Monday, October 6, 2014

Campus Rape Hysteria: A Modern Day Witch Hunt

This is an emotionally charged subject, and like all emotionally charged subjects the truth tends to get muddled behind the strong feelings of individuals.

There was a recent CBC documentary talking about the pressures that universities face when dealing with allegations of rape on campus. To its credit it did give some balanced contrary points of view, such as from the lawyer who said that young men should not be "reprogrammed" just because they're men. But the slant of the documentary was to cast a negative light on males. The documentary painted a grim picture of the "rape scene" on campus. It was automatically assumed that women are victims and are telling the truth when they come forward with a rape charge. Unfortunately the documentary never raised any skepticism about rape accusations in order to steer clear of being called pro-rape or a rape apologist. This documentary, in keeping with the standard narrative, approached this issue with a certain hypersensitivity, both to the women in question and to those who would dare to detract from the narrative that women are always victims -- such people would quickly be accused of being part of the rape culture problem, and as active agents in perpetuating rape tolerance in the culture.

It has become par for the course that being skeptical to any of the rape claims is bad and it is preferable to blindly accept the notion that rape culture is real rather than seek out critical inquiry. It always comes down to the false dichotomy that you either agree with the claims or you are pro-rape. Associating criticism of the views with being pro-rape is an ideological weapon the same way criticism of some of Israel's actions against the Palestinian people is met with accusations of being anti-semitic. This is a horrible label and as such it is a very effective strategy, but it should be pretty clear that playing along doesn't mean you agree, it just means that you want to avoid the bad stigma with disagreeing.

In the CBC documentary, one of the interviewees referred to "the victim" rather than "the alleged victim", and in one case it was stated that if a woman comes forward with a rape accusation they will believe her. My response: No they should not automatically believe her, although she should still be able to receive help just like other people who come forward to report crimes against themselves. The documentary seems to be more of an appeal to emotion rather than an appeal to reason. It's a way to drum up hysteria the same way an evangelist will drum up religious fervor and get that serotonin flowing. In the face of such drama and hyperbole it can be difficult to maintain your sense of critical thinking.

The Duke Lacrosse case was never mentioned of course. It would break the emotional build up the documentary set out to create. And it would do this because the rape charge made by the woman turned out to be completely fabricated. If this was not the case you can bet that the Duke Lacrosse case would have been eagerly mentioned in the documentary.

The documentary got me thinking about some of the circumstances which can surround sexually active young women. A young woman, after having hook up sex, can be faced with a choice: Either admit to willingly having sex with a guy the first night, and risk being labelled a slut, or save face by saying you were raped. I'm sure there are women that would rather admit to the latter than risk their reputation. This would certainly constitute a false rape accusation, and given the fact that it does happen why is it not talked about in the media? And furthermore, why are the names of the accusers not made public? The answer to both is because it would discourage real rape victims from coming forward. A fair statement, but it is terribly one-sided. However it is also true that releasing the names of the accused should not be done either (but it is) given that the rape charge could be false and such a charge is a horrible stigma to carry which exists even after the charges are cleared. So why the double standard?

It is because it helps women and making the face of the accused public could get more victims to come forward, and it doesn't matter if innocent men get hurt in the process. Looking at this more closely, the potential added benefit that women (the accusers) would get, however slim, outweighs the definite harm that would come to some innocent men as a result. In other words it is okay to do something that will hurt innocent men as long as a few women can potentially benefit from it. This is not justice. This is the radical feminist hijacking of due process.

Contrary to feminist claims there is no rape culture. I talk about rape statistics in my post on victim statistics in Canada.

The CBC documentary made a big deal about locker room talk as being a potential precursor to rape behaviour. Now I will admit, locker room talk is very real, and I have at times participated in it in the past. It can certainly get pretty derogatory towards women but it is hardly an indication that men engaging in it will rape. It's more of a way to look cool among the guys than it is a way to degrade women. And why not talk about women's locker room talk as well. I doubt women are angels in the locker room. They likely talk about the size of guys dicks more often than you'd think. I have anecdotal stories of these types of discussions and I have overheard some of them too. Locker room talk is not a precursor to rape. There's just far too much locker room talk and far too little rape (proportionally speaking) for there to be a causation effect.

To anyone caught up in rape hysteria, don't let your outrage about rape blind your willingness to accept that false rape charges also happen. You have to treat the two as separate and as resolvable only under due process. Justice can only be served by doing this. Let the rapists be brought to justice but also let the false rape accusers be brought to justice.

Rape is a horrible crime but like other horrible crimes the standard of getting to the truth MUST be upheld, which is due process by law enforcement and legal experts, not the campus kangaroo courts who will willingly throw male students under the bus to save face in the public eye.

