While she's right that dating mishaps should not be treated as crimes, she is herself guilty of overblown melodrama: the true danger to young women... the ancient sex crime of abduction and murder. Um, got any statistics about how many young women are abducted and murdered? I'd be willing to wager that - like almost all serious crime - the numbers are way down over the past few decades.

Randy, unless you mean to infer that women needn't be concerned for their safety, I don't see the point of your critique.

A lot of threads on this blog, and a lot of topics in the rest of our lives this year, concern the arrival of a whole lot of immigrants from a whole lot of cultures that don't have the finely-ground expectations of masculine decency that the the American middle class takes for granted.

My Governor, who never met an illiterate immigrant / registered voter who he didn't adore, is demented.

This is not a bad time to remember who's who and what's what. Cammy's just the one to remind you.

Well, it's Time, which is about as superficial as it is possible for a "news" magazine to be. That said, her article seems to be trying to play up the fear of abduction:

women do not see the animal eyes glowing at them in the dark

Shiver, shiver, dreams of werewolves.

Yes, of course women should be concerned for their safety. Being worried about "eyes glowing in the dark" is not a terribly useful proscription. Her follow-on implication that dressing like a frump would provide safety, well, that's about as stupid as it gets.

But, again, this is Time we're talking about, so it's par for the course.

> Being worried about "eyes glowing in
> the dark" is not a terribly useful
> proscription.

True enough, but she's not a doctor, and she's not interested in sedating anybody. I mean, there's this thing where Americans expect everyone in public life to be pandering to their needs and impulses, as would a TV commercial or a politician. Paglia faced a lot a childish resentment from the feminists of academe (and elsewhere) in the 1990's, resentment which appeared in exactly those tones: 'Why aren't you flattering me and describing the world in the comforting tones I'd prefer to hear, Camille? The things you're saying are unpleasant!'

I guess it depends on what you mean by "useful." "Animal eyes" isn't so lofty and poetic that anyone could miss the point: The threat is from a natural being, not a policy; And it's looking at you on a personal level.

The people most resistant to such truths aren't very useful to anyone, either. See 'Jerry Brown,' above.

@Crid:

I guess it depends on what you mean by "useful." "Animal eyes" isn't so lofty and poetic that anyone could miss the point: The threat is from a natural being, not a policy; And it's looking at you on a personal level.

But people still do miss the point. A couple of weeks ago, a young lady from the University of Virginia wandered off, alone and drunk, into the night. She hasn't been seen since. Police have made an arrest, and now believe the young woman's disappearance is tied to the murder of a Virginia Tech student, whose bones were found more than three months after she vanished in 2009.

So maybe a few of Random's shivering dreams of werewolves might be appropriate, in reasonable doses. At least enough to make young people understand that the bubble-wrapped world they grew up in isn't always shared by others.

Well, at least the missing student in Virginia wasn't involved with a fellow student... I'm sure the illusion of safety provided by the educational code was comforting.

"Yes, of course women should be concerned for their safety. Being worried about "eyes glowing in the dark" is not a terribly useful proscription. Her follow-on implication that dressing like a frump would provide safety, well, that's about as stupid as it gets."

We all live in a jungle. The most dangerous animal in the world is another human being. Somehow in liberal la la land, this simple message has been obscured to the point of jaw dragging stupidity.

I would like to blame the 1970's Coke commercials, but fear the idiocy is more elemental than that.

My Governor, who never met an illiterate immigrant / registered voter who he didn't adore, is demented.

Another part of the bill that Gov Brown signed has to do with the rape of migrant farm workers. Female workers call the fields the "green motel" or "fields of panties" because of the prevalence of harassment by Latino supervisors. Big corporate farms are now required to educate workers and supervisors about the problem.

"the ancient sex crime of abduction and murder. "

It actually wasn't clear to me that Paglia meant that literally.... I think she meant that as a representation for all of life's dangers and insults, from the horrific to the mundane. Maybe I'm giving her too much credit here, but I've learned not to underestimate Paglia. I think she meant it as "Who promised you a freakin' rose garden?" The price of freedom is indeed personal responsibility, whether it's avoiding a dodgy part of town or negotiating a pay raise.

That was how I took it too, CD.

Rereading at lunch: Randy added a small piece of sarcasm by stating it in the negative, didn't he? "Not a terribly useful proscription..." That's on top of the "terribly." Sarc City.

For some reason, that's where people's heads are at when they read Paglia.

We all (hopefully) agree with one thing:

"Real crimes should be reported to the police, not to haphazard and ill-trained campus grievance committees."

But as I read more, I find that young women who are raped on campus, who do try to file a police report, are told it's not their jurisdiction and they should report it to campus security. *That* is a problem.

