When #MeToo becomes #NotYou

As is true with most feminist-driven hashtags, it was only a matter of time before the #Metoo hashtag became an attack on men. The hashtag gained prominence after actress Alyssa Milano tweeted using it. The hashtag went viral, although given how political Twitter has become, it is possible that those running Twitter simply boosted the hashtag to the top of the list.

Regardless of that, the hashtag prompted numerous women to write about their experiences of harassment and sexual violence. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. What makes it peculiar is that this comes in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein fall-out. One would think the focus would center on the people Weinstein and other powerful Hollywood moguls abused. Instead, the focus shifted to talking about random instances of butt-grabbing and cat-calling.

As the hashtag became more popular, the feminists moved in and quickly shifted the focus to men. According to those feminists, men need to listen and believe and change their ways because of the “proof” the #MeToo provided of how much sexual violence women face.

Men were told to they needed to challenge their own sexist, abusive behavior, regardless of whether they have ever acted in such a way. They were encouraged to tweet #IDidThat and #HimThough in solidarity to women — and only women — who faced sexual violence.

Men were reminded that “It Was You” and told, after so many articles encouraging men to use solidarity hashtags, that hashtags were not good enough. Continue reading

Advertisements

I love the way you lie, Michael Kimmel

Cassie Jaye, the director of the Red Pill, released several videos of her unedited interviews from the film. I found her interview with male feminist Michael Kimmel particularly interesting. Kimmel is well-known for his anti-male stance, most notably his complete dismissal of physical and sexual violence against men and boys.

His essential argument is, “women’s violence toward male partners certainly does exist, but it tends to be very different from that of men toward their female partners: It is far less injurious and less likely to be motivated by attempts to dominate or terrorize their partners.”

His concern for women’s violence against men is not that the men and boys can be and are victims. Indeed, he dismisses such violence as merely women defending themselves against male abusers. His concern is purely on how “acknowledging” — if one can call it that — women’s violence against men could help prevent violence against women.

This is precisely the attitude Kimmel displays in his interview with Jaye. He simply lies about the men’s rights movement, lies about their concerns, and lies about their methods. He also ignores men’s experiences, giving the false impression that men essentially have no legitimate fears or concerns.

Yet like many feminists, Kimmel is incapable of maintaining the lie for very long because he wants to convince men that they should side with feminists. As such, he inadvertently undermines his own argument, particularly the feminist argument about male power. Continue reading

Bulletin Board v306

Addressing the Lack of Research on Male Childhood Sexual Abuse — On Thursday July 20, fans across the world mourned the loss of Chester Bennington, the lead vocalist for the world-renowned band, Linkin Park. Bennington’s suicide by hanging at the age of 41 stunned fans, but it also brought to light a rarely discussed topic: male childhood sexual abuse. One in six boys are sexually abused before the age of 16—yet the issue remains underreported, undertreated, and highly stigmatized.

Court: Juvenile sex crimes can be basis of civil commitment — Civil commitment of offenders who have been designated as sexually violent predators can be indefinitely extended for those whose crimes occurred when they were juveniles, the Washington Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday.

Fear of being called racist ‘stopping people from raising child abuse concerns’ — Potential cases of child abuse are not being raised because people fear being labelled racist, a Labour frontbencher has argued. There is a need to acknowledge that the “majority of perpetrators have been British-Pakistani” in the towns and cities where grooming gangs have targeted girls, Sarah Champion has said. Continue reading

Woman who raped student sues him for “defamation”

It is rare that any case of women sexually abusing boys leaves me at a loss for words. I have read about the most ridiculous situations, from women claiming the boys raped them to women suing their victims for child support. However, the most recent case left me stunned.

A woman convicted of sexually abusing one of her 16-year-old students filed a lawsuit against the boy for “defamation”:

The former Arroyo Grande High School teacher convicted earlier this year of having sex with a 16-year-old student has responded to a lawsuit from that student’s family by filing a counterclaim, alleging the victim has defamed her “to various classmates, family and other members of the community.”

I will quote it again just in case the multiple face palms prevented you from reading it in full: Continue reading

Canadian Supreme Court finds it’s not rape if the boy looks older

Oh Canada. It seems that every few months I come across another head-slapping instance of utter stupidity. The most recent case deals with the acquittal of a woman accused of raping a 14-year-old boy. Barbara George knew the victim through her son. She assumed the victim was older because he looked and acted “mature”.

According to an article:

Their sexual activity took place after the complainant entered George’s bedroom, along with George’s 14-year-old daughter, during a teenage party involving drinking at her home. The daughter eventually left, but the complainant and George, who were both not drinking, spoke alone for several hours. The trial judge found as a fact that the complainant initiated their first kiss and the sexual intercourse that followed. He also found as a fact that George, although “reluctant at first,” was a willing participant in the sexual intercourse that followed the kissing.

The appellant did not find out the boy’s age until months later when she asked her son.

