College Men Getting The Message: Have As Little Contact With College Women As Possible
You've come a long way, baby -- and then gone all the way back and then some.
Ashe Schow writes in the Wash Ex about the fallout from the campus sexual assault hysteria:
Thanks to an increased focus on sexual assaults on college campuses - mostly due to an overblown statistic claiming 20 percent of college women have been sexually assaulted - young college men are starting to rethink how they talk to women.At first glance that might seem like a good thing - men learning to be more respectful of women and not be so rapey - but that's not what this is.
This is about men actually avoiding contact with women because they're afraid a simple kiss or date could lead to a sexual assault accusation.
Bloomberg reporters John Lauerman and Jennifer Surane interviewed multiple men from colleges like Harvard and Stanford who expressed concern over what was once known as a "hook-up culture" but is now labeled by feminists as "rape culture." The change in terminology ensures that all responsibility is placed on men, just because of their gender.
Take Malik Gill of Harvard University, who said he wouldn't even give a female classmate a beer.
"I don't want to look like a predator," Gill told Bloomberg. "It's a little bit of a blurred line."
This is the environment the lack of due process for men has led to:
William Pollack, a Harvard Medical School psychologist, told the Bloomberg reporters about a patient who was kissing a girl during a party and began thinking about what would happen if things went further."'I want to go to law school or medical school after this,'" the student said, according to Pollack. "'I said to her, it's been nice seeing you.'"
Pollack also noted that the media attention to campus sexual assault has led to a "witch-hunt" mentality.
"Most males would never do anything to harm a young woman," Pollack told the Bloomberg reporters. But the current focus is "starting to scare the heck out of the wrong people."
From the comments:
thewlyno / Isaac T
Remember, when men drink they are predators, when women drink they are unaccountable victims
Another:
James Dean
I also find it ironic that feminists who fought for female sexual choice, including the right to engage in drunken hookups, would now like to put the responsibility for the mutual drunken hookup entirely onto the male. He must now take into consideration not just what she wants now, but also what is really good for her in the long run, because in his drunken state he is better able to make decisions for her than she is in her drunken state. It is his job to recognize her vulnerability, to save her from her disinhibition, and to guide her with his greater wisdom into proper chastity. This used to be called patriarchy.
Another:
2Tim316
It's the same in the work environment. We're walking on eggshells and worry every day that a gesture or comment can be misconstrued as sexual harassment and boom we are on the street presumed guilty with no recourse for due process. It happens too often. I refuse to have any intimate relationship with any work associate, much less acknowledge any female that I cross paths with in the halls. It is too dangerous.
As I've written before, women used to demand to be treated as equals; now they demand to be treated like eggshells.
Count me out.
Let's file that under "Just what the hell did you think was gonna happen?"
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at August 25, 2014 4:36 AM
"Segregation now; segregation tomorrow; segregation forever."
Just sayin'.
doombuggy at August 25, 2014 5:21 AM
Count me as one of the scared men. I had too much to lose to get involved with a collage girl. I got enough of that trouble in high school.
Ben at August 25, 2014 6:21 AM
I'm the same way, but with children. Boy Scout councilor? Big Brother program?
Aw hell no. That would mean that at some point I might be left alone with somebody else's minor child, and vulnerable to accusations that are instant convictions in the public mind.
So no, just no.
Lamont Cranston at August 25, 2014 6:30 AM
Both of my step-daughters needed different types of restrictions and non-physical discipline due to their very different personalities.
I was always very aware that all it would take would be one statement to a teacher and I would be labeled as a child molester. I minimized the number of times I was alone w/them as best I could.
Paranoid? Not in my mind since it was my future I was concerned most with. Have you been around an angry female teenager? Best take care.
Bob in Texas at August 25, 2014 7:02 AM
I can't say I blame them. Some of the stuff friends of mine did would absolutely count now as sexual assault (A friend was mad at her then boyfriend, now husband, for cheating on her, so she slept with a friend of mine while really drunk to get back at him). Both of them were quite drunk that time, and every time I asked if she wanted to come back to the dorms with us, she said no. I figured that meant she wanted to do what she was doing, and since she wasn't falling down drunk, knew well enough to make her own decisions. Pardon me for thinking that people ought to have the agency to make their own decisions.
spqr2008 at August 25, 2014 7:06 AM
I work at university.