Not acknowledging the possibility of false rape accusations goes against the fact that sociopaths exists in society, men and women, which admittedly represent a very small percentage of the population, but exist nonetheless. Given this indisputable fact it must also be accepted that a female sociopath concerned with preserving her reputation will unflinchingly choose to falsely convict a man of rape if the alternative is being labelled a slut by her peers. Some might argue that this represents a very small percentage of women anyway and therefore labeling any women at all as potential liars hurts the women who do get raped and want to come forward, and furthermore, making a false rape accusation a crime is bad for the same reason. This is a phony argument since all laws exist to prevent a small number of people who would commit crimes from committing them. But we don't say that these laws shouldn't exist because it unfairly labels people as potential thiefs or murderers or whatever. Anti-crime laws exist to help prevent those, who are in the minority, from committing a crime, and due process exists to protect the innocent, who are in the majority, from being unfairly punished. Why are these tried and true principles being tampered with on the alter of rape hysteria aka political correctness? Is it because rape is such a horrible crime? Can a crime be so serious that due process should be thrown out the window? Can a crime be so horrible so as to justifiably reduce us to a 16th century witch burning mindset? I can think of things like soldier PTSD which is at least as traumatic on the psyche as being raped, but there is no hysteria surrounding that.

Unfortunately this hysteria shows no sign of slowing down. A new "yes means yes" law was recently passed in the state of California. It changes how colleges and universities define sexual assault. Instead of requiring that one person say no if they’re not interested, the law will require that both people say yes, or give "affirmative consent," before a sexual encounter is considered consensual.

This law seems reasonable on the surface except that sex is usually non-verbal, and women, especially young ones, don't initiate sex at all. It's usually all up to the guy. Any guy who has slept with more than a few women will note that women don't directly say yes to sex. Women are typically like frogs in the grass when it comes to sex, especially the first time. But the law states that you got to get that verbal yes, otherwise you risk being charged with rape. How the feminists must be rejoicing over this! The only good thing that can come out of this is that women might be forced to initiate sex more, assuming guys are going to do less initiating given the risks. Some guys will unavoidably realize that women being passive is just too risky for them.

The assault on men's rights in the form of new draconian legislation doesn't end there though. The Canadian federal government wants to make the buying of sex illegal while still allowing the selling of sex to be legal. This is clearly an unfair legal double standard, and in addition it will lead to other laws being broken inadvertently, such as entrapment laws in which one party has the state-sponsored legal leeway to sell a service but another party is prohibited, by the same state, from buying that service.

There is actually a national prostitution study (http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/first-national-prostitution-study-sheds-new-light-on-sex-work-in-canada) that just came out. It discusses johns and prostitutes in a way that is much more illuminating and balanced than the way we usually hear it talked about, where johns (the men) are exploitive perverts and prostitutes (the women) are victims. This study paints a very different picture. Apparently, the johns and prostitutes are a lot like the rest of us, no better or worse.

The proposed new prostitution law is just another form of political correctness and white knight sympathizing. It pedestalizes female sexuality while demonizing male sexuality. All par for the course. It assumes that all women who sell sex are victims and all men who buy sex are exploitive perverts. How very simple! Fortunately the supreme court will eventually strike this new law down as being the unconstitutional piece of crap that it is, just like it did the previous prostitution laws. Even conservatives are opposed to this proposed law. Just read the comments on National Post or Globe and Mail, or any other conservative news channel. Fortunately not all police departments will enforce this new law as they know that there are plenty of willing buyers and sellers in the world of adults and will instead focus on real crimes, not petty moral crusades at the taxpayer's expense.

It has been frequently said that criminalizing the johns hurts women as well by putting them in risky situations where the johns are more likely to buy sex in dark corners, hidden from the authorities, where it just so happens that genuinely dangerous men will also lurk, waiting to ambush women. It's like putting the food source for an animal in a place where there are more predators. In light of this it would seem that the hatred towards men, exhibited in the proposed law, outweighs the feelings of favor towards the women, because it willfully punishes the men even if it means that more women can get hurt in the process. It shows that the hatred for men outweighs the love for women. Now that's hate.

During the hearings for this new law you hear from all sorts of advocacy groups who have at best indirect information about how women are victims in prostitution, but then you hear from prostitutes themselves who say that they are not victims and just want equal protection just like any other worker under the labor laws. But of course the government prefers to believe the advocacy groups rather than the prostitutes themselves. Yes, don't believe what the prostitutes say on their behalf, believe what someone else says on their behalf, especially when their talking points are a better fit with the government's ideology.

Laws that treat women as helpless children are only good for those underachieving women who want the "daddy state" and don't like being held accountable for their actions. The freeloaders in other words. But it will hurt those women who want to be treated as adults and earn what they get out of life.

