hearing them—aggrieved plaintiffs will turn to state and federal courts for relief. Early indications from several decisions this year suggest judges may be receptive to some of their arguments.

A decision last month in King v. DePauw University, for example, is especially instructive. The federal judge in that case issued a preliminary injunction requiring the fall-2014 reinstatement, "without restriction," of Benjamin King, a student suspended for sexual assault. The court rejected King’s argument that he was the victim of gender-based discrimination but concluded he was "likely to succeed in demonstrating at trial that DePauw’s decision to find him liable for sexual misconduct ... was reached in an illegal, arbitrary, or capricious manner."
...
Failures in addressing sexual misconduct run the gamut from a rush to judgment in the Duke-lacrosse case to many examples of inexcusable indifference to sexual misconduct by athletes. Furthermore, we’re subject to ethical questions too long swept under the rug. Are we creating "special" sexual-assault tribunals available to comparatively wealthy college students who want to avoid the indignities of the criminal-justice system? If so, do we help perpetuate those indignities for the less privileged?

Article here. Excerpt:

'But the Michigan study, published in the Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, goes further than just reporting the top numbers. The authors of the report dissect male domestic violence as if it were a disease. In this view, surprising comparisons arise: Male violence against partners is more common than diabetes.

So if domestic violence is a disease, can doctors identify it in the patient? The Michigan study sought to correlate domestic violence with other health outcomes. Compared to the males who didn't commit such acts, those who reported violence against a partner were more likely to report symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome and insomnia.

It would be wrong to take these findings and declare that men with irritable bowels are more likely to commit domestic-violence crimes. The paper concludes that these may be caused by either substance abuse or a history of childhood violence (which two out of three perpetrators reported experiencing). So it's not that irritable bowels cause domestic violence. It's that the two may be related to the same psychological or biological cause. These are all just clues doctors may use in discovering who may be most likely to cause harm.'

A big thanks to the International Business Times for their courage to buck the long-worn trend of looking the other way on certain issues. They've demonstrated it again with this article, and let me say in all sincerity that I'd be saying the same thing even if my name wasn't on the "by" line. Excerpt:

'A story dated March 27 suggests the NFL authorities had the tape, and Goodell was aware of it. As criminal evidence, the NFL says it was not allowed to view the CCTV footage. Yet if Goodell knew a copy had been received by the NFL, he should have reported it then.

Goodell's dereliction of civic/moral duty, assuming the above is true, is its own matter. Morally vacant behaviour from corporate officers long pre-dates this story. Instead, keep in mind that Rice's fiancee Janay was also arrested for assault for the same incident, the difference being that Rice rendered her unconscious in his response to her assault; for if they were both arrested and charged with assault, and she was knocked out by Rice with a single blow, must she not have thrown the first punch?
...
A study appearing in the May 2007 edition of the American Journal of Public Health reported that almost half of DV incidents in the US are co-mutual, with 70% of non-co-mutual assaults committed by women, not men. But you wouldn't know that listening to feminists, the US president, and US vice-president, who paint DV as largely, or exclusively, male-on-female.
...

Article here.  Excerpt:

'About one in four National Football League players are likely to end up suffering dementia, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease or other cognitive impairments during their lifetime, according to a report filed in court by the league's lawyers.

The NFL submitted the summary of the findings of an actuarial study it had commissioned in the U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania on Friday as part of the ongoing litigation between former players and the league.

The study by the Segal Group, based in New York City, used a database of the medical history of retired players as part of its method.

The report appears to be the most definitive statement the NFL has yet made on the dangers of the sometimes violent sport, where players can develop concussions as they butt helmeted heads with those of other players.

The report said 28 percent of the "overall player population" and a third of the 5,000 plaintiffs who sued the league, will be diagnosed with cognitive impairment during their lifetime, according to the court filings.'

Story here. Excerpt:

'Gigi Jordan showed no emotion as a New York prosecutor described to a jury a "chilling and horrifying scenario" in which the businesswoman who made a fortune in pharmaceuticals allegedly concocted a lethal cocktail of painkillers and anti-inflammatories and forced her 8-year-old autistic son to swallow it.
...
"His fate was sealed," Bogdanos said. "He didn't die fast. One by one, his vital organs shut down. It didn't take minutes. It took hours to die."

But on the first day of Jordan's sensational second-degree murder trial -- expected to last months -- defense attorney Allan Brenner painted a starkly different portrait.

Brenner described Jordan as a desperate mother ultimately driven to kill Jude Mirra by her two former husbands: One who had allegedly threatened to kill her, a crime that would have left the boy with his biological father, who she believed had sexually abused Jude.
...
The boy's father has denied the allegations and has never been charged, CNN affiliate WCBS reported.

Brenner said Jordan told a therapist about the alleged abuse. The allegations were reported to local authorities, but no action was taken. Jordan then decided to seek the help of a nationally renowned expert on child exploitation in Cheyenne, Wyoming.

After being interviewed by him for 30 minutes, Brenner said, Jordan was accused of being unfit and delusional, taken to a medical facility and separated from her son for several months before being reunited with the boy.

"Now she sits here forever brokenhearted, stranded and separated from the true love of her life -- her son," Brenner said.

Jordan faces 15 years to life in prison if convicted. She is expected to take the stand.'

Video here. (Possibly NSFW since it shows images of women's racier-style underwear, so use discretion if at work/in a public place.)

Despite my problem with the presumptions underlying the idea behind "explicit consent", one good purpose these could serve is to let a guy know he's dealing with a girl who, if he doesn't get "explicit consent" from her, she might later accuse him of raping her.  At that point he can decide whether he wants to chance it with her or not, but to be fair, if he's already alone with her, she could still accuse him of raping her anyway and there'd be nothing he could do to disprove it.  Best not to be alone with her at all, really, unless she signs a form of some kind first and agrees to have their fooling-around session at least sound-recorded so the fact that she is consenting at every moment is documented.

I'd like to suggest the practical strategy of her just repeating the same phrase: "Yes, I consent, don't stop," until they're done with however far they're going to go, right up through the completion of actual *gasp* heterosexual intercourse.

I wonder, how do gay guys handle this?  Must they both get affirmative consent from each other the whole time?  And do lesbians not need to ask one another at all?

If two gay women start with each other, it poses a quandry.  They are both required to give affirmative consent but neither is required to elicit it.  Assuming sexual activity must start with an elicitation of consent but only from male students, then in essence such a rule stops lesbian students even from holding hands, maybe even looking too long at each other.  Or maybe they both just have to spontaneously start repeating "Yes, I consent, don't stop," until whenever they want to stop.

I thought I was glad not to be a college student before.  Now, I'm positively ecstatic!

Syndicate content