A Presumption of Innocence – Amanda S. Green

A Presumption of Innocence – Amanda S. Green

One of the most fundamental premises of criminal law in this nation is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. This one idea – or ideal, if you prefer – places the burden of proof on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty of an offense. What that means is the State simply can’t accuse someone of committing an offense, jail them, smear their name and hold them unless and until the accused manages to prove their innocence.

It is, in short, a right we should hold as one of the most dear and most important ever granted.

Unfortunately, that right is being trampled on, willingly and happily, by some in our society. Why? Because they believe (or at least profess to believe) that the male of the species in inherently bad and should be made to pay for the patriarchy that has held women down for most of history. They ignore history and historical precedence in pushing for a system, within the legal system and on our college campuses and in our military, that shoves us back centuries of jurisprudence and assumes that every male accused of sexual assault is guilty.

I don’t know about you, but that is one step back I don’t want us to take because of the precedent it sets for so much more.

A recent panel at the University of Wisconsin (Madison) points to part of the problem. In the panel “Confronting Campus Rape”, the discussion quickly devolved into an agenda that should have been anticipated simply by looking at the description of the panel: “reframe the debate, discussing university culture and policy, pedagogy, and student experience through the lens of feminist philosophy, legal theory, and studies of sexuality and power.”

The result of the discussion – if you can call it that – was to push for a denial of rights to those accused of rape, up to and including denying them the right to council during the disciplinary hearing, denying the right to confront the accuser and more. According to these forward thinking individuals, the chance of a woman accusing a man of rape was so slim, he should be presumed guilty and punished and to hell with his rights.

This isn’t an isolated incident. According to a report by Fox News, similar approaches are being advocated at Brown, Amhurst and Columbia. Students at that bastion of liberal thought, Berkley, have protested due process for their fellow students accused of rape. Protesters at a lecture at Ohio University about the college tribunals and their lack of due process for the accused wore tee shirts that read “Rape is Real” on the front and “This is bullshit” on the back.

Time has an insightful article about this troubling trend that lays at least some of the blame directly at the door of the White House. I’ll leave you to read it but, as with so many initiatives, it is based upon data that is, at best, questionable. In this instance, the study the White House relied upon stated that 1 in 5 female students were sexually assaulted while in college. That is a horrifying number. However, from what the article says, that number came from a study based on only two schools and with a very low response rate. Not exactly scientifically accurate by a long shot – not that it stopped the White House from moving forward.

Thus, since 2011, the Department of Education has recommended that colleges use the lowest burden of proof—“preponderance of the evidence,” which means a finding of guilt if one feels the evidence tips even slightly toward the complainant—in disciplinary proceedings on sexual assault. (Traditionally, charges of student misconduct have been judged by the higher standard of “clear and convincing evidence.”) The new guidelines make this a requirement; they also encourage “juries” with no student participation and even a shift to a single-investigator process.

If that isn’t bad enough, keep reading.

Missing is virtually any recognition of the need for fairness to the accused. The recent White House Council on Women and Girls report on sexual assault dismisses false accusations as a “myth,” citing a 2010 article by University of Massachusetts Boston psychologist David Lisak that concluded that “only 2-10% of reported rapes are false.” Yet a 10% error rate is hardly trivial. This estimate also refers only to proven fabrications; no one knows how many unresolved charges, nearly half of Lisak’s university sample, may be false.

But this terrifying trend – and it is terrifying. If we allow the government to encourage this sort of behavior in our education system, how long until it starts trying to use this inverted standard of proof in criminal trials – isn’t limited to our college campuses. The military is also taking steps that make is almost impossible to defend against such an accusation.

I don’t know if Major Michael Turpiano was guilty or not of the charges brought against him. However, if any of the facts put forth in this article on JQP are true, the case against him is troubling at best. It also appears to be another situation where the man was presumed guilty and denied the ability to mount an effective defense.

As the mother of a son, I’m not surprised by this. When my son was old enough to start showing an interest in girls, I sat him down and had a long talk with him. We discussed all the things you would expect: how to tell if a girl was interested, respecting her and listening to her, if she said “no” not to push, etc. But I also talked with him about making sure he took precautions and not to trust the girl when she said she was on the Pill, etc.

You see, I’ve listened to women of my acquaintance, both when I was still in school and since then, talking about what they have done or threatened to do to guys who didn’t “fall in line”. Some of the jealous ones threatened to accuse him of anything from giving them the clap to rape if the guy broke up with them. Others laughed about how they told a guy they were on the Pill when they weren’t. If they got pregnant, they’d either get an abortion or have the kid, sue the guy for child support, and live pretty on his dime.

I’m also a rape survivor. I know what it means to have my choice taken from me and to be violated in the most personal and emotionally traumatizing way you can be. So believe me, I have no sympathy for a man (or woman) who rapes another person.

But here’s the thing. Whatever that somewhat questionable study says, women do make false accusations of rape and other forms of sexual assault. Sometimes it is because the girl in question is underage and gets caught by her family doing what she shouldn’t be doing. In order to keep from getting into trouble, she claims things got out of hand and she really hadn’t agreed to go “all the way”. Sometimes it happens because the woman is just a bitch or evil.

The question we have to answer is multi-fold. First, do we dare start down a slope where we choose one form of offense to change the burden of proof, placing it on the accused? Second, is it worth ruining the life of a single innocent person just to “reframe” the issue “through the lens of feminist philosophy”? Third, when did it become acceptable to blame someone for the so-called crimes of their ancestors? Fourth, when did it become the vogue to condemn someone simply because of their sex?

I don’t care that a campus investigation into an allegation of sexual assault isn’t a criminal trial. The truth of the matter is that investigation will determine whether the college refers the case to the criminal authorities of the jurisdiction where the college is located. The so-called evidence the university gathered will be turned over. In the meantime, while the university administration is protecting the identity of the accuser, the accused is identified, suspended from class and other activities on campus and, in short, in danger of having his life ruined. He has little recourse, thanks to the Department of Education and the current Administration, simply because he is male.

We don’t judge – or at least shouldn’t – a person based on the color of their skin, the religion they follow or the creed they embrace. Why are we being asked to judge in this case simply because the accused is male?


228 thoughts on “A Presumption of Innocence – Amanda S. Green

  1. The regressive “progressives” are wanting to revert rights all around. like 0bama they find rights especially as enumerated in the Constitution, to be “Negative” and while claiming to go forward are in full speed reverse. See also the demands for segregation. If MLK were to return, he’d bitch slap the whole lot, I swear.

    1. They are negative rights. They are rights to NOT have something done to you. A positive right is the right to have someone do something for you — like parents’ duty to feed their minor children.

      Unfortunately thinking is so sloppy nowadays that people will indulge in the fallacy of equivocation about them. Aka bad puns.

    2. So true. There are times I wish we could bring back historical figures to remind those who so cavalierly take their names and causes in vain. Somehow, I think Dr. King would have more than a little to say to some of the folks today about how they have warped his message.

        1. I recall a recent review of Uncle Tom’s Cabin — the reviewer was stunned that this Gandhi-like character, adhering so adamantly to his principles, was considered negative.

