Campuses must distinguish between assault and youthful bad judgment

Article here. Excerpt:

'I really didn't want to write another column that hinges on the notion of a war between the genders.

But our front-page story Sunday — on legal challenges by students punished for campus sexual assaults — raises such provocative questions, I just couldn't help myself.

University officials around the country are ratcheting up efforts to protect female students by reining in sexual misconduct. But as Times reporter Teresa Watanabe explained, that campaign is raising concern about the rights of the accused.
...
We do our children no favors by making sexual stupidity a capital offense. It doesn't educate men or rescue women; it just turns naive and awkward college students into perpetrators and victims.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

At least she's trying to inject some common sense into the issue. As she points out, a drunken man is held accountable for his behavior and a drunken woman is not. Why the double standard? In fact, from what I can tell, a majority of alleged sexual assaults on campus involve drunken hook-ups. Some people talk as if we can make such hook-ups a safe way for men and women to have sex. I have my doubts, to say the least. When people are drunk, they can get stupid. Women are allowed to get stupid; men are not.

I had what I think was an insight into how women think about law and sexual assault. Women--or at least feminists--believe the purpose of the law is to protect them from sexual assault and even their own risky behavior. At first glance that might seem reasonable. In fact, of course, legal authorities enforce the law; they do not protect us from crime. The police make no guarantee of your safety. Their primary job is to find the perpetrator and punish him. They do not serve as a personal protection service. If a person wants that, he or she needs to hire a bodyguard or security service. Banks, for example, do this all the time. They put the money in a vault and hire armed guards for protection. These measures are to prevent the robbery. The primary job of the police is to find robbers. If a policeman comes across a crime being committed, he is expected to intervene. But his primary job is to enforce the law, not serve as personal bodyguard.

So does society have a duty to protect women from sexual assault? The correct answer is no--it has no more duty to protect women from sexual assault than it does to protect a bank from robbery. But, traditionally, societies have made a "female exception" to this rule. What most societies did was protect women by limiting their behavior. A graphic example is Muslim countries that don't allow women to leave home unless accompanies by a male relative. If a woman always does that, the odds of her being raped are nil.

The problem today is women want to enjoy unprecedented sexual freedom while also being protected from sexual assault--and while expanding the definition of sexual assault. And treating suggestions on how to avoid assault as "blaming the victim." This makes society's job of protecting women from assault almost impossible. The only practical way to protect women in the way they seem to want is the traditional way: put limitations on women's sexual freedom. Think of Tevye's daughters in "Fiddler on the Roof." They went from living with Papa to living with their husbands, with no drunken hook-ups in between. And no rapes, either.

The problem is a simple one: with freedom comes greater risk. Can society protect women in the way they seem to want and give them complete sexual freedom? I believe the answer is no. The only practical solution is a version of the traditional solution. But women will resist that. So we're stuck with a problem that has no practical solution.

Like0 Dislike0

It's limiting men's freedom of movement, and numbers as well. As some leading feminists have written, the way to make it safe for women in society is to "tag" and monitor men using the very modern tech'y men invented. Give all women devices identifying all men in their vicinity and immediate access to their criminal records, if any. This coupled with such rules as found in conservative Sharia-implementing countries applied to men instead of women and then all will be just fine. Or so they say.

So yes, some feminists think there is a solution; just not one men will accept.

Like0 Dislike0

I usually get frustrated reading feminists on "rape culture" because I believe they have no real solutions to offer. What I feel they engage in is recrimination and utopianism. Men are bad but we can someday create a society without rape--or any crime--because we know men are the problem. So we'll get rid of men or perhaps "tag" them or castrate them all or lock them up and make slaves out of them or reduce them to 10% of the population. As you say, that is their "practical" solution.

But, of course, none of what they hope for will happen if someone comes up with real, practical solution in today's world. The bigger the problem, the more they can sell the solution. So they pretend to provide a solution when, in fact, they really want to make the problem worse so they can start "reducing" the male population. In the meantime, everyone thinks they're experts in solving the problem, so another feminist gets a cushy job.

About the first thing feminists did was tell women to get rid of dad and either go it alone or get a female partner. Problem is, that was very bad advice when it came to preventing rape, as most men serving time in person for rape were raised by single moms. If you want to live in a dangerous neighborhood, move to one where most families are headed by single moms. We call them "ghettos," but we should really call them "single-mother neighborhoods."

Frankly I think feminists know as much about how to structure society--or prevent rape--as they do about flying airplanes.

On a funny note, I saw a cartoon showing a woman holding a jar of some goo. She says, "We finally got rid of men and in this jar is all we need to reproduce." The punchline: she can't open the jar.

Like0 Dislike0

el cid, I have been liking all of your comments lately. I think you are right when you said sexually permissive culture and a culture safe from sexual assault go together like gasoline and fire.

And to add to your comment about ghettos: Ghettos are a matriarchal society. If we break down patriarchy, this is what we will get. It is the least effective and is unhealthy for children.

I also think of the city of Detroit and how the city is bankrupt. I have no official sources only anecdotal, but from what I see Detroit has a higher percentage of single mothers, poverty, welfare, ghettos, crime, etc. and you know what the catalist is for all of these negative things which break down families and then society?....promiscuous women!

If you ever want to change a well functioning patriarchal society into a dysfunctional matriarchal society (aka ghetto), just bring in slutty women, everyone gets laid, little production occurs, families wont form, taxes to pay welfare will be needed, boys end up as criminals or in jail, teenage girls with absent fathers get pregnant, and the whole cycle continues. Yet feminists try to convince us that female promiscuity should not be shamed and is part of the equality they seek; and they want to break down patriarchy.

Less rapes occur under a patriarchal society. Men have NEVER been tolerant of female rape. Even convicted rapists in jail need to be separated from other convicts for their own safety.

The less responsible women are for their drunken hook ups and when men are driven out, the more society will turn into a ghetto. I'm glad this article was written - and by a woman. This column does have a comment section - took me awhile to find it. Scroll halfway down the article and you'll see the word "comments" off to the right.

Like0 Dislike0

I gotta admit: the older I get, the more I think our ancestors got it right. I've watched all the things my generation has done. At first I thought it was great: we were gonna create a new way and everything would be better. I even thought the feminists had a few good ideas. But as I've watched it all unfold, I see we've created a whole bunch of problems that were solved under the old system. Single motherhood and the sexual revolution were bad ideas.

I agree about men never tolerating rape. And I've also heard rapists are not popular in prison. As to the rest of what you say, I agree.

Like0 Dislike0