‘Vagina Warrior Lynch Mobs’

http://theothermccain.com/2014/10/26/vagina-warrior-lynch-mobs/

Thanks to Darleen Click for that phrase, describing the feminists who have ginned up a campus sex panic with hysterical claims about a (non-existent) “rape epidemic” at colleges and universities.

Rape has real victims — including murdered victims like Hannah Graham— but this phony hysteria has real victims, too, including male students accused of sexual assault and denied their due process rights in university disciplinary proceedings.

This has been the problem behind the “rape epidemic” rhetoric all along. What has happened is this: In response to feminist pressure, universities and colleges have begun treating accusations of sexual assault not as crimes, but as infractions of campus policy. Why? Because most of the cases involve “he-said/she-said” disputes about consent: Boy and girl get drunk; drunk boy and drunk girl have sex; girl sobers up and regrets having sex; girl claims she was raped.

In nearly all of the specific cases like this that have come to my attention, the accusation of rape was made several days or weeks or even months after the incident. No witnesses, no evidence, and no way to make a criminal prosecution. Whatever happened, however traumatic or shameful it was for the female involved, no prosecutor is going to take a case like that to trial. So . . .

To satisfy feminist demands, university administrators started using disciplinary hearings to punish males accused of rape — punishing themas if they had been found guilty of a crime, which they have not. This extra-judicial campus “rape court” system clearly violates the rights of the accused students. This is what I wrote last year about the case of Vassar College student Peter Yu:

If this guy is, in fact, a predatory sex offender, he should be charged and tried for the alleged crime. Merely to kick him out of school — to ruin his name on the basis of a disciplinary hearing — is both unjust to him, and inadequate as a public safety measure.
And let me be perfectly blunt here: Belated remorse over an unsatisfactory drunken hook-up doesn’t make you a victim.
Any drunken hook-up is a bad idea, but feeling embarrassed or regretful about it afterwards does not make your partner a rapist.

Alas, common sense is even more unfashionable on college campuses than the Anglo-American common-law tradition.

The minimum age for alcohol possession is 21, and there are laws against underage drinking which, if enforced rigorously, would substantially reduce the number of these types of incidents, but guess what? Getting drunk and having sex are popular pastimes for college kids, and if university administrators cracked down on underage drinking, they would be forced to expel so many students, they wouldn’t have enough tuition revenue to pay the bills. Instead of cracking down on illegal underage drinking, therefore, they’re cracking down on sex — specifically, they’re cracking down on male heterosexuality.

Have any gay males or lesbian students been treated to this administrative disciplinary star-chamber process? Of course not.

In today’s campus climate, it would be a hate crime for a student to claim that he or she had been raped by a homosexual, yet I do not doubt that drunken gay hook-ups happen on campus which are regretted the day after in the same way heterosexual hook-ups are regretted by girls who claim the guy they hooked up with raped them.

Only heterosexual males are targeted by the “rape epidemic” hysteria, and if nobody else will bother to point out this fact, I must.

“Shut Up, Because Rape” — that’s the real feminist message here. Wielding the sword of victimhood, feminists are attempting to silence all discussion of sexuality (especially on campus) that contradicts feminism’s anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology. What students are permitted to “know” about sex must be exactly what feminists want to teach them, and if anyone challenges this authority that feminism arrogates to itself, that person must be demonized and shouted down:

[M]ore than 100 people turned out Wednesday for the protest outside his Miami University lecture. There were also online petitions against Will’s talk.
The protests against the Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post columnist were over a June column he wrote about federal pressure on colleges in reporting of sexual assaults. Will questioned statistics cited by President Barack Obama’s administration and suggested that federal authorities were making “victimhood a coveted status.”
Will explained Wednesday he was criticizing loss of due process for those accused of the serious crime.
“Our society has decided rightly that rape ranks close to and not far behind murder as the most serious crime,” Will said in response to a question after his lecture. Because it carries severe penalties, “it is particularly important that people accused of this heinous crime have all the protections.”