          1. I couldn’t read it. I have heard that the meaning of “Uncle Tom” has changed over the years and thought I’d find out for myself. I couldn’t get past the first couple of chapters. It’s a horrifying book (well written, from what I sampled, but the content!). If anyone is unsure how awful slavery was, this is a book for them. The casual brutality and lack of empathy is unfathomable to me (which I’ll consider to be a good thing).

  2. It’s really hard to defend oneself against charges of Imputed Guilt. Like I had a choice in who I was born to?

    I understand that there can be genetic predispositions toward some traits, and we’ve all seen stories where twins separated at birth showed similar or identical career paths or activities. That shouldn’t predispose a guilty verdict.for guys simply for being guys.
    Once the under pining of a society start crumbling, quick action is needed to shore it up. Continuous picking away only destroys the society faster.

    You have to ask yourself: Who gains at the destruction?

    1. And the second question you have to ask is “don’t those doing the destruction understand they will be the first one’s against the wall when everything goes to hell in a handbasket?” They don’t get that the time will come when they aren’t the ones leading charge but who have the masses rising up against them, pointing out — sometimes painfully — how wrong they were.

  3. We’ve been dealing with this false report BS for a number of years. Even in little old podunk ND, a UND student was accused of rape, expelled by the school, and then the police charged his accuser of filing a false report. But the school refused to reinstate him. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/384780/mothers-due-process-caroline-kitchens

    Another student at NDSU filed a report of being abducted and raped. Only it turned out she put out an ad for such treatment, met with they guy and then acted out her fantasy. http://www.inforum.com/content/ndsu-student-gets-time-served-filing-false-rape-report

    At my previous department one of the officers had to explain to a lady (admittedly a little slow) that just because the sex wasn’t good that didn’t constitute rape.

    1. All colleges everywhere in the US are run by the same type of special folks, except maye for a veryt few outliers, like Hillsdale.

      1. Count BYU as one of those outliers. Stone cold sober, segregated housing, and a strict honor code prohibiting extramarital sex.

    2. It has always been there. Oh, there are any number of reasons for it and often the false report will be withdrawn. But that doesn’t take away the damage to the man’s reputation.

      And this is personal to me. Beyond what I said in the post, I have seen close family friends torn apart by the false allegation of a young woman. It wasn’t rape this time and, in some ways, it was even worse. She got pregnant, told the young man involved it was his baby and said she was going to give the baby up for adoption. So he signed the paperwork relinquishing his rights. Except she didn’t give the baby up and didn’t file his paperwork. For several years, while he was away at college, his mother had to watch every Sunday as the young woman walked down the aisle at church with the baby and then toddler in arms and know she would never be a part of the child’s life.

      Then the girl showed up — with father and legal papers in tow — to claim all the back child support she alleged my friend owed. He and his mother started supporting both the baby and the mother. They became a part of the baby’s life. They even let the mother and her current boyfriend move into their rent house and live free of charge.

      Except it wasn’t my friend’s baby. When he finally decided that he wanted court ordered visitation, etc., his attorney convinced him to do a DNA test because the child’s mother was once against pushing for more money. Turns out this child he and his mother had come to love wasn’t his. Worse, once that the DNA test results were back, the baby’s mother turned around and tried to pull the same thing with several of my friend’s male friends.

      And, after three or so years of letting her child bond with his “daddy”, she tore him away and hasn’t let then see one another since. Her excuse, no money then no kid. So all those who say women don’t file false claims can go to hell. They do — as you well know — and not just for rape and other forms of sexual assault.

  4. So the actual “crime” they’re trying to prosecute is LWM, Living While Male. Yeah, that won’t cause a backlash…

    1. We’re seeing it already. What do you think that scewed up young man was doing shooting up a church full of good folk who offered him nothing but kindness?

      “I am a male. A white male. All white males are fundamentally evil mobsters who must be re-educated. Meanwhile eat excrement and grovel before your betters, loser.”

      “Yoo hoo! Over here, all that race stuff is true, but WE like you. All you gotta do is fight for Whitey and beat up on not-whitey. Follow us and you’ll never have to grovel again.”


  5. And this culture of “guilt no matter what” leads to men assuming that every woman is out to get them and that leads to a further dissolution of society.

  6. if you can’t prove it, it didn’t happen
    this is supposed to be the first rule in science, law, etc. … however it is against the narrative of our (want to be) Lord and Masters, that it is to be discarded.
    FOOLS … do they not know that it is for their protection, as well as for others. sure break it down let only the accusation be enough. right up until some one like, oh let us say vox day starts using the same tactics against them. while they rot in prison trying to prove their innocent.
    remember on college campuses that the students are trying to get rid of free speech. I guess they don’t know that the first use of this will be to compel them to SHUT THE F**K UP.
    won’t they be surprized

    1. They’ll be especially surprised when they leave the academic brainwashing facility and find out (I’d say “learn,” but I don’t think the term’s appropriate here) that in the real world their shrieking accusations need to be proven or will be ignored. We’ve already seen that this sort of thing can cause them to go into emotional meltdowns. Can you say, “schadenfreude?”

      1. I think they will be surprised while still in school, when their shrieking lands them in jail. when they are accused and then expelled from campus. when the very tactics they are using to compel that their viewpoint will be the only one viewed. I did say that with the lose of free speech, they will be compelled to stfu. you say “schadenfreude” and smile, I say “to prison with them” and LAUGH MY ASS OFF.
        please note: the loss of any of our rights is tragic. that the ill effects will be felt on those who caused that loss is ………………… irony.

        1. If you Google it, there is a movement in various states to move that into the criminal law. I believe CA is about to pass it.

              1. Those would be found unconstitutional on their face, in any court that actually uses the Constitution as its foundational law. The 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments are widely held to require a presumption of innocence for any person accused of a crime. Also, Coffin v. United States in 1895 established the presumption of innocence of persons accused of crimes, and In re Winship in 1970 reaffirmed that presumption. If CA tries this, it’ll be on the fast track to SCOTUS.

                1. Ah, but CA hasn’t really cared about the rights actually written into the constitution in decades.

    2. FOOLS … do they not know that it is for their protection, as well as for others. sure break it down let only the accusation be enough. right up until some one like, oh let us say vox day starts using the same tactics against them. while they rot in prison trying to prove their innocent.

      Nope. They don’t know.

      William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
      Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
      William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
      Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

      Sir Thomas More had more wisdom in his little fingernail than they have in their whole philosophy.

    3. That doesn’t make vox right. It makes him equally wrong. I signed on and support a nation of laws, not the whim of men. None of us should be judged on appearance or birth characteristics,only on what we DO.

      1. I am not saying that vox is right (or wrong). I was using him as an example of a type of person that would use the same tactics against his enemies.i could have used Trump / Obama / etc.
        Sarah, I know that was not what you meant. but I wanted to be clear, for my sake, if for no others

    4. “”What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? … And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s, and if you cut them down – and you’re just the man to do it – do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”

  7. The obvious defense is for men to push for a return to the policies that were designed to protect men and women’s reputations. Dorms segregated by sex, with rules governing access by the opposite sex, and mixed sex functions chaperoned. The only way for a young man to protect himself from accusations is to be part of a system that makes being alone with a woman impossible. Which, of course, is why such rules developed in the first place.

