Student Who Refused To Back Title IX Assault Claim Says School Threatened Her

Article here. Excerpt:

'A female University of Southern California (USC) student is claiming that the school’s Title IX office threatened her for disavowing accusations of domestic violence.

Zoe Katz, the girlfriend of a male student whose college football career was derailed by a “rogue” Title IX office at the school, alleges that the university threatened her because she refused to say her boyfriend assaulted her. Title IX investigators insisted she must be a “battered” woman for refusing to comply, she says.
...
In a two-page statement provided toThe College Fix, Katz says that the inquiry consisted of “repeated interrogations” filled with “agendas, intimidation and falsehoods.”

She called the investigation “horrible and unjust,” and noted how Boermeester was suspended from the university even before he was interviewed by a Title IX investigator.'

up
40 users have voted.
I like this

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

vile feminism

as we have said before this type 'feminism' is like a virus, or maybe a cancer on society. it sucks the life right out of everything. that's how you know it. it oozes vile from whatever deep crevice and destroys everything good in its path. I don't know about evil defined as lucifer and his/her demons and all that, but I'm not so blind as not to see the detrimental effects this pox is having on our society, and our country. it knows no equality, and cares not a wit for fairness. truth and the light of day are its bitter enemies. free speech be damned.

notice how it takes over our institutions and makes up new rules just for certain people. it rewards its followers w/ free stuff like affirmative action and title ix. laws just meant to protect/reward a few. no sense of fairness, as our Founding Fathers demanded. 2nd class citizens men have become, and you young guys will know it better once you have run blindly into the one-sided laws our institutions have embraced. it doesn't matter to men until it affects them personally, like when they lose the right to be a parent in divorce court. or maybe when they are denied that promotion because the company has to promote based on 'diversity'. or when false accusations against you send you to prison for decades. these are just a few of the ways men have been stripped of their right to equality. that thing between a woman's legs rules men and they will do ANYTHING to make sure the fun never stops. but alas, it does, and usually in a most horrible manner. no worries, your turn is right around the corner.

up
2 users have voted.
I like this

Hard to predict the future

Is it the power, such as it is, of men that is one the verge of being snuffed out, or of women? If the main thing driving feminism's success is "pussy power", the use of the promise of or denial of sex to men to regulate their behavior, attitudes, supported causes, etc., coupled with the use of social engineering to manipulate men into fearing that they will lose face if appearing to be "anti-woman" (nymphotropism strikes again), then does not the rise of sex-bot technology at least in part threaten "pussy power" by eliminating one part of the equation? Observe... things are moving faster than I think even the more speculative among us thought they would:

Sex robot more popular at brothel than REAL prostitutes

I wasn't imagining seeing sex-bots find their way into brothels until at least 20 years from now. But here they are already. At this rate, sex-bots for mass production will be rolling off assembly lines sooner than the promised self-driving cars so touted by the likes of Google, et al.

Between that and one day, the technology that will exist that allows for fused sperm cells to form a viable human gamete coupled with the artificial uterus (these two innovations admittedly being rather far off, and available only in more developed nations), the question will not be "Are men necessary?" as now gleefully asked by feminists the world over, but more "Of what use are actual human women to men, and furthermore, why are we even paying attention them anymore?"

Getting men to think they need women more than women need men has been a coup of P/R and mind-f*ckery consistent with feminism's and nymphotropism's strategies. But the truth is hard to hide, though often ignored or misrepresented. Thought experiment: Set 1,000 men down in the middle of a large place with a fair number of natural resources good for sustaining human life, say, a forest or jungle. Now drop 1,000 women into a similar place far removed from the men, and indeed, the rest of civilization. Leave both groups alone for a month. They are there, to fend for themselves, left perhaps with only books that allow them to identify the local poisonous vs. edible plants. All the people in the experiment have no prior training in outdoor living at all, no ex-military people, no former scouts, nothing. Now at the end of the month, how are the groups doing? Think hard. So who again needs who more?

The extraordinary modern innovations concocted largely by men have allowed contemporary civilization to exist such that men need not be involved personally anymore with women and they will be fine. In a way, this is very good. It's consistent with the idea that the species that can best support its own propagation is the one most likely to thrive. Humans have gotten so good at making it easy to propagate without much effort or even support from half the propagation team that human females, who have needed men personally for a very long time in human history in order to survive, no longer need them. Men's inventions have enabled this reality, and overall, the outcome is good for everyone. While there has been an attendant drop in fecundity, arguably, that is not undesirable given humanity's numbers.

Indeed, that women no longer personally need men as a means of support/protection for themselves and their kids is a good thing. Enabling the independence of people one from the other is to offer an increase in opportunities which, at least in theory, makes the pursuit of hapiness easier and more attainable for more people. And if not to be happy, then, what is the point of being alive? (Well, I have some alternate theories, but time and place.) But as to power within this complex, mechanized human society remaining with feminists, the elimination or reduction in the personal need for human females as a source of sexual relief/fulfillment will certainly serve to undermine the degree to which men consider human women relevant to their lives, happiness, or well-being. AI-enabled, sexually realistic androids can do a lot to relieve women of the kind of influence female sexuality has given them over men and their priorities these past countless millennia.

Why feminists would object to the development of sex-bot technology on the one hand is thus perfectly understandable. On the other hand though, feminists ought to be deligthed. After all, they have for decades been asserting that for women, h@ving sex with men is at least unpleasant and at most a form of rape/oppression/etc. Alas contrary to their wishes and claims, a rather large number of women to this day, despite decades of feminist indoctrination on colleges and elsewhere, still rather enjoy h@ving sex with men and a few still like the idea of *gasp* actually h@aving an LTR with a man, even to include reproducing cooperatively with same.

The horror. The horror.

So the advent of sex-bots on aggregate should come as a relief to feminists. Large numbers of men will stop pestering women to engage in that nasty old activity/source of oppression/rape that is, according to them, heterosexual intercourse. Instead, many men will happily leave women alone for any reason except business and necessity, and content themselves to come home from work to an android who will also, without hesitation, drop to her knees and **** him without complaint and then offer herself enthusiastically to him for whatever sexual desires he may want to indulge, all before serving up dinner and looking fantastic the entire time. All for one price, paid once, too. No kids, alimony, child support, false accusations, divorce, nagging, shaming, physical abuse, etc. I'd pay a hefty price for that. Once. Only once. *sigh*... *smile*

But feminists hate to see men happy. A fair number will object vehemently to new technology that even furthers their own cause if it also happens to bring a benefit (in this case, a huge one) to the male sex. They have already started. *SMH*

The good news is, the free market rules. So far, all efforts to stop illicit drug sales seem to have failed so badly that in many places in the world, the process of legalizing at least some of them has begun. This is known in the sporting world as "throwing in the towel". Outlawing sex-bots will do nothing to stop their development and propagation. Attempting to outlaw them is a Sisyphean effort.

At some point, I don't know when, the only thing feminists will have left to leverage on is men's fear of looking less than all-in for anyone female for any reason no matter how nutty. And after the dependence on human women as a source of sexual gratification goes away for enough men, I predict men will be much less influenced by that concern than so many appear to be now.

But as my old man used to say: "We shall see."

up
2 users have voted.
I like this