"Finally dealing with campus rape means that some men will have it tougher"

Submitted by Mastodon on Wed, 2015-02-11 23:48

Article here. Excerpt:

'The epidemic levels of rape on university campuses has a lot of people really worried. Unfortunately, they’re worried that campuses are going “too far” in their effort to punish rapists; that young men will be wrongly accused; that campus sex policies will criminalize consensual sex; that the rape epidemic is more ideological rhetoric than actual lived experience.
...
The concern over due process in campus adjudication procedures are also misplaced. In The New York Times, Judith Shulevitz bemoans the Department of Education guidelines that instruct schools to use a “preponderance of evidence” standard in rape cases, as if such a thing is unheard of. But this is the same standard of evidence that’s required when a rape victim sues her attacker in civil court. Shulevitz also warns that schools risk losing federal funds if they don’t adhere to the DOE’s rules, but no school has ever had their funding taken away because of a Title IX violation.

Too many of us are more comfortable taking on imaginary problems rather than real ones - but reflexive thought experiments don’t stop rape or address the real underlying problems. They only do a disservice to the victims.'

---
In case you didn't know: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Valenti

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

... may make it harder on *some* men, but so what. If a few boys need to be unfairly branded as rapists for life, so be it. If it makes women *feel* safer that this is how things go, so be it. Worth it.

I wonder how Miss V. would feel about this topic if she were a he?

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Thu, 2015-02-12 06:03

Jessica acts as if never before in human history has rape been against the law, as if it were something we are just now dealing with.

In fact, rape has been against the law for centuries. In many cultures, the punishment for rape was or still is death.

But we've also developed rights and due process for those accused of rape. Rights for the accused actually have a shorter history than the prohibition against rape.

But by pretending we're just now getting around to doing something about rape, she can make getting rid of the rights of the accused sound reasonable.

How can you tell if a feminist is lying? She typing on her keyboard.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by el cid on Thu, 2015-02-12 15:10

Since when is insisting on due process considered going too far?

gee, it's like she doesn't even care.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Kris on Thu, 2015-02-12 16:53

Here is a quote from another one of Velenti's articles in regards to college rape and the California legislation Valenti supports and wants every state to adopt:

"The legislation additionally clarifies that affirmative consent means both parties must be awake, conscious and not incapacitated from alcohol or drugs – and that past sexual encounters or a romantic relationship doesn’t imply consent. TheCalifornia bill also, importantly, specifies that “lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent”."

I find it interesting that in Emma Sulcawicz case Emma describes Paul, her alleged rapist, as "drunk" and herself as sober. She brings up supporting evidence by saying the night of the incident he was carrying an alcoholic drink when they met up (so she clearly was aware he was drinking). Yet Emma brought him to her apartment with the intent to have sex.

Doesn't this make her the rapist?

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Kris on Thu, 2015-02-12 17:18

This is the feminist legal paradigm. Due process is just a barrier to justice when its the gender of the accused thats important, not their guilt or innocence.
It does no good to the community or victims of rape to punish an innocent person. All it does is feed the untempered gender hatred that is becoming the new icon of feminism.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by rabel111 on Fri, 2015-02-13 03:08