    1. Yep – that’s where that is headed,straight back to the high Victorian world of chaperons, strict segregation of the sexes unless chaperoned … I will be most amused, myself, since I am of the age now fitted to be that chaperon of the young and foolish.

      1. True.

        Now some of the craziness includes “not want to have sex with that woman when she wants it” as “sexual harassment”.

        So a man wanted a chaperon might be considered “sexual harassment”. [Frown]

      2. Or start building harems (from the Arabic word Haram, “Forbidden.”)

        Sounds like these people want a reverse of Sharia law, except it’ll take the testimony of two men to equal that of one woman.

        1. You wish. If that woman is a conservative, ant-feminist, or just on the wrong side of the current junta’s Required Hate’s enemies list, rspe away me hearties.

          Her testimony is worthless.

    2. In The Morning After, Kate Rophie’s argument against the idea of rules was that they were Victorian. She kinda skipped the step of proving that meant they were wrong.

  8. Really…BFD.
    All this feminist rot about rape is cut off at the knees by common sense and classical courtship. Boys – feminists have been selling the idea of ‘free love’ for 50 years now and as any idiot can plainly see – it ain’t free, not by a long shot. Nothing is free. If you jump in the sack with women without taking the time to get to know them – you deserve what you get. If you allow yourselves to be drawn into compromising positions with no reliable witnesses – you open yourselves up to rumour and ribald speculation from you peers. Stupid men have been taken advantage of by sleazy women all through history and always will.

    Be a gentleman. Walk the walk and make sure any woman you date walks it with you. You don’t lay hands on them without specific invitation, and then, only when you know them. Human sexuality is a biological contract between men and women that will not be re-written by slutty feminists or ‘enlightened’ liberals. If you get in the sack with a woman you had better make sure you know the consequences and that you are willing to accept them.

    Simple precaution: don’t date feminists and liberals. That’s 90% of the threat removed right there. Long, chaperoned courtships. The object of the game is to find a soul mate, not to bed a slut. Done, done, and done, eat a dick feminists – and life is good for those of us with triple digit IQ’s.

    1. While your advice is completely sound as far as it goes, it falls short in two respects.

      First, if fails to lay enough blame at the feet of the women who are making false accusations. A man should act blamelessly so as not to be able to be accused, and those who make false accusations should be punished for them. To focus only on the men is to let those truly responsible evade scrutiny, which is a mistake.

      And second, you don’t focus enough on the necessity of judging a woman’s character. It’s absolutely vital for a man to make sure a woman is honorable before he marries her (and he’d be wise to marry her before sleeping with her, for reasons too numerous to go into but which John Wright goes into here — note that he entirely avoids making any religious arguments). It is far better to stay single and celibate than to sleep with a dishonorable woman, even if a man has her full consent. Because a dishonorable woman will, more likely than not, later lie about consenting, claim that he raped her, and he will have put himself into the very danger you’re trying to help him avoid.

      1. And I’ll note that being married to a woman is no defense against her falsely accusing you of rape. Hence the absolute necessity of thoroughly vetting her character.

        1. Only because the modern world starting in the mid 1970’s or so invented the crime of marital rape. If you were to travel back to the early 1900’s and before and try to explain to lawmakers, solicitors, lawyers, and ordinary people how marital rape was a crime, you’d find yourself in the nearest asylum as a guest until you gave up your insane mutterings.

          OTOH, wife beating, in Christendom, has always been a crime, though not always in the eyes of the law. But a brute beating his wife for no reason when she had an ample supply of blood relatives would find himself being judged and punished. Whereas sharialand had codified rules on what is permissible when beating your wife. Not aware of the history of that in Eastern religions.

            1. No I think invented is a good term for it. Violently abusing a spouse has always been a crime in the west.

              If you don’t want to have sex with a spouse anymore you withdraw your consent by getting a divorce. Marital rape, especially in light in modern concepts of “consent” and “rape”, is nonsense.

              Who hasn’t had sex with a spouse while both of you have had a bit to drink? Is it really sensible to treat this as “marital rape”? Current lunatic rape laws would (if applied consistently) in many places take such a charge seriously, even years after the fact when it is impossible to prove anything.

            2. Invented was used quite deliberately. A quick search showed that under Jewish Law, it is unlawful for a man to force sex with his wife. BUT- there’s some other things there too. Under Jewish law, neither a wife- nor a husband- can refuse sex to their partner. And, both partners are supposed to make sure the other one enjoys the experience. Refusing sex is grounds for divorce. Didn’t see anything about wives forcing sex on husbands.

              Female rape of a male as a crime is another modern concept that was invented late last century. Unless someone can come up with evidence otherwise… Might have occurred, but a crime? Especially in the context of an older woman-underage male. That was his coming to age moment for most of history.

              1. Jewish Law is a poor model for this, since it does not recognize rape as a distinct crime. In this system rape is simply illicit sex (recall that halacha describes a theocracy) where the involuntary party is held blameless, combined with an assault. What we call marital rape is, under halacha, the same exact assault, but where the sex is technically licit.

                (To complicate matters further, assault and battery are under halacha purely torts, not [the halachik equivalent of] felonies.)

                At any rate, the Common Law definition of rape comes from a different idea. It helps to note that the word originally meant something like “theft”. It might, one supposes, have been more etymologically correct to term these “sexual battery by force” or some such, but the common meaning of the word rape has shifted to“forcible sex”, and your quibbling is mere pettifoggery.

                1. I get what you’re saying, but isn’t it a bit harsh to call using a relatively uncommon (except to Orthodox Jews etc) meaning of the word rape “pettifoggery”? I mean, sure, it’s a great word, but it implies deliberate deception and intentional distortion of the truth… Anyway, I’m pretty much in agreement with “jwrennie” here on this subject, but I won’t pretend I couldn’t be convinced otherwise. Right now though, it seems to me that “invented” is a damn good word for the concept. Abuse is abuse, sexual or otherwise, right? At least that’s my understanding, and I acknowledge the possibility that I may be misguided in that understanding, but for now, I remain unconvinced that codifying such a crime as “marital rape” is anything other than an invention of sick, and/or misguided, secular, “progressive” minds. I’ll shut up now. God bless! :-/

                  1. “Relatively uncommon”? To all but legal scholars who are aware of history, and those with an Elvish taste for language & etymology, the word rape means “sex with a lack of consent”. Unless I know someone to be in general a stickler for archaic-but-correct usages, if he uses a specialized definition to gain debating points I will call it pettifoggery.

                    (And no, the historical meaning of the English word is not better known among Orthodox Jews than the general English-speaking population; I was in fact objecting to “Gospace” bringing in discussion of halacha and attempted to demonstrate its irrelevance to the discussion at hand.)

                    1. I’m just going to wave a white flag here, okay? Didn’t mean to step on any toes, I just didn’t interpret/understand “Gospace”s comment the same way you did, I guess. G-d bless! 🙂

      2. To modify me usual advice to females in this circumstance:

        It doesn’t matter if she barely knew him, if the sex wasn’t good, if he didn’t call her the next morning, nothing justifies a woman falsely accusing a man of rape. However, if as a man you’re less concerned with whether it’s justified and more concerned with not having your life ruined with a false accusation, there are steps you can take to protect yourself, including not hoping into be with a girl until you know her name, have gotten to know her well enough to know she’s not a psycho, and maybe even *gasp* being in an actual romantic relationship with her.