I generally don't allow people to come into my office. If I need to speak to them there, I stand in the doorway. If I need to work on something in their office - lots of grad students, who have offices - the door is open. If I need to help someone install software on their computer, it is done in a common area with open doors.
I keep conversation to a minimum, focusing on the problem at hand, answering questions about the process, or what it is that I'm doing.
I don't think I'd really want to date another university employee, even if they worked on the far side of campus. Maybe I'm being overly paranoid, but why risk it?
Beside, I haven't been on a date in so long, I forget who gets tied up. Wut?
I R A Darth Aggie at August 25, 2014 8:05 AM
as with most perverse incentives... exactly the wrong people are going to take this to heart -
That being the decent sorts who would have in ages past walked a girl home to her dorm, as a friend.
Guys at work that might have commented on your new hairstyle.
Essentially, any guy who can think implicitly enough to realize that most interactions in our society are fraught, now.
Interestingly, if you are The-Right-Kind-Of-Guy™ you can do almost what you want, and get away with it... while boring old Mr. Normal would do better to keep his questions brief.
meh, this is just how society is, it's like course corrections on the world's biggest ship, cannot turn on a dime.
This time the question is if there is a return from opting out, because ultimately the return on investment is really low.
SwissArmyD at August 25, 2014 9:41 AM
Another MGTOW right here, for the same reasons. I will not allow a false accusation to destroy my life, as it's destroyed the lives of family and friends.
I will not interact with a strange woman or children in anything but professional circumstances. Yes, I do have a girlfriend, and I'm VERY aware of the eggshells on which I stand there. So far she's been very fair with me. But I still know it only takes one word and I'm in trouble. I have made certain preparations to that effect.
How sad is it that we men must even take precautions against people we love, for our own safety?
Chris at August 25, 2014 11:01 AM
What Lamont said.
Yesterday I was leaving a restaurant, only to find a toddler pushing energetically on the exit door. I stepped around her and pushed it open so I could leave. She darted outside and I went about my business.
Ideally, a parent should've been looking after her (and had her ass in a seat at the table), but as a guy I just don't deal with children. No matter how many stats show that the biggest threat for kiddle-diddlers is a family member or Mommy's New Boyfriend, the stereotype of the big bad stranger persists, and it's not worth it to me to risk my own liberty to challenge a false shibboleth.
Kevin at August 25, 2014 11:25 AM
Sadly what Kevin talks about gets kids killed. There was a toddler riding his big wheels on the sidewalk in my neighborhood while I drove past. Suddenly he swerved down a driveway right in front of my car. I slammed the brakes barely missing him. But that is the last I did. I did not try to find his parents or take him home. As a man it is too dangerous. I just went home another way and hopefully the kid is alive.
A few years ago a man in California had a similar incident with an older child riding a bike. But he yanked her out of traffic and yelled at her for being reckless. So the cops came and arrested him.
Another famous story from the UK involved a toddler that drowned in a lake. Multiple men saw the unattended child acting dangerously and did nothing.
Ben at August 25, 2014 12:52 PM
Another famous story from the UK involved a toddler that drowned in a lake. Multiple men saw the unattended child acting dangerously and did nothing.
Given the day care owners in that case dindt call the cps for hours and when in the search for the girl ran into her parents and LIED about searching for a dog, I have no doubt had a man picked her up they would have cried pedophile to protect themselves
Forget the names in that case.
But the guy how pulled the girl out of traffic was in Illinois his name is Fitzroy Barnaby, and his is a sex offender for life for NOT killing a girl with his car.
Abigail Rea was the girl in the UK
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/04/04/did-pedophilia-hysteria-cause-child-death/
lujlp at August 25, 2014 1:33 PM
Apologies for the faulty memory Lujlp. I could have sworn that happened in California.