 

However, the Vagina Warrior Lynch Mobs (excellent phrase, Darleen) have decided that due process is a synonym for rape, and that the Constitution should not protect male heterosexuals from extra-judicial punishment. New York lawyer Andrew Miltenberg is defending several male heterosexual students who say they have been falsely accused and wrongfully punished:

He’s already filed four lawsuits — against Vassar College, Columbia University, University of Massachusetts Amherst and Drew University — will file several more before month’s end, and is consulting on 20 or so appeals at the college disciplinary level. In each, he is suing the schools for violations of the Title IX gender-parity law of 1972, contractual claims, unfair trade practices, as well as a number of tort claims.
If you feel like you’ve been reading more about campus rape of late, that’s because you have—most recently in a New York magazine cover story in September. The trend has been gathering steam since the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rightssent a letter to colleges nationwide on April 4, 2011, mandating policy changes in the way schools handle sexual assault complaints, including a lowering of the burden of proof from “clear and convincing” evidence to a “preponderance” of evidence. . . .
Mr. Miltenberg and [another attorney in his firm, Kimberly] Lau get about 10 calls a week from parents whose sons have been accused, suspended, or expelled. Too many of those calls, says Mr. Miltenberg, describe the same basic story: “The majority of them have botched the investigations, either on purpose because they’re simply pandering to the current political climate or becausethey’re not equipped to conduct them in the first place.” . .

“Look, I’m not a senior partner at Blank, Blank, and Blankety Blank. I’m just Andrew Miltenberg with an office across the street from Penn Station. But if you dare question the motives of an Ivy League School, you’re suddenly trapped in a room with a bunch of white-shoed guys with Roman numerals after their names. And they’re all harrumphing about the audacity of questioning anything they do. Well, we’re questioning them. And we won’t stop until the schools admit that they need to severely revamp their approach to handling sexual assault accusations.”
Or abandon it entirely: he thinks it should be up to the criminal justice system to handle campus complaints that rise to the level of felonies. “A school’s disciplinary board wouldn’t be dealing with a campus shooting, would they? So why are they dealing with sexual assault?”

Exactly. Sexual assault is a crime. If you are a victim of crime, call the police. A hearing in the dean’s office is not justice, unless what you’re seeking is “social justice,” which in certain circumstances looks a lot like personal revenge: “You took advantage of me when I was drunk, so now I’m going to ruin your life.” Hell hath no fury, etc.

Common sense: Stay sober and keep your britches on, honey.

Alas, common sense is now prohibited on American university campuses.

Fear and Loathing of the Penis

http://theothermccain.com/2015/02/13/fear-and-loathing-of-the-penis/

“All women are prisoners and hostages to men’s world. Men’s world is like a vast prison or concentration camp for women. This isn’t a metaphor, it’s reality. Each man is a threat. We can’t escape men. . . .
“[H]eterosexuality doesn’t exist and our ‘urges’ to bond with [men] emotionally or sexually aren’t natural drives but normal PTSD reactions to years of abuse and mind-programming.”
— Radical Wind, August 2013

When I think back on how this project began, I recall the woman whose screed against intercourse (“PIV is always rape, OK?”) led me deep into this swamp of radical feminism. It was, however, another rant by that same blogger which made me seriously explore the ideological psychosis of which her rant was a symptom.

“No woman is heterosexual.”

That four-word sentence sent me off on an investigation of her sources, especially including Professor Dee Graham, whose 1994 book Loving to Survive theorized female heterosexuality as a response to male-inflicted “sexual terror,” akin to post-traumatic stress syndrome. Understanding this claim in turn required me to examine the sources cited in Graham’s bibliography, including lesbian feminists like Marilyn Frye, Adrienne Rich, Mary Daly, Audre Lorde and Charlotte Bunch. Graham even managed to work in a citation to “Starhawk” (neé Miriam Simos), the lesbian feminist who was the founding high priestess of a California-based pagan witchcraft cult known as Reclaiming. From such dubious sources Graham had propounded her theory of sexuality, based in a view of men as violent oppressors and women as victims suffering under tyrannical male supremacy. After several months of further research, I’ve begun to refer to this feminist worldview as Fear and Loathing of the Penis.