        1. The sad reality is, the false accusation of rape doesn’t even have anything to do with the man knowing the woman. Merely passing by a woman in public could get a man falsely accused of rape – with the court breaking the law to help get the case to court.

          Merely working with a woman can get a man falsely accused of anything from sexual harassment to rape – the man in question doesn’t even have to be on friendly or hostile terms with the woman – <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Business/WorkingWounded/story?id=89228&page=1"as this false accuser admits, it was a serious miscommunication with the added ‘advice’ of co-workers. Worse are the ones with malevolent intent – I can all too easily imagine an angry rabid feminist targeting a man because he rejected her attempts to get into a relationship with him – or was oblivious to it.

          Cameras in the workplace; and hope that you don’t get hit, guys!

          1. Shadow, I’m pretty sure I posted this before, but last year a woman consultant I worked with used a harassment claim against the project manager to essentially get away with padding her expense report by $500 a week for at least 6 months.

            1. At one place I worked, a Black man often told his superiors that if they didn’t “do it his way”, he’d report them to HR as racists. [Frown]

              1. And in doing so this idiot made sure everyone involved would be that much warier of ever hiring any black person again for as long as they lived.

                Those in the black community who complain about it being hard to find work and discrimination in employment and all the rest need to find idiots like this and beat them to death because they make it so much harder for everyone else in the community who would never dream of engaging in crap like this.

                1. We had one black man at a company that I worked for. He once mocked his boss saying “You can’t fire me. I’m your token n—-r.” His next boss carefully documented all of his failings and canned him. I always wondered if the second boss felt more empowered as she was the prototypical bulldyke. 🙂

                  1. Most likely. In 2008, I was working in an office with 4 of us: one white guy, two guys from Mumbai, and a black woman. She did the job…. but she had a racist chip on her shoulder 2 feet wide, and let us know quickly she had HR on speed dial. She also liked to listen to rap…. with headphones as company rules required, but which she had a habit of singing along with, and her repertoire started with 2 Live Crew “As Nasty As They Wanna Be” and went downhill from there. Needless to say, none of us wanted to say anything “raaaaacist” or “sexxxxist”.

                    We had to arrange with an older black woman manager to show up (e-mail is silent), over hear it, and “counsel” her about it…. 2-3 times.

                2. He got his. What’s more if other blacks don’t get higher because of him, he can demand that his children get preferences because of the inferior position of blacks.

            2. Never forget that once a claim like that has been filed, any attempt to enforce any standards is classed as “retaliation” for the brave woman, and is another claim.

  9. I don’t know how different this from what society has already begun, As an mature straight Caucasian male smoker I have known for most of my life that I was guilty of heinous crimes due to my birth. When I was single that was considered a crime as well. I have avoided contact with children most of my adult life. I love children but have no wish to go to prison for the crime of being a single male. Nothing new at these campuses, unfortunately. They are just being a little more open about it. Still white straight males have accepted the gradual heating of water for generations now. Apparently the next generation is perfectly fine with their pretty chains

    1. Because then, you could avoid it by not going near any woman you saw praising Gloria Steinem.
      Now the Feds are getting in on the act.
      I’m not concerned for myself–sex while dating has no appeal to me, much less hooking up–but for my associates who are guilty of little more than being horny and incapable of thinking past the night, this is very worrisome.

      1. Swiped from the comments at Instapundit:

        “Men need Gloria Steinhem the way a fish needs a bicycle.”

      2. What of the men in Japan who have totally dropped out of dating because women are just not worth the hassle. Nearly 40%.

                1. I had a conversation with an elderly Filipina lady today while buying jewelry. Said lady asked, “Do you happen to know any Australian men in their 30s, looking for an old-fashioned, conservative wife? My niece is available; she’s intelligent, attractive and works as a nurse.”

                  I forsee omiai becoming popular outside of Japan (The ‘meet a potential mate’ type, not the ‘I’ve arranged for you to marry this man/woman’ type.)

                  1. I prefer the Yiddish/Hebrew term shadkhan, if only because it lends itself to this (very old) joke:

                    “So how did Mr. Greenberg find a suitor for his daughter?”
                    “He used a shadkhan.”
                    “What, did he hold it to the poor fellow’s head?”

                2. This is one of the reasons I want to put together a HunCon*. I want to be able to meet you all in meatspace, sure, but I also want to bring my minions and introduce them to other Huns’ daughters. Girls and young women who appreciate geekery, and whose parents are the right kind of crazy? Yes, please!

                  * I haven’t given up on this, but health and day job have stymied my attempts thus far to even lay groundwork.

                    1. While the yard ape is still a kid we need her school breaks and our travel budget to visit family. We’re all too far flung, and I like my relations. I’d like my offspring to know then, and vice versa.

                      And the summer vac, I’ve got SRP, I’m helping run our local con… but LibertyCon is on the horizon for 2017.

  10. It’s not just rape. Similar guilty-until-proved-innocent thinking abounds in cases of child abuse and “mental health.”

    1. Slightly outside of “criminal charges”, Innocent Until Proven Guilty does not exist when charges of “racism”, “sexism”, “homophobia” are made.

      If a member of the “Proper Groups” accuse somebody of those “crimes”, the accused has to do/say something to “prove his/her innocence”.

      1. If you’re a cis-normative hetrosexual caucasian male, all defenses against accusations of “racism”, “sexism”, “homophobia”, or “transphobia” are the equivalent of “when did you stop beating your wife?”

  11. Remember Duke lacrosse.

    The DOJ is insisting that the 5th and 6th amendments do not apply to men who attend college.

    1. As I mentioned in another discussion of the Duke Lacrosse case, if you suggested it to the feminists as a reason why we might want to slow down the rush to judgment, they’d look at you like you were nuts. After all, the lacrosse players were acquitted, so no harm done. Never mind that before they were hounded by a corrupt prosecutor and a lynch mob made up of a bunch of their professors. Never mind that they had a level of legal council that most students accused before the star chambers don’t. As long as they weren’t actually thrown in jail, no harm done, and the system worked.

      1. “Where do I go to get my reputation back?”

        I am liking the idea that the false accuser gets the punishment for the crime claimed. No. That’s the minimum.

        1. Yes. Though the same presumptions of innocence should apply in that case, too: to sentence the false accuser to the punishment s/he was trying to inflict on someone else, you have to prove that s/he was knowingly making a false accusation. This would usually be pretty easy, since her/his own public statements in court are right there in evidence already. But there could be genuine cases of mistaken identity, where the false accuser was not lying and should not be held guilty of such.

          But somehow I suspect that if the law actually were as rational as that, there wouldn’t be that many false accusations in the first place. Right now, through, lacking any such deterrent in most cases and given human nature, well, we all know the result.

          1. The same goes for prosecutorial misconduct. Mike Nifong should be serving 3 consecutive rape sentences now.

            1. Mike Nifong should be serving 3 consecutive rape sentences now.
              Correction: Mike Nifong should be serving 3 consecutive sentences getting raped by his cellmates.

          2. Of course, in both case you need to prove that the false accuser knowingly made a false accusation with malicious intent.

