Christina Hoff Sommers interviewed Stuart Taylor. Taylor authored the book The Campus Rape Frenzy, which details the feminist claim of a “rape epidemic” on college campuses and their attempt to roll back due process for students accused of rape.
Taylor highlights in the interview the myriad ways in which the due process of students are violated in an attempt to peddle the feminist agenda. He highlights that these new “listen and believe” rules do not apply to male victims. A male student claiming rape have little chance of his claim being taken seriously. If the both parties are intoxicated and the male claims rape, Taylor suggests that this would be taken as a malicious counter claim and dismissed.
More worrisome is the presumption of guilt. Accused students are not afforded council, not allowed to the see the evidence against them, not allowed to cross examine witnesses, not allowed to present witnesses, and often are not informed of the complaints until the process is well underway. This forces the accused to prove their innocence, something that is a clear violation of constitutional law. Continue reading →
Karen Straughan released a video titled Why I am not a feminist. In It she critiques the ideology and breaks down the specific reasons she is turned off by the ideology.
I have thought about doing something similar for some time. The primary reason I have avoided doing it is because I do think anyone should have to justify or explain why they do not support an ideology. It is one thing to ask someone directly. To have to provide an explanation as if it is somehow wrong to object to a certain ideology is ridiculous.
However, I found Karen’s video enlightening in terms of her reasons for rejecting the ideology. According to her, several other Honey Badgers will also create videos about the topic. I think I will create a post listing those and perhaps other videos of people explaining their reasoning for rejecting the ideology. Continue reading →
One would think that movement supposedly built around respecting people’s agency and humanity would avoid anything that would make it appear they do not follow their own standards. For example, if a movement argued that it was wrong to sexually objectify one sex because reducing a person to an object is inhumane, one would expect this to apply to the other sex as well.
Yet one would be wrong. Sabrina Maddeaux argued in a National Post article that it is perfectly fine to sexually objectify men because it is “different”. As she explained:
Male objectification isn’t threatening because men don’t suffer from a severe power imbalance that puts them at risk economically, socially and physically.
A two minute Google search proves this wrong. People judge whether to hire, date, or befriend men based on the men’s appearance. The notion that unattractive men have it easy or that men’s appearances have little impact on how people treat them is nonsense. The evidence suggests that unattractive men do face severe power imbalances due to their looks.
We do not even need to look at studies to demonstrate this. We can follow Maddeaux’s model and use movie stars. Actors like Paul Giamatti and Steve Buscemi do not headline most films. They are fantastic actors, yet they are rarely given the leading man role.
The amount of whining and complaining about the joke tweet was incredible. Hundreds of people tripped over themselves to set Morgan straight. Actor Ewan McGregor pulled out of an interview with Good Morning Britain in protest, although Morgan’s response was classic.
The contrast here is interesting. Morgan was clearly joking. He would not support an actual men’s march. He would mock it relentlessly along with most of the people attacking him. His point was that the women’s march essentially had no point. It did not change anything. Donald Trump is still president and the people who voted for him were not swayed by a bunch of entitled, well-off women wearing “pussy” hats complaining about not getting their way after losing in a fair election. Continue reading →
Few things are as frightening as the lack of due process. The idea that someone could be held responsible for an act they may not have done without any means of defending themselves brings up thoughts of the medieval Inquisition. One would think that as a society we would be past the point of denying someone a trial or any means of defending themselves. Yet a UK judge recently ruled that two men accused of rape are “rapists” despite neither men facing any charges or trial:
A former Scotland international footballer and his ex-teammate have been ruled to be rapists and ordered to pay £100,000 damages despite never facing a criminal trial.
Denise Clair, who was left “devastated” by a Crown decision not to prosecute, sued striker David Goodwillie.
She also sued Goodwillie’s then Dundee United colleague David Robertson.
She claimed they raped her at a flat in Armadale, in West Lothian, after a night out in Bathgate in January 2011.
It was the first civil rape case of its kind in Scotland.
The first question this raises is why the Crown chose not to prosecute. Rape cases are often difficult to prosecute due to lack of evidence or the accuser’s lack of credibility or the accused possessing an alibi. There are a number of other reasons that go into that decision. That the case was not prosecuted is not evidence of misconduct or disbelief. It may simply be a situation in there is no way to put on a winning case.
The Honey Badgers had an interesting stream with YouTuber TL;DR about the “puritanism” of the current progressive and feminist movements. The Badgers and TL;DR break down some of the reasons why so many modern leftists fall into the a cycle of smug arrogance. As TL;DR notes in the stream, everyone has this capacity and everyone does it from time to time.
Alison mentions this as well. She notes that she and Karen Straughan went through a series of videos and noticed the smug looks on many feminists’ faces in the videos. This is something I have noticed as well in my dealings with feminists, both offline and online. The contempt for those who disagree with feminists or feminism is often palpable, as is the arrogance when feminists know they are in a protected space.
One can see this in spaces in which the opposition is heavily moderated or banned. The feminists in those spaces behave with a kind of self-righteous indignation based solely on their assumed superiority over whomever represents the opposition. Yet this attitude quickly shifts when they enter uncontrolled spaces. Feminists then become defensive to a comical extent, reflexively accusing anyone and everyone of hating feminists, women, and social justice. Continue reading →
It seems a bizarre question to ask, yet given the current situation in the education system and many community centers, it is one we must ask.
For almost three decades we have watched men lose their position in society. It is not only reflected in the education and community support systems. It also appears throughout pop culture. Gone are positive fathers from TV and film. Now fathers are the comic relief. Our commercials feature men barely (and often not) more intelligent than pets. Articles, talk shows, and studies abound touting the “inherent” uselessness and pointlessness of men. We are constantly told that men essentially do not matter, except in how they can benefit and protect women.
If the message is not the above, then it is the claim that men are predators who ruin the world for everyone, particularly for women. Men are harassers, bullies, batterers, and rapists. Men need to be taught not to rape, not to beat, and to learn affirmative, enthusiastic consent lest they remain villains.