Ben at August 25, 2014 3:29 PM
Um, Kevin, did it really not bother you that the toddler could easily get run over in the parking lot if you didn't go and talk to some adult BEFORE opening the door? Or that you could easily get into serious trouble for that if caught on camera?
Here's a fun 2012 thread on that (three pages):
http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,201793,page=1
(foul language ahead - but there's one story with a very happy ending, at Burger King)
Title: "Just watched a young woman pull a toddler out of oncoming traffic only to get shouted at by the mother for touching her kid..."
Excerpts:
Cambion writes:
"...In addition, I also will never use CPR or the Heimlich on anyone. It's not worth it when your reward for saving someone is being taken to court because you broke the idiot's ribs. Fuck 'em. I've told other people this and gotten reamed for it - I think I said this on Snopes (breeder central) and I was told by many people that since I knew how to do CPR, I was obligated to help someone in need. Uh yeah, no I'm not. I only know how to do this because I was forced to learn it in high school.
"This is sadly what happens to people who try to help - they get arrested and sued. Why try to help when you're only going to get punished for it?"
And I wrote (page two):
I do not have kids. I simply like to warn people when their self-protective cynicism is likely to get them in even worse trouble. That is, watching and doing nothing to stop a kid from getting run over is, at the least, likely to put your name in the paper and make the whole world hate you - including prospective employers. Whereas doing the right thing will likely make you a hero. Let's not forget that we - and the whole world - tend to focus only on the bad news, so we get the distorted idea that MOST parents who looked away for two seconds are going to scream at us rather than blame themselves for their neglect, even though there's no scientific proof of that.
lenona at August 25, 2014 5:21 PM
"where have all the good men gone?"
The short answer: They're afraid of you.
But don't worry, the overconfident narcissists and borderline sociopaths are still interested
Baldwin Bravo at August 25, 2014 6:15 PM
Um, Kevin, did it really not bother you that the toddler could easily get run over in the parking lot if you didn't go and talk to some adult BEFORE opening the door? Or that you could easily get into serious trouble for that if caught on camera?
It wasn't a parking lot; it was a patio.
Why should I go have to talk to "an adult" before opening a door? If a kid's running out in traffic, I'd try to stop her, but strangers are not babysitters.
Kevin at August 25, 2014 6:22 PM
People, in general, have a notable tendency to break the law if they know they can get away with it, if they know no one is looking. An interesting quote from Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate (highly recommended):
Unfortunately the nature of the beast “sex”, particularly as it practiced in “hook-up” culture, or so I’ve been told, is that it tends to be a “hasty pudding”, compounded by liberal doses of intoxicants, and outside the view of any witnesses: all conditions conducive to unending, acrimonious, and frequently unjust rounds of “he-said-she-said”. All of which suggests that now, particularly with the passage of that bill, there’ll be more support for this call: “Can Someone Just Invent an 'I Consent to Sex' iPhone App Already?” And on which, the solution I’ve suggested, partly in sardonic jest, may have some relevance or bearing.
Steersman at August 25, 2014 6:52 PM
My husband doesn't understand why I feel sorry for men in general. Y'all are damned no matter what you do.
Incidentally, we started dating in college.
A couple years ago we were at the zoo and my husband had to visit the men's room. When he came out, he told me there was a boy in there about 6 years old who had evidently not encountered a urinal before. The kid looked at my husband and said, "So, I...just pee in there?" and my husband laughed and said, "Yes, you do."
Of course, when he finished his story my first reaction wasn't, how cute, or, how funny, but, you talked to a strange child in a public bathroom???
Sosij at August 25, 2014 11:22 PM
Puhleeze. Spend some time in a university / college town. There are still plenty of drunken hookups and bootycalls. These poor young men are playing their own victim card here, and you're falling for it. Maybe if they stopped acting like entitled dbags whining about the feminists that cutie over there might have a drink with him. Of course the fact they think they should buy women drinks and get something in retun is part of problem here, but I can't hear it through all the snivelling
College teacher at August 26, 2014 3:24 AM
People, in general, have a notable tendency to break the law if they know they can get away with it, if they know no one is looking. An interesting quote from Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate (highly recommended):
No. They. Don't. Maybe 5 or 6% of the population is predatory at any one time. Roughly 30% might engage in pilferage if actuarial calculations suggested they could benefit (though usually it is of no interest to them to do so). Law enforcement deals with the tails of the bell curve. It could hardly be otherwise.