            A mistaken identification should be able to easily enough distinguished because you would still need to prove that the person made a knowingly false accusation beyond whatever standard the alleged rape is held too.

            The beauty of making the charge the mirror of the rape charge and holding it to the same standard is that you wouldn’t want a false accusation charge held to “preponderance of evidence” as a dismissed allegation is (under such a standard) a proof of a false accusation (If I have the right standard of evidence in mind, the weakest one).

            So there would be strong incentive to put proper standards of evidence into play in both cases.

            1. I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know what the “malicious intent” is held to mean. In many cases of false accusations, it seems clear that the accuser’s intent was not so much to harm the accused, as to get out of the consequences of her own actions. (E.g., she cheated on her boyfriend, he found out about it, so now she claims she was raped so that he won’t break up with her.) In those cases, there isn’t deliberate malice towards the accused, so much as a reckless disregard for the consequences of her accusations — her primary motivation is her own safety/convenience, rather than revenge on the man she’s accusing. If the legal definition of “malicious intent” includes such cases of reckless disregard for the consequences to other people, then I’m 100% in agreement with you.

              1. I am not a lawyer either. I was trying to distinguish from the case of a mistaken identification.

                This is possible and a problem but not worthy of punishment.

                If it has to meet the same standard as a rape conviction that should reasonably safeguard such a person.

                Though a large part of the problem is feminists have so watered down the idea of rape that it is possible to accidentally rape someone.

    2. All private actors acting on behest of the government are under the ambit of those amendments. Though no one wants to be the case that drags through the courts. . . and possibly gets stuck with the Court that’s gone insane.

  12. So the rape accusation, later recanted, that lead to the 1921 Tulsa race riots must be true? If so, given their support for the use of violence to obtain correct court results, they logically must consider the Tulsa riots a legitimate part of the process.

    I concur with you, Amanda: These are my middle fingers.

  13. On that “1 in 5 women were sexually assaulted during college” study:

    Besides the unjustifiably small sample size, you also need to ask what their definition of “sexually assaulted” was. If you do, you’ll discover that they defined “sexual assault” to include an unwanted kiss. Now, how many of the 20% of respondants experienced nothing worse than a drunk guy at a party trying to kiss them? And how many experienced something harsher, like attempted rape? The study, conveniently, never broke those numbers down, so we don’t know. But we do know how many women file police reports claiming that they’ve been raped: about 1 in 160 on average.

    So either college is a particularly unsafe place for women and they’d be much better off avoiding it entirely, or else the 1 in 5 number has conflated rape with unwanted kissing attempts. Which would be the equivalent of an epidemiology study conflating ebola with a stomach bug. A stomach bug sucks, and it’s not fun when it happens to you… but to put it in the same category as ebola would be flat-out lying with statistics.

    1. OTOH, The “1 in 5” claim makes the perfect excuse for a woman to go armed on a college campus (where allowed by state law), and to cause great headsplodeyness among both feminists and college administrators, should she be caught with her weapons.

  14. Duke Lacross, “Jackie” of Rolling Stone, Mattress Girl, Tawana Brawley (remember her? Admittedly not a campus incident), and recently another non-campus incident in Brooklyn where a man and his daughter accused 5 men of gang-raping the daughter… but when the facts came out, it turns out the five just came across the man and his daughter having consensual sex in public (cue the “ewwww”).

    That’s just off the top of my head. Yet we’re supposed to believe that rape is a special crime in that false accusations are vanishingly rare so we should just “believe women”. Yeah.

    Further, the idea that creating a rule where accusations are always believed will result in liars making false accusations (even if they were rare before) is conveniently incomprehensible to these people. Probably because they’re just the type of people who would make such false accusations whenever advantageous.

      1. Oh yeah, forgot about that one. Best as I can tell there was no rape (by sane standards; by SJW standards they raped each other) there, just drunk sex. The idea that he was raped seems to come from confusing “blacked out drunk” with “unconscious”.

        1. By SWJ standards, only men are guilty of rape. Women are never guilty of rape.

          1. Men can be the victims of rape, but bringing this up is derailing. Or else they’ll go off on how supposedly they’re more supportive and non-SJWs will shame, disbelieve, or tell male rape victims they should be happy about it.

  15. “Victims should be believed” is a dangerous statement, as it presumes the accusation is true without proof. We used to have a thing called “due process” and “presumption of innocence”, but that was before we had “social justice”.

    1. It’s like the old “the seriousness of the charge(s)” line in political ‘scandals’… hang on, what about any truth to the charges? Coming up with ‘serious charges’ is trivial. Coming up with actual solid evidence is not trivial.

      Oh well, I guess we can just shovel more coal into the firebox. That boiler took the last increase in pressure, why shouldn’t it take the next, too?

      1. How about only believing good women? Think of all those low class sluts who accused Hillary’s man. They were all tools of right wing patriarchy.

      2. The old “the seriousness of the charge(s)” line only applies to Republicans and Conservatives. How many times was Teddy re-elected after Chappaquidick? And the charges against Monica Lewinsky’s ex-boyfriend were never taken seriously by the elite and the MSM. Not to mention the current and on-going investigation into Monica Lewinsky’s ex-boyfriend’s wife, which will go absolutely nowhere. Because Democrat. The MSM line is it’s nothing more than a vicious Republican political attack on her.

        1. I had some political science course during the GHW Bush administration and there was a requirement to subscribe to Newsweek or US News. I wound up with Newsweek probably based on price. They then had a page of quote of the week and one was GHWB’s reply on being asked about women running for senate and Newsweek reported it as, “I hope they lose.” It was NPR, of all places, that pointed out the full response was, “Since they are all Democrats, I hope they lose.” A significant difference. I did not renew the subscription.

          1. Sort of like the report that Dan Quayle thought the people in Latin America spoke Latin. Said as a joke, laughed at by reporters as a joke, obviously a joke, and reported on as, “What a dummy Dan Quayle is, he thinks they speak Latin in Latin America.” I have a friend who to this day believes it.

    2. Oh, victims should be believed. But if the accusation is false, the accused is the victim.

      How to determine who is truly the victim? Well, we’re back to due process, and the best way we’ve figured out how to do it (or worst but for all the others, perhaps) is an adversarial system with presumption of innocence until guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt.

    3. The stupid part about the whole “Listen and believe” idiocy is that that is exactly what the police do. They listen, they take the claim seriously and they investigate.

      If they didn’t “listen and believe” they would dismiss the accusation out of hand and nothing would be done about it.

  16. Don’t forget the Colorado congressman who said that it would be better to kick 9 innocent guys out of college than allow 1 rapist to stay. After all, it doesn’t really hurt those guys; all they have to do is find another school (which I’m sure would be a piece of cake, transferring after being kicked out of your previous school due to a rape accusation). No harm done.

    Seriously, he said that. I’m not exaggerating in any way.

    1. I’ve heard that said in an employment context. That is, one should fire the accused immediately on an accusation of sexual misconduct, as the privileged male accuser can always find a job elsewhere. Yes, this person was serious.

    2. We start that with legislators being the first to be affected by such policies. They can always win another election, after all. Then after they’ve shown the way, the rest of society can follow. And if they don’t show the way, well, then why should anyone go along with deed-less words?