You see this in the counterfactual “rape epidemic” hysteria on college campuses, with activists at Columbia University trying to frighten prospective students — high school kids — with protests about “gender-based violence on campus.” Robert Tracinski at the Federalist examines the possibility that “rape culture” discourse represents “an attempt to create a scapegoat for the emotional dark side of promiscuity.”

It is evident that these women’s dread and contempt of masculinity arises from specific circumstances. Feminism does not cause women to hate and fear men; feminism is the political rationalization of these women’s anti-male feelings, permitting them to believe that their own unhappiness is not merely personal. It is the explanatory power of feminist theory that attracts women who do not wish to consider themselves responsible for their misfortunes, disappointments and failures, offering them a convenient scapegoat for their problems: Patriarchy.

To give you an idea of what I’m talking about, consider this recent post on Tumblr.com by an Australian woman named Kate:

I think that most of the times I feel afraid of the world, it is because there are men in it.
Men who want to hurt women; men who don’t want to hurt women but do not realise that they are doing so anyway; men who don’t want to hurt women, but do not care when they do, because whatever they want from the situation is intrinsically more important to them.
Men who you can tell are bad just by looking at them or listening to what they say; men who you instinctively feel could be bad, but you second-guess yourself because you want to believe and trust that they are good; men who you would never guess are bad in any way — whose badness doesn’t show for years, and when it does it is near-invisible to anybody else.
Men who make you feel threatened when they don’t get their own way; men who lash out and shift the focus when they don’t get their own way; men who spin every word when they don’t get their own way; men who act like children and make you their mother figure when they don’t get their own way; men who control you to get their own way, men who take what they want anyway when they don’t get their own way.
Men who do not listen to women’s words the same way they listen to other men’s; men who turn you invisible unless they want to f–k you; men who only want to be your friend because they want to f–k you; men who call you ‘intellectually dishonest’ for using emotion and context to argue a point; men who back you into corners physically, emotionally, verbally.
Men who call you ‘crazy’; ‘hormonal’; ‘irrational’; ‘emotional’, men who will not allow your anger to be recognised as a valid emotional response, or your sadness, your distrust.
Men who make you feel the most loved, safe, and cared for after they have abused you.
Men who make you question your reality by telling you with conviction that it is wrong.
Men who take away your sense of independence and self by controlling your every move, and by telling you a better way to do every little thing you’ve taught yourself.
Men who dissolve your self esteem by belittling and insulting you, and calling you names.
Men who tell you that your reasonable emotional reactions are abusive, and infringe on their rights to do whatever they want to do.
Men who do not stop whatever they are doing to you when you ask.
Men who look you in the eyes and lie to you every day to protect their double lives.
I am so tired of absorbing all of this.

 

 

Who are these men who do these things to Kate? We don’t know.

She doesn’t name them, but she is apparently surrounded by them, and we are thus unable to offer any advice or assistance to her. She is a helpless victim of men — men! men! men! — and it would seem she offers this catalog of masculine “badness” in the expectation that other women will recognize the pattern. Yet we might notice how Kate lists men’s reactions when they “don’t get their own way,” as if she can’t see that the entirety of her complaint involves her own dissatisfaction because she can’t get her own way with them. Men don’t behave the way Kate wants them to behave, men don’t say and do things the way Kate wants things to be said and done, and their failure to live up to her expectations — their unwillingness to comply with the imperious demands of Queen Kate — is proof that she is a victim of male oppression.

She is inviting us to a pity party where she is the guest of honor. If men reject that invitation, this just proves how bad men are, because they “will not allow your anger to be recognised as a valid emotional response, or your sadness, your distrust.”