Art Deco at August 26, 2014 6:39 AM
College teacher, with that type of attitude, I have little doubt most of your students would be better off without you.
Art Deco at August 26, 2014 6:41 AM
Um, Kevin, did it really not bother you that the toddler could easily get run over in the parking lot if you didn't go and talk to some adult BEFORE opening the door? Or that you could easily get into serious trouble for that if caught on camera?
____________________________________
It wasn't a parking lot; it was a patio.
____________________________________
Well, it would have been good for you to mention that; plenty of restaurants don't HAVE patios.
_____________________________________
Why should I go have to talk to "an adult" before opening a door?
______________________________________
Again, if it WERE a parking lot and you casually let the toddler out because you didn't want to risk touching her with your hip, you could easily get in serious trouble for that.
______________________________________
If a kid's running out in traffic, I'd try to stop her, but strangers are not babysitters.
Posted by: Kevin at August 25, 2014 6:22 PM
_____________________________________
And too many people - as indicated in the thread I posted - seem confused about the line between the two, as well as being paranoid about parental reactions, which can be just as bad for you in the long run.
lenona at August 26, 2014 6:44 AM
To clarify: I meant your own PARANOIA can be just as bad for you in the long run.
lenona at August 26, 2014 6:45 AM
Thanks, College teacher.
However, I have to play devil's advocate. That is, there would definitely be, at least, less male bitterness and resentment if women would be a lot more conscientious about spending as much money on men as men spend on women - and a woman who doesn't want to do that should learn to refuse a man's offers of meals and drinks in the first place.
(I would hope that a man would not be resentful of a woman who DOES make an effort to spend as generously as he does - instead of doing you-know-what - but I understand there are, unfortunately, men who don't understand that refusing to exchange intimate favors for money is perfectly polite.)
lenona at August 26, 2014 6:56 AM
You are in a bit of a fantasy world Lenona. Employers understand risk mitigation. So you don't just sit and watch a child get hurt. You leave. The benefit of 'being the hero' pales in comparison with the risk of a sentence of unlawful imprisonment or other charge that an employer really will look down on.
And college teacher doesn't understand that when you scare off all the decent men you end up with a bunch of d-bags. I dated only one college girl in my 6 years in school. It was is far less risky to date a local who is not going to college.
Ben at August 26, 2014 10:39 AM
Art Deco:
Ok, maybe my “in general” was a little too vague, but it was intended to suggest that it was more applicable to some segments of the population than to others. And one might argue that “5% or 6% of the population” still looks significant and quite problematic.
As to how accurate that number might be, you may want to take a look at some US Bureau of Justice statistics for 2006 which indicates [Table 40] some 4.8 million “crimes of violence” – which includes some 222,000 cases of “rape/sexual assault” (and that is apparently separate from some 216,000 rapes of men in prison), and some 357,000 cases of robbery.
But my point was sort of that as many of us take some precautions about protecting ourselves from, for instance, robbery by locking our homes & cars, so might we want to take similar precautions about protecting ourselves – particularly in the context of the prevalence (?) of “hook-up culture” – from rape, or false accusations thereof, through the use of such things as that iPhone App I referred to and suggested.
Steersman at August 26, 2014 11:40 AM
You are in a bit of a fantasy world Lenona. Employers understand risk mitigation. So you don't just sit and watch a child get hurt. You leave. The benefit of 'being the hero' pales in comparison with the risk of a sentence of unlawful imprisonment or other charge that an employer really will look down on.
Posted by: Ben at August 26, 2014 10:39 AM
I'm very glad a certain busboy didn't feel that way when my best friend took her three-year-old(?) to a restaurant, and at one point, the dumb kid tried to race out the door - likely into the path of moving cars - and the busboy caught him. (Knowing my friend, I'm sure the busboy got a nice tip - I hope the kid didn't kick him. I wasn't there.)
lenona at August 26, 2014 1:33 PM
" These poor young men are playing their own victim card here"
By insisting the university publish a list of rules on interpersonal encounters?
