<p>It is important to be careful not to create a false problem to solve.</p>
<p>It may be true that very few men are committing most of the rapes. However, that is not what the lawsuits and backlash are about. Colleges are facing a backlash from males where the guys mainly who have no record, no complaints and where consent was believed to have been given. </p>
<p>Having a new playbook of procedures is one thing, but procedures are not going to amount to much if the differing parties are using different definitions of consent and rape. The current problem is that definitions have become so literal as to dismiss all surrounding contexts and conditions and until that area is addressed there will still be major issues.</p>
<p>In defense of athletes, I will say that my oldest is engaged to be married to a young man who played lacrosse at her school, a top lacrosse program. He never had any trouble at all with the fact that she is rather traditional, does not pursue guys, expects to be taken on dates and never had sex with anyone who was not her long term boyfriend. She only had three boyfriends in her life, and the one in high school was the whole entire time.</p>
<p>He has never been anything but a gentleman, and he followed her to her first career job because her job was better than his, though they are staying there for a few years, now, even though she has other offers, since he also needs a chance to get established.</p>
<p>The issue isn’t always athletes, or always anyone. I really believe that the issue is with the culture of cover ups. Rapists are criminals. Their behavior is criminal behavior. If there are X number of football players, and two of them are rapists, on a team, those two need to be prosecuted, particularly in cases where there is strong evidence, which as we have seen on this thread, there has frequently been.</p>
<p>“Much2learn, you seem vey angry with men. If there’s a hostess program then there’s a women willingly working as a hostess, btw.”</p>
<p>Well, I am going to go out on a limb and say that I think that colleges arranging to have women available to have sex with athletic recruits is a bad idea, and contributes to objectification of women. I suppose that I can live with it, as long as they comply with Title IX and have an equal number of buff Chip n Dale guys available to service any female athletic recruits who may be interested.</p>
<p>I am not angry with men. I like men. Men are great. And I know that the number of men who do these things is a small percentage. </p>
<p>However, I get angry when men pretend that they can not comprehend a simple concept like consent. Then they need to give 101 different “what if” scenarios. Then you have to explain for the 1,000th time that it depends on whether the person doing the penetrating had consent. Then they say what about this scenario. Then they get the same answer. Over and over. As if they can not comprehend the idea that they do not have a right to sex unless their partner agrees to it. We are not talking very advanced ideas here.</p>
<p>I am also surprised at the number of comments like George Will’s, arguing that this is not a real problem. I think that Will’s problem is that he hates the Obama administration so much that he just opposes anything they support. I am pretty sure that if the administration had said it was all fake, that George would think it was a major crisis that needs to be addressed. This political polarization distracts from something that should be an issue for everyone, regardless of any party affiliation.</p>
<p>All of this side discussion distracts from the real issue which is that the campus rape situation needs to be addressed. It is important that women feel safe on college campuses.</p>
<p>@Much2learn Don’t take the “you hate men” comment seriously. It’s the thing they said to women who wanted the vote, or women who believed they should get to have access to birth control without their husband’s consent in the 1960’s, or, heaven forfend, without a husband at all. Hating rapists and injustice has nothing to do with hating men, at all.</p>
<p>Actually, I sometimes think that those who hold men to such low standards have far less respect for them than those of us who know they are perfectly capable of understanding all of this and acting accordingly. </p>
<p>Well, that’s not correct. And, I didn’t say hate, anywhere. What I said was that her posts are especially inflammatory at times and I am not the only poster to have noticed or commented on it. In any case, it now seems most agree the problem is a small number of males. That’s progress. Also, the whole penetrating thing does biologically make it a mostly male issue. Let’s just be realistic, please. </p>
<p>The posts were in the response to colleges and others wanting to exact punish for someone NOT prosecuted or proved guilty of rape, which is the very issue colleges are getting backlash for doing.</p>
<p>More specifically, these statements are directed to how our judicial system views actions in order to determine punishment. And the system DOES NOT “call the guy a rapist who has NEVER been convicted of rape.” And it is not fair for college to treat them as if they were rapists in terms of trying to punish them. That was and still is the point and the very basis of the surest lawsuits.</p>
<p>Our judicial system is set up to exact punish not based on what we believe happened or based on our opinion, but on whether someone is proved guilty or not. (Looks like we agree there.) And if someone is not prosecuted and found guilty, our system legally cannot, with respect to the accused, exact punish. </p>
<p>In fact, the system becomes completely blind to the crime WITH RESPECT to that individual. In short, for punishment sake, it treats the accused like he did not do it. For practical purposes, to the system, that crime did not happen. Something happened, but not that crime with respect to that individual(s). Even newspapers cannot print Mr. X did it, or else face a lawsuit. They have to print it is believed X did it, but he was found not guilty. </p>