      1. Nope, still there. To be fair, I don’t think he has faced re-election since he said it, but he’s in the sort of district where the voters would cheerfully elect an actual donkey if he had a “D” after his name.

  17. Eventually, inevitably, there’s going to be a push back and a swing of the pendulum against this shit, and it’s going to be Gods awful ugly. I don’t think the morons pushing this sort of nonsense realize how ugly. The amount of pent up anger and frustration in the sectors of our country that have a virtual monopoly on the trained and directed use of force is reaching criticality. I just pray we can moderate this before that reactor goes supercritical.

    1. Pray is right… I hope so too, but when’s the last time these lunatics stopped *before* pushing society over the cliffs-edge? I can’t recall. Still praying though…after all, hope springs eternal, right? Right? Shoot…

      1. Worst case there will be a total collapse and these idiots will be up against the wall. That is nothing else will bring it to an end. I’m not sure what else will do it though. A partial collapse anyway.

        1. Putting people against the wall is a bit like eating peanuts- they never stop at just one set of people.

          1. I don’t think it will be a good outcome. But a total collapse will at least put an end to it. It will be a tragic preventable way to do it, but it will still do the job if nothing else does.

            There is no statist totalitarian utopian light at the end of the tunnel, it is a train.

  18. Excellent post, Amanda. I’m at a large state institution in Texas, and for my sins, I am in the pool Student Conduct draws on to seat committees when a student requests one. (They have the option of an administrative hearing.) I’ve heard cases ranging from cheating on exams to one in which a student died. Two of the cases I’ve heard were rape cases (I was chair of one of those committees.)

    In both cases the accused and accuser participated in the hearing. In the first she skyped in, and in the second she was in the room with him. In one case it was clear he did it.

    In the other, which I chaired, it was not as obvious. He was found not responsible, but one of the women on the committee said the accuser wouldn’t have brought an accusation if he hadn’t done it.

    The Title IX investigator was very disturbed that she said that. I will say our Title IX investigator is a man of integrity who is very aware of the possibility of a false accusation. He and I discussed that while I wrote the committee report. To serve on a committee, we are required to undergo extensive training, and false accusation is one of the topics covered.

    Also Student Conduct is very concerned about due process for every student, both claimant and respondent. They work very hard to make sure due process is followed and that everyone involved in a case understands it

    So it sounds like I am fortunate to be at an institution that is different from the ones you describe. If I saw some of the things you’ve mentioned, I would have no part in the student conduct process. We aren’t perfect & neither is our process, but as yet we don’t presume guilt without allowing the accused to defend himself. I wish other institutions were that way.

        1. Glad to see Tech has not fallen as far as my Alma mater UT Austin. I cannot recommend any one send their children, especially sons, there any more.

  19. I wonder how the feminists would feel if you pointed out that gays/trans make up “only 2-10%” of the population.

    I’d suggest bringing a face shield to ward off spittle.

    1. “This car has only a 2-10% chance of exploding with each trip. Here’s the keys, happy driving. Strange sudden interest in walking, there? Something.. wrong?”

  20. I would advise a student who is approached by a school official with an accusation of rape to immediately lawyer up. He (or she) is being accused of a crime; not a prank, and criminal law supersedes whatever disciplinary authority the school may have.

      1. That’s going a bit too far, I think. In American colonial times, the law was a tool of the nobility, and what we call due process of law was weak. The 6th amendment was created to codify basic principles of justice. The need is similar. The school administration is in a position of power. If there is a suspicion that feminist bigotry is becoming institutionalized, it is important for students to demand their rights as American citizens accused of a crime and not cooperate with the school’s version of a kangaroo court or drumhead court martial. If the school is going to get into the justice business, then it should administer justice, not #YesAllMales, and if it is going to the latter, then it should forced to do it in the open.

    1. > student … immediately lawyer up.

      I guess if his parents are wealthy he could call on them for the money, but otherwise… “yeah, right.”

      1. Public defenders. Any common street thug can claim a right to have counsel appointed for them. Admittedly, a PD isn’t necessary a “good” lawyer and isn’t likely be expert in a school’s administrative procedures, and may not be willing and able to represent him at whatever student discipline process exists, but he can at least advise his client on how not to incriminate himself and what his legal rights as an accused ought to be.

  21. I expect the result of trying to reduce the burden of evidence when it comes to rape will be twofold in fairly short order.

    1. Women will have to get used to being video taped secretly in every sexual encounter they engage in. Expect revenge porn sites to explode as a result of this.

    2. That women will quickly not be believed at all when they make an accusation and have them dismissed out of hand.

    This apparently something the left has never actually understood about trying to take a nasty label and expand its definition to include more and more things.

    Does anybody care about being called a “racist” or a “misogynist” anymore? Both terms have come to mean “disagree with the lefts policy on something”.

    Expect “rapist” to go the same way as the lunatic feminists seek to ever broaden the definition. How long before people jokingly refer to the idea of getting “raped tonight” as a synonym for consensual sex?

    1. I’d be hellaciously surprised if that isn’t happening already.

      Degrade the currency, and degrade the terms of opprobrium … and very soon neither one of them has any value.

      1. It is, to the point that some universities are trying to ban it under their states wiretap laws. And if it’s an “all parties must be aware” wiretap law, it works to ban it even off the campus.

        1. I dont think making it illegal under wiring tappings laws will matter.

          Unless the penalty for doing it is significantly worse than the penalty for rape then it won’t be much of a deterrent.

            1. Not from being posted online and in the media though, especially when it is “accidentally stolen” and then “leaked” by whoever stole it.

              Deliberately rail roading someone on a false accusation by some malicious woman because the evidence was excluded isn’t going to play well anywhere.

                1. Some might. The point is that you have an obviously innocent person and evidence, ontained however that shows she was lying.

                  In practice i would guess such charges would tend to get dropped.

                  And porn sites are pretty disreputable, they would probably host it.

                  How many women would be willing to take thr stand or press the case when they know a video of them exists that puts the lie to what they are claiming? Companies do basic google background checks now.

              1. What part of ILLEGALLY is unclear? The fact of its’ simple existence will send him to jail for that alone. And the “stolen” and “leaked on line”? Assuming it can’t be proven the person making it wasn’t the thief and leaker (how many of the SJW and BLM “hate crimes” have been proven hoaxes? Hint: most of them), all that leak does is tack zeros onto the damages when SHE sues HIM.

                1. No i dont think that is as likely as you fear.

                  In am age of google checks of employees, would you want a video online of you having consensual sex and the claim that you lie about being raped associated with it?

                  Police and prosecuters arent going to want such an obvious timebomb on their hands.

                  That is my guess anyway. Things are starting to change with these accusations. The SJW’s might be all for witch burning but i get the impression police and prosecuters are getting sick of going to the trouble of following up and investigating false accusers.

                  Things take time, but they do change.

                  1. Jason, consult an attorney. Ask him how easy it is to get a restraining order preventing that video from being seen. Also ask him how easy it is to present that to a judge as sexual harassment.

                    1. I think you’ve missed what I was driving at. Sure, get a restraining order, how well has that worked for celebrities to get images they don’t like off the net? Once the video is out there it is hard to get back. It works as a threat point.