Hang in there, though, with your attitude and disdain towards men you'll soon rise through the ranks and become a fully-tenured professor.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at August 26, 2014 1:58 PM
On the flip side, though, you can't be too careful when avoiding having a "legal responsibility" dumped on you without your knowledge.
Remember Susan Newkirk, who went to jail in 2005 for not jumping in to rescue a toddler from a rain-swollen creek in Claysburg, PA...even though she couldn't SWIM? (Lifeguards everywhere were furious at the verdict, but from what little I can tell, she lost on appeal.)
What I really don't get is why they could jail her for this but (maybe) couldn't jail her for not simply keeping a sharper eye on the kid beforehand, even though she was never explicitly asked to watch the kid (her boyfriend's child). After all, a nearby non-swimming STRANGER who hadn't seen the kid until AFTER the kid fell in wouldn't be blamed for not jumping in, so what's the difference?
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=338316
(for the most relevant details of the case, scroll down to message 6)
From a 2011 thread on that case on Bratfree (someone was trying to find an update and couldn't):
paragon schnitzophonic
"I wouldn't be surprised if everything related was purged because this sets a dangerous precedent. Like someone said in the Joe Paterno thread, a kid dies due to its parents' negligence, now bystanders can be punished for not immediately risking their lives to save the brat and the 'parents' get off scot-free because 'they suffered enough?' It takes the 'village' concept to ridiculous levels.
"One thing I read about the Newkirk case is that the idiot father who let his kid die took a f------ plea deal by testifying against Newkirk so he could get out of charges of gross negligence leading to death.
"I wish I were there in that courtroom. Did they bring in emergency response personnel? As a former EMT, I can tell you that one of the first things we were taught is that your own ass comes first, everybody else second. If you see somebody fall in a swollen or raging body of water, YOU DO NOT GO IN. Wait for the Coast Guard. If you go in, all you do is add an extra corpse for them to haul out. Now, if EMTs are taught that, can we really hold a bystander who can't swim responsible? The only person who had a responsibility to risk his ass to save his kid was the father and he failed to do that, despite having already received a warning about his son was wandering too close.
"F---, that case pisses me off."
And one New Zealand lifeguard said in 2005:
"Last summer at the beach I noticed a couple of young kids get close to a rip down the beach and mentioned to my wife that I hoped someone was
looking after them. When they got into serious trouble I got up and was going to sprint (albeit slowly) down the beach to help. But as my wife rightly reminded me, I was 63 and not exactly lifeguard material any more. She also reminded me that I've often said that it's stupid and dangerous for someone who isn't capable to attempt a rescue (especially in big surf like there was that day) because they can become another person to rescue. Fortunately, some younger guys who were capable did rescue the kids and return them to their irresponsible parents.
"Frankly, after reading that the father was allowed to plea bargain to a lesser charge, I have to wonder if the District Attorney who
prosecuted this case wasn’t more interested in headlines than justice."
He also said he wrote a letter to the DA once he heard about the case and verdict.
lenona at August 26, 2014 2:12 PM
and the busboy caught him. (Knowing my friend, I'm sure the busboy got a nice tip - I hope the kid didn't kick him. I wasn't there.)
And if your friend was a bitch that busboy would be on a sex offender list right now
lujlp at August 26, 2014 3:38 PM
"but it was intended to suggest that it was more applicable to some segments of the population than to others. And one might argue that “5% or 6% of the population” still looks significant and quite problematic."
Actually your numbers sound about right to me, and yes, I've long contended that although bad actors may be a small percentage of the population, it only takes a few to cause a whole lot of trouble. There's another aspect, though... people who would normally be law-abiding might change their minds if they decided that the law doesn't deserve respect. Then the percentage will go much higher, with regard to that law. As an example, in many European countries tax cheating is a way of life, and the person who doesn't cheat on his taxes is regarded not as an upstanding citizen, but merely a chump.
