Betsy DeVos, the Education Secretary, announced on September 7th that her department would review the Title IX sexual assault guidelines set in place by the Obama administration.
The administration created the guidelines following the campus rape hysteria drummed up by feminists. Feminist cited a study that claimed 1 in 5 women in college experience sexual violence. Later studies showed that the rate was grossly inflated and place the actual rate at about 1 in 52.
The major issue with the guidelines is that it requires colleges to lower the standard of proof in sexual assault cases. I highlighted this in a post from 2014. The standard was lower to a preponderance of evidence, which is the same standard used in civil court. This standard only requires a more likely than not finding in order to rule in favor of the complainant. One can see the immediate problem when applying this to a criminal offense. It is entirely possible for an innocent person to appear guilty based on limited or circumstantial evidence.
However, the new guidelines make matters much worse. As I noted in another post, 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 →
Back in May, I wrote about an incident at an Australian school where feminist blogger Clementine Ford spoke. The school invited Ford to speak about women’s issues, and several boys in the audience challenged her views. Rather than address the boys’ questions, Ford left and later took to Twitter to bash the boys.This prompted a response from the school, which inexplicably took Ford’s side in attacking their male students.
Jody Allard is back. For those who do not recall, Allard wrote an article in 2016 titled My teen boys are blind to rape culture. Allard argued in the article that despite all her efforts as a good feminist single mother, her two teenage sons are riddled with misogyny. Instead of taking heed of Allard’s demands that they check their privilege, stop their internalized misogyny, and challenge their friends who deal in “rape culture”, the boys laughed her off.
Any reasonable parent would look at that response and reflect on their own behavior. They would ask themselves why this approach did not work. They would ask why their children reject the very foundation of their parent’s identity and political beliefs.
Allard, however, is not a reasonable parent. She is a narcissistic, passive-aggressive, sociopathic ideologue, and so she does what anyone so mentally deranged would do: blame and publicly humiliate her sons. Again. For the fourth time. Here is the title of her most recent article:
Think of what type of person you must be to write something so vicious about your own sons. Think about how warped your mind must be to in one breath say that your sons are good and in the next accuse them of being rapists. Because that is what Allard did. You need not take my word for it. Take Allard’s: Continue reading →
I suppose one could argue about generalizations. Yes, not all people on the left want to censor the opposing side. However, it does appear that most of the current voices attempting to censor are on the left. It also appears that while those speaking may represent a small group of people, a significant portion of the left as a group does not seem to have a problem with the attempted censorship.
We are seeing the attitude appear in every sphere, from the news to entertainment. Look at the situation with Cassie Jaye and her filmThe Red Pill. Feminists have successfully blocked its showing at several theaters, despite that most, if any, of those objecting to the film have never watched it. They are blocking not based on its content, but based on their feelings about what they assume the film discusses.
We can see this within the comic book industry, where several covers were pulled or replaced because of complaints from the left. This has happened in the video game industry, which led in part to Gamergate. The most recent instance occurred a few days ago at E3. This attitude has even made its way into the news, an outlet that is supposed to be unbiased, yet proves highly partisan.
So I think it is worth asking what is going on with modern liberalism that makes its adherents so inclined to this behavior. Continue reading →
One of the first rules of journalism is to know about your subject before interviewing them. No journalist wants to appear ignorant of the basic facts about a person, particularly when that information is easily acquired.
Another important rule is to respect the subject. Obviously this will not apply to everyone. Sometimes a journalist may need to be confrontational. In most cases, however, there is no need to badger the subject. Respect garners better interviews than disrespect.
Youtuber TL;DR released a video recently concerning an intriguing paper called Phallic Affect, or Why Men’s Rights Activists Have Feelings. A one Jonathan A. Allan wrote the paper. Allan is the Canada research chair in Queer Theory and Associate Professor in Gender and Women’s Studies and English and Creative Writing at Brandon University. He is the author of works such as Virgin Envy: The Cultural (In)Significance of the Hymen and Reading from Behind: A Cultural Analysis of the Anus. He is also the vice-president of the American Men’s Studies Association.
Given such stellar credentials, it is not surprising that a substantial portion of Allan’s work focuses on criticizing masculinity as bad or toxic. In his paper Phallic Affect, Allan argues that men’s rights activists have co-oped the language of feminists in regards to the personal is political. Feminists contend that a woman’s feelings on a matter are important and validate her concerns, even if the evidence suggests her concerns are unwarranted. This usually manifests as “the personal is political” or “listen and believe” or “feels equal reals”.
Allan, however, does not think the men’s rights movement has any legitimate grievances. Continue reading →
Everyday Feminism is precisely what is wrong with modern feminism. The writers for the site are typically so misinformed and uninformed that it is shocking they are able to construct complete sentences containing any information. The site is a view into a Fortress of Solitude-size echo chamber, complete with backpatting, groupthink, and flat-out lies. Yet it is the condescending tone found in many article that often results in the site’s best idiotic material.
Enter Suzannah Weiss. She wrote an article titled “4 MRA Arguments That Actually Have a Point – And Where They Go Wrong“. One already knows it will be a trainwreck of ideological nonsense just from the title. The most impressive part about the article is how blind Weiss is to the nature of her own statements. As one reads through the article, she contradicts herself within one or two sentences. A simple proofread would have caught this. One would expect an editor to catch it as well. Yet Weiss readily disproves her own arguments against men’s rights activists so frequently I can only assume she typed it and posted it immediately.
The article is fairly long, so I will break it into parts in order to address them fully. Let us begin: Continue reading →