If that sounds very convenient that is because it likely is something the woman concocted as a defense. Granted, it is entirely possible that she did not know the boy’s age. However, Canadian law is pretty clear on that matter:

Mistake of age

(4) It is not a defence to a charge under section 151 or 152, subsection 160(3) or 173(2), or section 271, 272 or 273 that the accused believed that the complainant was 16 years of age or more at the time the offence is alleged to have been committed unless the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the complainant.

Based on George’s statements, she made no attempt to confirm the boy’s age until well after the incident. So this should be a moot point.

But of course, this is a woman in Canada and the Canadian government is abjectly against prosecuting and convicting women of abusing children no matter what the law states. So of course the judge acquitted George based on the claim that George did not know the boy’s age:

The Crown argued at the Supreme Court that the trial judge misinterpreted s. 150.1(4). “Instead of considering whether the appellant had taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the boy’s age, the trial judge focused on whether there was an objective basis for her belief the boy was old enough to have sex with,” the Crown argued in its factum.

“Instead of asking whether she had taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the boy’s age, the trial judge listed reasons why a person might think the boy was 16 years or older at the time of the encounter even when some of those reasons would not have been apparent to any person at the time of the sexual encounter. Moreover, the trial judge erred by relying on evidence that was not probative or relevant to the legal test enunciated in s. 150.1(4).”

This is despite the unquestionable clarity of the law. There is really no other way to interpret it. Assuming a child’s age does not absolve one of responsibility. Even if the child lies about their age a person is still subject to prosecution if they fail to verify it.

The Crown managed to appeal the acquittal to the Supreme Court, yet the Court upheld the judge’s ruling. The members of the five-panel court released an explanation of their May decision. It is a thing to behold:

Today the Supreme Court reasoned that, “the more reasonable an accused’s perception of the complainant’s age, the fewer steps reasonably required of them.”

“In some cases, it may be reasonable to ask a partner’s age. It would be an error, however, to insist that a reasonable person would ask a partner’s age in every case,” the decision reads. “Conversely, it would be an error to assert that a reasonable person would do no more than ask a partner’s age in every case, given the commonly recognized motivation for young people to misrepresent their age.”

In short, it is perfectly okay for someone to just assume a child is of the age of consent because no reasonable person would ask the child’s age in every instance. Yet in the very next sentence they argue that simply taking the child’s word is not enough.

The explanation makes zero sense. Either a reasonable person would ask or they would not. In this particular circumstance, there was no reason for George not ask. Most parents ask questions about their children’s friends, particularly those they do not know well.

Likewise, based on her actions one could infer that she suspected the boy was not over 16. The reason George ended up in court is because she attempted to become a mounty and had to answer a question regarding sex with someone under 16. George asked her son the boy’s age and reported the answer on the application.

If George honestly believed that the boy was of legal age, her actions make no sense. She would have answered in the negative and been done with it. It seems more likely that she either suspected or knew the boy was younger.

But all of that is a moot point now. George gets away with violating the law by using an excuse the law was specifically written to address. And let us not pretend that this would have worked if the accused had been male. There are dozens of cases of men meeting underage girls in clubs and bars who still faced conviction despite having every reason to assume the girls were of age.

Yet when the perpetrator is female, any and every excuse is acceptable.

The NISVS 2010-2012 Report – Continued

In the previous part, I discussed the CDC’s general findings from the recent 2012 survey. My analysis continues below.

As I mentioned in the previous post, the CDC’s numbers have remained consistent throughout the survey’s history. While I do think the researchers are manipulating the data in regards to sexual violence, they appear to do it same way each time. For example, the researchers again found that women commit the majority of sexual violence against male victims: Continue reading

The NISVS 2010-2012 Report

The CDC released a new National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS). The survey combines data from the 2010, 2011, and 2012 numbers. Readers may notice that the most current data is from 2012, putting a five-year gap between the survey data and the current year. The researchers do not explain the delay, however, it does appear that both the 2011 and 2012 took increasingly longer periods of time to complete.

There are several things worth noting about the survey. It appears the CDC listened to the complaints about how they reported their findings. Readers may recall that in the 2010 survey the CDC repeatedly cited the rape statistics for male victims despite the “made to penetrate” victims showing a much higher prevalence rate. This resulted in skewed reporting, making it appear as if males are never victims of forcible or violent sexual assault. The researchers changed this in the current survey. They instead cite the higher “made to penetrate” rate, although this creates same problem as before (I will explain that later).

The term “made to penetrate” remains. The researchers continue to separate it from “rape” despite no one else studying, researching, or prosecuting sexual violence against males doing so. It remains as inexplicable as it was in 2011, although to the CDC’s credit they did not add in any nonsense about it not counting as rape since it is done primarily males as they did before.

The CDC again found that 1 in 3 women and 1 in 6 men experience some form of sexual violence in their lifetime. As with the previous survey, there is a higher rate of “made to penetrate” than rape among male victims. From the survey: Continue reading