Why wouldn’t male contempt for her be “a valid emotional response”? Men are the way we are in part because we must be that way in order to be recognized as men, as responsible adults. Nobody wants to hear a man complain about his problems. Women can be especially merciless in their contempt for any man who expresses a sense of emotional suffering, and many women are deliberately sadistic toward men. Some women enjoy nothing better than to insult a man and then mock him as a “whiner” if he takes notice of the insult. Women who take pride in their own cruelty toward men are invariably the same women who complain when men fail to treat them with solicitude and kindness. Such women are never able to admit that they are even partially responsible for their inability either to attract good men or to sustain relationships with the men they do attract.

Fear and Loathing of the Penis — a paranoid resentment of men, characterized by irrational suspicion — is the underlying mental condition that feminism turns into a political ideology. What disturbs me, after months of studying this phenomenon, is that this madness is both contagious and incurable. Feminism is a sort of cultural virus that, once it takes hold in a woman’s mind, makes it impossible for her to relate to men in a normal manner and, because misery loves company, she feels compelled to share her hateful anti-male attitudes with other women. If left untreated, the effects of this dangerous malady are well known.

 

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers! As to envy, I have always thought Freudian psychology — “penis envy,” “Oedipus complex,” “castration anxiety,” etc. — to be a lot of mythical pseudo-scientific humbug. However, Freud did say this:

“Women have but little sense of justice, and this is no doubt connected with the preponderance of envy in their mental life.”

Like so much else Freud said about women, this seems insulting if read as a general statement applicable to all women. We should remember, however, that much of Freud’s practice involved treating neurotic women, the unhappy wives and daughters of the upper classes. As a description of a certain type of woman, his statement is certainly true. Envy is a poisonous emotion, and is antithetical to a sense of justice. The characteristic rage of feminists — their angry insistence that every advantage enjoyed by men is an unearned “privilege,” and that all women suffer oppression because of “male supremacy” — is entirely consistent with Freud’s observation of how “the preponderance of envy” manifests itself in the behavior of neurotic women.

UPDATE II: Linked by That Mr. G’s BlogBrian Cragin and Doug at Daley Gator — thanks! — and our friend Doug apparently felt a need to pour salt in the wound. It should be sufficient to report facts and let people draw their own conclusions.

Random Feminist Craziness

http://theothermccain.com/2015/07/21/random-feminist-craziness/

 

Why did Harriett Williamson (@harrietpw) lash out at #GamerGate this way? I have no idea. Her account is currently suspended, which suggests that she sent this message during some kind of Twitter meltdown. Ms. Williamson is a British lesbian who hates men so much that when a man suggested she could be heterosexual, she “wanted to . . . punch him in the face.” This is an odd dynamic about lesbians that men generally don’t understand. Most lesbians are insulted if any male expresses interest in them; the very idea of heterosexuality is abhorrent to them. As a general rule, lesbians actively loathe males and do not like to be anywhere near men. Of course, there are exceptions, but Harriet Williamson is not one of them. She is not one of those “girls who have been rejected by the heterosexual dating market.” She despises males, and wants it to be known that men should avoid her.

You see, Ms. Williamson has issuesShe suffered depression while attending university, and this may have been related to her insecurity about her socioeconomic status in class-conscious England. So when she lashed out at #GamerGate, we could say this was symptomatic of Ms. Williamson’s hostile antisocial attitude. A typical feminist SJW, really.

Meanwhile, a feminist discussion of male sexuality (which is to say, rape) took an interesting turn on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/ArtOfDissent/status/622434142282756096

https://twitter.com/ArtOfDissent/status/622435374799958016

https://twitter.com/ArtOfDissent/status/622439864076771328

https://twitter.com/ArtOfDissent/status/622439864076771328

https://twitter.com/rsmccain/status/623654300338790400

 

This is a typical expression of Fear and Loathing of the Penis, a phenomenon rampant on feminist social media nowadays. Not every feminist is a lesbian, but none of them ever discuss male sexuality except in terms of danger and violence. Lesbians like Ms. Williamson, who are at least honest about their loathing of males, don’t bother me nearly so much as heterosexual feminists whose sadistic personalities lead them to seek relationships with men in order to degrade and humiliate men.