"I'm very glad a certain busboy didn't feel that way when my best friend took her three-year-old(?) to a restaurant, and at one point, the dumb kid tried to race out the door - likely into the path of moving cars - and the busboy caught him. (Knowing my friend, I'm sure the busboy got a nice tip)."
Good that it worked out in that circumstance. However, had the busboy done the risk calcuation, he might have chosen differently. Don't forget that risk is a combination of two factors: the probability of something bad happening, and the consequences if it does happen. In this case, your friend, had she been so motivated, could very well have charged him with child molestation and he proabably would have been convicted. We can fairly assume that there's only a small number of women who would do that, but look at the consequences if it does happen -- the guy is branded for life. That's on top of the risk that he winds up dead himself if he goes out into the traffic to try to save the child. (Google Joe Delaney.) By contrast, the reward is small: maybe he gets good tip and a nice thanks, and he feels a bit better about himself morally. If the risk consequence wasn't so high, that might be enough; soldiers put on uniforms and go out to face the bad guys every day for less. But the consequence is that high.
So the best strategy is to avoid the risk. The worst possible outcome is the child gets hit by a car and the busboy feels worse about himself morally, but that will be assuaged by the knowledge that he is still a free citizen.
Cousin Dave at August 27, 2014 11:40 AM
@"Suddenly he swerved down a driveway right in front of my car. I slammed the brakes barely missing him. But that is the last I did. I did not try to find his parents or take him home."
@"Of course, when he finished his story my first reaction wasn't, how cute, or, how funny, but, you talked to a strange child in a public bathroom???"
Ironically, in all of this, nobody is trying to "think of the children" - imagine what the car experience was like for the child, frightened and just seeing the car drive off, leaving them alone without even seeming to care ... or what the experience is like for a nervous 6yo who doesn't know how to use the urinal, but nobody can even look at him or talk to him. How alienating it must be for children to grow up in a society where people can't even 'just act human' toward them. I wonder sometimes if it's all part of some agenda to have 'the state' fill the vacuum, or if it's just collective insanity.
Lobster at August 27, 2014 3:18 PM
Lobster,
The kid never even noticed me. He was too focused on riding his big wheels. It would have been more traumatic to have a strange man yank him out of the road and yell at him. But I think that would have been healthier for him. Doing dangerous things should be traumatic. And it is much less traumatic to be yelled at than to be run over. Unfortunately without multiple witnesses to back me up I didn't feel save administering that lesson.
Ben at August 28, 2014 6:59 AM
Hi Dr,
I'm a long time figthing for change, but for my purpose here I'll make it short as you can google my name. I'm now listening to you with Erin Pizzey and I think I understand the why feminist men hater don't critize you about your book. Seem so easy to me you give them an orgasim in it! You actualy tell them you made it where you wanted it! You confirm to them their victory of spliting men and women and as most are lesbian they now think they can have those hot women they could'nt hope to before cause theiy're heterosexual... We all know about their abuse on fragilized women in shelter.
http://vimeo.com/790290
http://vimeo.com/745927
So to them men are bad and must be raise as women and women should act like men...? As I listen to men in separation/divorce who get screw and many are suicidal... Since over 20 years...
I wish you a nice day and ty vm for your work as I say since 20 years that things will change the day women will stand up as men voice is not listened to.
Jean-Marc
jean marc bessette at September 3, 2014 11:10 AM
I used to be a person that would help women and children if they were lost or going to hurt themselves. However in this day an time, I would never help someone I didn't know especially women or children. Modern Women hate chivalry, and have demonstrated/stated that belief in numerous ways to me and others over the years. And helping a strange child is asking for someone to accuse you of being a pedophile or an attempted kidnapper. Sorry, no. If little johnny's parents can't keep track of him and he gets run over in the street. Its not my Little Johnny, not my problem as long as I don't hit him. And I will go out of my way to avoid being in any situation with a woman that I maybe seen as hitting on her. I now treat women as asexual human beings. I will still admire at a distance or on the internets, but trying to have a relationship with them is simply too much work for almost no reward. There are a few women in my life that are still wonderful, sweet and kind, but they have been the very rare exceptions.
Mister Alighieri at January 7, 2015 5:57 AM
Leave a comment