<p>And we know this is how it works because the reverse is true. Think of the innocent men on death row who got life in prison for rape BEFORE there was DNA evidence. Note that it had no bearing on what people on the outside believed because, if found guilty, the system deemed that the person did it and punishment can be exacted AND there is a record that says this person raped someone and committed that crime. It did not matter if there was no rape and no crime; it happened. In the eyes of the system, that person did do it and the newspapers can print as much, even if he is completely innocent. </p>
<p>Therefore, the determinant for punishment is whether the system determines the crime occurred or not WITH RESPECT to the individual. In summary, once adjudicated and found not guilty, the system with respect to the individual acts just as if the individual did not commit that crime and with respect to that individual, the crime did not occur. And if I were charged with something and found innocent that is exactly how I would like the system to treat me; that is, with respect to me, let the record show the crime did not occur. And thus, it would not be fair for anyone else to try and punish me like it did occur. </p>
<p>Gosh, some want to say defining consent is so simple. Some express exasperation at (what they claim) is defining it repeatedly. Yet, the person complaining it is so simple, M2L at 8:30 got it wrong!
She says: “As if they can not comprehend the idea that they do not have a right to sex unless their partner agrees to it. We are not talking very advanced ideas here.” Sorry, that’s wrong. Even if the “partner agrees to it” sometimes that consent doesn’t count, or can be retroactively withdrawn. Or worded another way, the one doing the penetrating may actually have consent, but it might be consent that doesn’t count. This is a beautiful demonstration that it isn’t so simple to define after all. An idea with many variables is an advanced idea.</p>
<p>Maybe I’m too modern as a guy, but I grew up believing a woman should have equal rights as a man does, and should reap the rewards or consequences of her actions the same as a man. </p>
<p>My point about athletes is that schools need to focus and understand their trouble areas, wherever they might be. And if it is found at a school that athletes are a group protected more than others in rape cases because of their position, then a focus should be there to at least start getting at the problem. But, to be fair, it could be any group.</p>
<p>From a company perspective, one thing I can say is very, very few things are randomly distributed in terms of behavior, even across a large company. If we have an employee problem, it is not too difficult to laser focus and find the main nexus of the issue because people follow other people and therein develops the larger problem. </p>
<p>I put money every college knows its trouble spots (certain sports team, certain frats, certain dorm groups, certain guys), but whether they act to fix them is another story. </p>
<p>The main reason my wife tells people she stopped calling herself a feminist (and she was a big one) was she found that too many women demand to be treated just like men, then complain when they are. </p>
<ol>
<li>“Even if the “partner agrees to it” sometimes that consent doesn’t count, or can be retroactively withdrawn”</li>
</ol>
<p>It is true that sometimes consent “doesn’t count” but that is not some special rule invented related to rape, or related to women, as you seem to imply. That is just the basic legal concept of legal capacity that applies to almost any contract or legal agreement. Consider taking an introduction to law class or a business law class and they will clear that up for you. Or you can ask @Hunt. </p>
<p>As far as consent being withdrawn retroactively, I have not suggested that it can be retroactively withdrawn anywhere. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>In general, I think that the people who think that this is not a real issue or that it is just women who want victim status or it is just “drunk sex” are just people who have little knowledge or personal experience with the issue. If this issue touches your life or the life of someone you care about directly, i will bet that you will reread this thread and see many of these comments very differently. When you spend the night in the hospital because your wife or daughter or son is raped and in the waiting room you read about how they just want “victim status” I think it will impact your thinking.</p></li>
<li><p>Completely separate comment. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>I would add that for those who are concerned about due process, the government giving themselves the ability to drone strike americans overseas without a trial is a real due process infringement issue. Strangely, I do not hear many people complaining about it. I mean, maybe it is warranted and should be legal, I don’t really know. But I do know that if it is warranted, then you need to change the constitution and revise the right to due process.</p>
<p>Simply put, feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation,
and oppression. This was a definition of feminism I offered in
Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center more than 10 years ago. It was
my hope at the time that it would become a common definition
everyone would use. I liked this definition because it did not imply
that men were the enemy. By naming sexism as the problem it went
directly to the heart of the matter. Practically, it is a definition which
implies that all sexist thinking and action is the problem, whether
those who perpetuate it are female or male, child or adult. It is also
broad enough to include an understanding of systemic institutionalized
sexism. As a definition it is open-ended. To understand feminism
it implies one has to necessarily understand sexism.