                      But again, a video exists that shows the whole proceedings are based on a lie. It doesn’t have to see the inside of a court room to be useful. How many cops really want to jail an innocent person? You have criminals prosecutors like Nifong but that didn’t end well for him.

                    2. To clarify one thing. I don’t think videoing all encounters is a good solution, nor is distributing the tape to expose the dirty whore who filed a false charge. Also in the short term it might be difficult to do.

                      In the longer term, I expect it will become the norm to either do that, or we will see a return to a saner sexual morality. Nothing changes over night but it will change in time.

    2. Women will have to get used to being video taped secretly in every sexual encounter they engage in.


      Several states have passed “consent laws” where in every step of a sexual encounter, there has to be expressed consent before the step can be made.

      Considering both the “he said she said” aspect of the “crime” and the mindset that “women don’t lie”, even when the man “wins” the court case, his reputation could be destroyed.

      For his own protection, a smart guy would have to videotape all of his sexual encounters.

      1. I think it is probably already starting. There have been a few examples of women cheating on partners who later claim to have been raped when they are found out, only to find themselves in all sorts of trouble when some camera phone footage surfaces of her most definitely not being coerced.

        One upside, at least in time, of all of this, will be a return to a stricter saner sexual morality.

        1. There was at least one case where the woman “cried rape” to the police but the police were shown a “videotape” that showed that she definitely consented.

          I think this was a case where the university “tried to take action” against the guy and he successfully sued the university.

    3. Or…. both sexes could stop slutting around.

      AND work to fight cultural Marxism and restore a nation of laws, not men. Nothing like working on a useful job together to help find a long-term sexual partner…

      1. That would certianly be a good thing but i dont think the sluts will be willing to give up their “freedom” without a fight.

      2. That will require a fundamental cultural paradigm shift back to social conservatism, something close to 90% of people my age have been inoculated to, more’s the pity.

  22. Part of the solution to the problem is to make women more accountable for false accusations. If the penalty for a demonstrably false accusation were exactly the same (or worse, given the utter destruction such an accusation causes to the accused persons life) and investigators were obliged to follow up on such cases it might help deal with it. As long as both are held to the same standard of evidence and penalties I think that would be workable.

    Not all accusations of rape can be proven to beyond a reasonable doubt and neither could all false accusations. There is simply a grey area in the middle.

    It would put the brakes on the whole “preponderance of evidence” idiocy in short order, where any accusation would be ruled false if it wasn’t ruled believable.

    1. If a rape is reported to the police as a crime, and the rape accusation is false, the accuser has committed a crime and is subject to prosecution.

      However, if a rape is reported to some sort of academic kangaroo court, and the rape accusation is false, then there are myriad ways the accuser can claim victim status and walk away scot free. Or a heroine.

      1. Sadly it isn’t even true when reported to police, even with clear evidence of the false accusation the police often wont take action. The women who claimed to have been raped by a cab driver because she didn’t want to pay her $13 fare was recorded on audio making the threat to the cab driver and the police didn’t prosecute her.

        I think we will start to see less tolerance for this in university settings and a lot more law suits. Someone will sneak a camera into one and broadcast it at some point too.

          1. Which is why i think you will see change. Even if the authorities want to drag their heals a few false accusers beaten or lynched will encourage better behaviour.

            The tragedy as always will be that real criminals will get away with crimes because the false accusers were not extremly harshly dealt with.

  23. So, weren’t all these good liberal folks made to read (and probably watch and memorize the movie) To Kill a Mockingbird? Oh, that’s right, Tom Robinson should have been exonerated not because he was falsely accused of rape, but because he was black.

    1. I’ve found a reliable way to splode feminazi heads is to thank them for believing the Scottsboro Boys got what they deserved.

  24. I never understood the feminists obsession with abortion. Bad old days: a young man gets a young woman pregnant. He’s forced to marry and care for her for the rest of his life, perhaps at the urging of a shotgun. Wonderful new days: a young man gets a young woman pregnant. He offers to pay for “his” half of the abortion and becomes a feminist hero. THIS is a good deal for the woman?

    1. There are people who say that feminism is run by a cabal of dirty old men. These people are only sort-of joking.

  25. So what do we do about this? Other than bitching in comments and hoping that an Obama-packed Supreme Court will somehow decide to uphold the Constitution?

    Sure, it’s easy to say “don’t send your kids to college” but there’s two problems with that: it concedes yet another huge slice of our society to the fascists, and it means your kids will have fewer opportunities. Plus, they might actually want to get a higher education.

    Anybody have any ideas?

    1. Anybody have any ideas?

      Starting at the end and working back:
      A higher education is not entirely dependent on attending college, unless you are in a particularly obscure field, or are trying to get into a regulated profession that requires a particular degree.
      The value of a college degree has been decreasing in the US for most of my lifetime. Unless you meet the criteria above, your hireability is not likely to depend on having a degree. If HR requires it and will not consider equivalent experience, I recommend that you keep looking – you don’t want to work there.
      We are not conceding that ground, we are recognizing the fact that those territories are already controlled by the vile progs, which given the declining value of that territory makes it a terrible investment of our limited time and resources to attempt to infiltrate.
      I agree, commenting is not directly accomplishing anything. Kvetching never won a battle of any kind. We have to get off our butts.
      How do we get up and do something? Briefly, (I have a whole post’s worth of stuff, but not finished yet) we lift where we stand. Don’t worry about finding the most potent argument or influential position, just influence those you can reach, and then expand that reach. We have to get involved in our families, our communities, our local and state governments. Refresh and restore what we can; build alternatives where the old structure is corrupted beyond repair. Build under, build around. When you find yourself saying “Someone ought to…”, consider that someone may be you.

      1. Ugh, apparently UL tags don’t work in comments. That was a lot easier to read when I wrote it. WordPress delenda est.

        1. Bold, italic, and blockquote are some of the few bits of HTML WordPress doesn’t filter out from comments. OTOH, underlining, inline or CSS styling for color and such, and both ordered and unordered lists, all disappear. It is very frustrating if you forget (or never knew) and make a comment with such common markup, only to see it mangled by WordPress.

          1. Strikethrough will also work, but you have to use the word strike in the tag, not just an s.

            1. For links: <a href="http://example.com/example">link text here</a>
              For underlined text use <a href="">text to be underlined</a> (but this may send your comment to moderations since it looks like a link to WordPress.)
              For images, just put the image URL on its own line (same for tweets, Facebook posts, or YouTube videos); WordPress does not (IIRC) allow the <img> tag in comments.

              1. You’d expect that to work, wouldn’t you.

                When I use the html markup as in your comment, the whole thing just disappears.

                So the comment appears as:

                See this helpful link here: (…”here” being the link….)

                Comment continues with a blank spot where the word “here” would be.

                1. I’ve got a reply in moderation, but a straight-copy-and-paste from my comment works for me. Not sure what’s gone wrong on your side.

            2. Pretty much standard. For img, go to Youtube, click on a video, then click on the Share tab underneath, then Embed. It will build a working img tag to show that video.

              for a href: a href=”URL”>Link text and then close with

        1. Not so much the degree programs. But you have to watch your six on any university campus these days.

          Actually, I would think that STEM majors would have to be extra careful – they are definitely not part of the tribal rituals.