If this law passes, and it likely will, then it's just one more reason to get out of Toronto. In fact it might just be the final straw for some of you who have found that the way to cope with Toronto's hostile female factions is by visiting your friendly neighbourhood escort. But with such a law in place that option may no longer be viable. Therefore I recommend, at the very least, frequent trips to more female friendly places that are far removed from Toronto and the anglosphere. And since distance is a limiting factor then I recommend Quebec, with the closest city there being Montreal. There's plenty of ways to get there. You can fly there with Porter Airlines, which takes a little over an hour from Toronto, but it's kind of expensive (about $300 round trip), although not as expensive as the typical flight. You can also do this much more cheaply by driving, or taking the train (Via Rail), or taking the bus (Greyhound or Megabus). These can range in travel time from 5 hours to 8 hours one way. This is the down side obviously. But even given the long travel time this is still doable for the occasional weekend getaway.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Excellent post but I've been to Montreal and discovered that it was already becoming torontoized. Maybe ten years ago it would have been different as women would be more approachable. These are the benefits I find from Montreals women: Overal higher quality in higher quantity. I'll be honest there were some nights where it was hard to find ugly females. As for everything else you'd still have work your ass off since most of these women know that they're hot. You'll encounter the occasional females from Laval (Montreals Mississauga) who actually approach you. Don't expect pussy paradise where girls just magically approach you all the time. Not knowing French made my chances even slimmer but I even saw decent looking French dudes needin to work. Good thing about Montreal girls I that they'll atleast listen to what you have to say which indicates that your game (whatever you say to them) doesn't have to be tight. I think McGill Uni is killin the Hot French girl vibe in Montreal cause It imports a lot of lame ass ontarians who infect Montrealer women.

Anonymous said...

The truth must be heard (Laurie A. Couture on Feminist Media Censorship): http://youtu.be/2alPcC5FlbY

Anonymous said...

In FemiMarxist Canada, every male is guilty until proven innocent.

But when those female teachers lure underaged students and those students file a complaint, the media, justice system and white knigt mangina public will take sides with the female predator teacher.

Men, leave Toronto. This city is a Marxist decadent fake Conservative feminist utopia.

A strong, empowered and confident feminist said...

Dear John and even dearer readers

I agree with pretty much everything in this blog, which by the way served as a big eye-opener for me.

There are few ways I could have described the topic better.

Only one thing, i have started a hashtag called #itsallinyourhead on facebook. I was wondering if we could just share some of our more presentable experience, as heterosexual men living in the angloshpere and GTA in particular, under this hashtag, or any other more popular one if it exists.

For example- the other day I was walking on the street where there is a kindergarden. Looking around I randomly caught a glimpse of some pictures on the walls of the room where kids were being taught. One of the pictures was an A4 printout of the rainbow flag.

Also, if such a hashtag exists already, please let me know.

P.S. another example: a former co-worker of mine called me the other day. In the middle of the conversation he brought in the topic of his two friends, both married to Canadian women, who were getting divorced, since both women had started seeing other man. I had never spoken with him about things like that before.

There is a little story every day. I was wondering what would happen if we just put them together. Would it still be all in our heads?

Anonymous said...

Bit off topic -- but what do you think about this guy? Crazy or brave? Willy Beck - if I am not mistaken I think he may have been accused of sexual harassment.

Instant make outs & pulls on the streets of Toronto

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujDid1z747I

Anonymous said...

I live in Toronto but I am originally Québécois and let me just say that girls over there are the same as in Ontario and always have been when it comes to feminism. At least since we had our Révolution Tranquille. However, the big difference, which seems to be the huge difference for you guys, is the views on sex. In Ontario, women view sex as their main value, so they withhold it from men to torture, control and dominate them. In Québec, girls are highly sexual. Over there you can hook up with gorgeous women, way out of your league. This is not fiction. This is totally doable for any man. The problem is that women in Québec are extremely dominant and will expect you to be the woman in the relationship and castrate you in every way possible. Trust me. It is not worth your trouble. A lot of women dont even let men drive their own cars, and a lot of men have to put up with infidelity. Most people dont know this but in Québec most guys have to quietly accept the fact their girlfriends are cheating on them. Women from Québec do not have much respect for men. So if sex is all you are looking for, yes, Montréal and the whole province will be heaven for you (if you speak French) but if you are looking to commit, to settle down and build a family where you are treated as the man, forget it, move to another country. There must be a reason why the province of Québec has the highest male suicide rate in the world.

-Antoine.

Anonymous said...

That is an interesting observation. The question is how did women in Ontario become like this. They really do with hold to the extreme to torture men -- and it does not bother them a bit. That is abnormal and dysfunctional - and even a perverted mentality. Ontario women have also a huge victim chip thinking though they are perhaps the most privileged women on the planet. Their attitudes to life are just incredibly entitled -- and such mentality cannot be corrected by therapy.