As all advocates of feminist politics know, most people do not
understand sexism, or if they do, they think it is not a problem. Masses of people think that feminism is always and only about
women seeking to be equal to men. And a huge majority of these
folks think feminism is anti-male. Their misunderstanding of feminist
politics reflects the reality that most folks learn about feminism
from patriarchal mass media.</p>
<p>We must understand that challenging and dismantling patriarchy is at the core of contemporary feminist struggle – this is essential and necessary if women and men are to be truly liberated from outmoded sexist thinking and actions.</p>
<p>^^ Pretty sure many of the feminists my wife and I went to school with never got the bell hooks’ memo. </p>
<p>Everything those feminists did revolved around trying to be like men. My wife found it nauseating because men were portrayed like villains, literally. And she believes a woman can do whatever she wants, even if it means NOT being like a man or wanting to do things men do. That level of independence did not sit well with her female colleagues. She wore dresses and skirts, when they wore power suits etc. The list goes on. Maybe they needed you to teach them a thing or two. </p>
<p>@awcntdb If we are going to bring spouses into the discussion, though I think, in general, they should join and speak for themselves, my husband finds the characterization of men on this thread, by those defending rapists, to be highly offensive. As he said last night, any man who cannot tell the difference between a drunk woman and a woman who is having a mutually satisfying sexual experience ought to read a couple books. </p>
<p>The author of “Lean In,” and executive at facebook can frequently be seen in a dress. What the hell does that have to do with anything??</p>
<p>Unless you and your wife have a million children and don’t practice birth control, you have benefited from feminism. If your wife works, or worked, or was college educated, she benefited from feminism. If your wife votes, she benefited from feminism. If your wife can own property, she benefited from feminism. Most of the women who speak out against feminism are beneficiaries of feminism.</p>
<p>My equality takes nothing away from anybody else, unless their equality depends on my not having the same rights they enjoy themselves.</p>
<p>Well, there is difference. We are a team, as in a real team. Been together for over 30 years, same colleges etc. I feel absolutely free speaking for her and she for me. And we discuss things without issue. That is how we are - we roll as a team. Weird that that bothers you. </p>
<p>Well, I’ve read most of this thread and I haven’t seen any rapist defending. I have seen some posters interpret some posts in that fashion. That is a mischaracterization, though. imho.</p>
An unfortunate side note on this is the masses of young women who believe feminism is about being equal to men. With “feminist” being a more common than not trait of young women, nowadays they speak their opinion on cases dealing with women’s rights and their roles in society. I cannot count the number of times that I have seen a post on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and even in person where the girl speaks first by defining feminism by the movement towards social, political, and economic equality with men. I feel this definition is outdated. Feminism encompasses much more than this. I believe the belief of women striving towards the same things that men have is limiting and unsatisfying. Women shouldn’t strive to be like men. Women should strive to establish the freedom to be women. </p>
<p>I absolutely understand the efforts and the significance for equality, politically and economically and whatnot, but the significance of equality in those areas in being wrongly applied outside of those areas. </p>
<p>I can’t fully put my thought into words right now. I would rewrite this at a later time, but I’m already off topic. This is for another time, I guess. </p>