          1. While it’s true that STEM majors are outside the tribe, I suspect that the STEM workload reduces the amount of interaction with the insiders. When I got my degree, there was relatively little time for social justice navel gazing for science & engineering folks. STEM majors also seem to have a reduced tolerance for BS (2+2= 4 regardless of your race, gender, or sexual preferences), which probably also leads to some degree of self-segregation from the idiot wing of the liberal arts tribe.

            1. You say that, but that only makes them an attractive target. After all, such a bastion of maleness must be that way because they are discriminating against women.

        2. STEM course requirements seem to be going the way that business course requirements went in my day. When I was getting an advanced business degree, requirements were added for a “social responsibility” , “environmental responsibility, and “women and minority rights” class. In lieu of previous core business classes.

          These classes were not taught by business school professors, but by women’s studies, American studies, minority studies professors who somehow showed up as members of both departments. IMHO, it was bureaucratic job creation combined with ideological infiltration.

          I hear that some such courses are now being mandated for some STEM degrees.

          1. When I got my BSAE I needed a number of Humanities and social science classes. Mostly just professors preaching, esp Humanities

        3. Oh, they’re going to fix that….


          “If you read to the end of the paper (ah, the things I do for Power Line readers!), you find this among the suggested remedies:

          This suggests that there is an opportunity for STEM courses to reduce the perception of courses as difficult and unfriendly through language use in the syllabi, and also as a guide for how to use less competitive teaching methods and grading profiles that could improve the experience of female students. [Emphasis added.]

          In other words, dumb it down and practice grade inflation for the girls in the class, who are no different from boys, don’t you ever forget.”

      2. ” Unless you meet the criteria above, your hireability is not likely to depend on having a degree. ”

        Oyster, Federal contracting requires degrees for pretty much anything not involving a broom. So if your company does or might do business with the Feds, requiring a college degree is baked in. And that’s just the example I know best.

    2. If you / kids need a college degree, go to one of the more traditional colleges. They still exist, they provide a superior educational product, and they are already actively fighting the culture of crazy. That’s what we’re doing.

  26. Apropos of nothing: the eldest minion just touched the tip of his tongue to one of my whiskey stones. He walked into my office with the newly-adorned tongue hanging out of his mouth, gesturing for help. The Oyster Wife and I managed to wait until he left the room again before breaking out in snorts of laughter. Thought the other Hunish parents might appreciate that. 🙂

      1. Small chunks of granite kept in the freezer, to cool one’s drink without diluting it. I’m teetotal meself, but I’ve a few drinks (Bundaberg sodas, for example) that I’m picky enough to use them with.

        1. The ones I have are soapstone, not granite.

          Either one, I think they are far better than those stupid plastic fish. Sorry, but those do add a nasty flavor to things, unlike a rock.

  27. Yikes. Those crazy feminists are going to cause a backlash that will hurt all women not just them. And they’ll probably all die before they admit they were wrong.

    1. If things keep going the way they are, it is entirely possible that, in a decade or two, the places where women will be most able to do as they would like to do will be those based around complementarian churches.
      And like you said, the feminists will refuse to believe it.

  28. I will try to get back to answer comments later — this weekend is more than just busy.

    However, here is my main concern about what is happening and, unfortunately is borne out by some of the comments made in response to my post. Rape has always been an under-reported crime. (I’m using rape instead of the generic sexual assault because the latter can cover so many different acts, including an “offensive” touch). Part of reason for this is because there was a time when the general mindset was that a wife couldn’t be raped by her husband. That era of a woman being basically nothing more than chattel for her husband has been used by both sides to shame a woman when she considered making the report.

    But there is something more to it as well. Women have been led to believe that if they press charges and the case goes to trial, the woman and her social life will be put on trial and, after already being violated by the rapist, she doesn’t want to be violated by the system that is supposed to protect her.

    Did this happen? Sure. But the system also worked to stop it from happening, at least as much as it possibly could. The woman’s character and veracity still came into play, at least from the Defense’s point of view. But shield laws were put into place to protect the identity of a rape victim, etc.

    But this is, supposedly, a nation of laws and part of that means an accused has the right to confront his accuser. That should apply on college campuses or in the military or anywhere else when the actions taken in the course of “investigating” an allegation against him could lead to criminal charges, discharge from a job, etc.

    All that said, any man who rapes a woman — or worse, a child — needs to be punished. I’m the sort who, especially if the victim was a child, prefers a very permanent solution to the problem. That comes, not from my own history, but from having seen too many victims of true sexual assault cases. It doesn’t matter if the victim is male or female — and yes, Feminists, a man can be sexually assaulted. — it is the fact that someone was violated against their will. But they should not be forced to prove their innocence.

    Innocent until proven guilty. ‘Nuff said.

    1. Amanda, the only standards that work for applying criminal penalties are actual physical harm and actual physical evidence.

  29. The most disturbing item of the times is the argument that if the letterhead of the org destroying your rights is not .gov it’s OK. (But heaven forbid you make one of their pets uncomfortable.

  30. I will at this time note that Mr. Mike Glyer of File770 infamy has so far chosen -not- to link this post, despite his tendency to comb through not only Sarah’s postings but also the comments searching for scandal.

    This is not surprising, given his myriad of posts on the Mark Oshiro Affair. For those not conversant with this tempest in a teapot, Mr. Mark Oshiro had a bad weekend at ConQuesT and complained to the management, who according to him did nothing. This being months later, he decided to ‘go public’ and accuse a some people of some things on his FarceBook page.

    Now, normally this would be a big What Ever Dewd and I’d have breezed on by, but one of the things he was complaining about was sexual harassment, and he named a woman as his harasser. I will not name anyone here, because I’m not interested in assisting Mr. Oshiro with his appalling behavior.

    The crime was this woman touched his leg. With her leg.

    What was interesting about this was the accuser is a self proclaimed gay white male, while the accused is a middle aged white female. The reason I bring it up at all is that Amanda said this:

    “Unfortunately, that right [the presumption of innocence] is being trampled on, willingly and happily, by some in our society. Why? Because they believe (or at least profess to believe) that the male of the species in inherently bad and should be made to pay for the patriarchy that has held women down for most of history.”

    This is observably true, but I think it’s worse than that. The comentariat of File770 and others elsewhere were very excited to assume the 110% truth of the accusation, and assert all manner of bad things must be true of the accused woman. This went on all week, with Mr. Glyer stoking the flames ever day with a new post.

    At the end of course, we find it was all a mistake, the woman says she had no idea Mr. Oshiro was discomfited, nobody had told her there was a SEXUAL HARASSMENT COMPLIANT sworn out against her, and gee whiz man why didn’t you just say something? As expected, too bad about your reputation ma’am.

    What was striking to me was the lack of a presumption of innocence. An accusation based on one man’s unsupported word was sufficient to get us a week-long witch burning spectacle, in which not only was the witch burned in effigy but anyone who stuck up for her as well.

    So I think perhaps it is not merely the baying of feminist hounds in search of a fox to chase, there is now emerging a group who wants to burn witches, they don’t care for what or who the witches are. Identity politics is taking a back seat to the Outrage Of The Week. If there’s nothing exciting going on, somebody will make something up.

    If all they’ve got is -maybe- somebody touched somebody else’s leg, they’ll run with it.

Comments are closed.