We all (hopefully) agree with one thing:

"Real crimes should be reported to the police, not to haphazard and ill-trained campus grievance committees."

But as I read more, I find that young women who are raped on campus, who do try to file a police report, are told it's not their jurisdiction and they should report it to campus security. *That* is a problem.

Posted by: flbeachmom at September 30, 2014 11:39 AM

Citation?

But as I read more, I find that young women who are raped on campus, who do try to file a police report, are told it's not their jurisdiction and they should report it to campus security. *That* is a problem. ~ Posted by: flbeachmom at September 30, 2014 11:39 AM

I think a lot of it depends on the status of "campus security."

When I attended the state universities in Florida, we were told at orientation that our campus police departments were not glorified security guards, but accredited police departments of the state of Florida. And that being arrested by them would not result in going to mall jail, but real jail. In fact, the UF Police Department is probably

If campus security is a real police department, then a crime on campus is probably not the jurisdiction of the local PD.

In fact, the UF Police Department is probably

Oops.

Meant to strike that.

The basic Leftist premise, descending from Marxism, is that all problems in human life stem from an unjust society and that corrections and fine-tunings of that social mechanism will eventually bring utopia.

Paglia's right, very few crimes are actually due to the social order.

Civilization is an attempt to suppress mankind's wilder animal instincts ... and it doesn't always work. Some people commit crimes because they want to - or they don't want to live under the structure of civilization.

And attempting to control people at the societal level is naive.

Judeo-Christianity's doctrine of original sin was an early attempt to provide a focal point in attempting to manage one's own baser instincts, but has been denigrated by leftists to the point of parody.

Punish the attacker, don't assume all men are attackers and attempt to emasculate them en masse.

And don't tell women that you've emasculated the men around them with "Yes Means Yes" laws so they're free to get staggering drunk any time they feel like it.

And don't tell them if they're attacked it's the fault of all men instead of the fault of the man who attacked them.

This is an example of what I'm hearing...
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-04-21/title-ix-campus-sexual-violence/54456812/1

It's different now, than it was "back in the day" - Title IX is being used now, where it wasn't then.

"Typically, colleges enjoy wide leeway in responding to student misconduct, whether that means using a disciplinary board to enforce their own rules or simply punting the matter to law enforcement. But as Title IX is now interpreted — and would be reinforced under a new version of the Violence Against Women Act awaiting a Senate vote — colleges must respond if a sexual assault is reported, even if prosecutors refuse to get involved. "

Meaning, even if a college like UF has a "real" police department, if it refuses to get involved because of a he-said-she-said situation, it still gets tracked to the university disciplinary board (This is the Title IX thing). The point is, a "real" police department has to work with a real prosecutor thinking of a real judge and real evidence, and decide whether to follow up.

Tell me this doesn't cause a feedback loop, where the police start to NOT pick up complaints, where they start to tell the girl, so sadly, "There's not much hope it can be prosecuted", and more and more cases get handled by these boards?

In an ideal world of course, if she wasn't lying and he was an evil monster, the police would pick it up and run with it. But when it's not so clear that there was a crime... and when there's a shining clear CYA fallback... it's gonna get shuffled.

I know what you mean, Coney. Swear to God, I take the point and agree.

But over the years, in aggregate —and never in the countless moments of irritation themselves— these fraudulently-feminist protestations about cruel society from ninny-women have seemed to offer their own balm.

I mean, for a woman (even a young one) to believe that everything inter-personally hazardous (or merely unflattering) comes from a culture that's insufficiently loving or insufficiently authoritarian, she has to have lived a life with no flavors.

Or colors or temperatures or melodies or scents.

Time and again ninnies have said stunningly naive things like that, and then their sister ninnies at the party have nodded in agreement. And I've argued patiently, or I've gone for another dash past the bar, or picked up the host's guitar for a few minutes of contemplative plunking…

…And then, on the drive home, realized that this woman's never needed to test her beliefs. She's never been in a truly dangerous situation, one requiring instant and successful intuition. She's never had her mind changed about anything, because it was never made up in the first place by anything practical. It's probable that no stranger ever truly hurt her. And virtually certain that nobody, friend or stranger, ever really touched her.

She doesn't know that human nature even exists.

Also, I should have said "physician" at 3:31 AM, above: Dr. Paglia earned two Ph.D. degrees at Yale.

Bookish study can be useful indeed, when you do it right.

"Meaning, even if a college like UF has a "real" police department, if it refuses to get involved because of a he-said-she-said situation, it still gets tracked to the university disciplinary board (This is the Title IX thing). The point is, a "real" police department has to work with a real prosecutor thinking of a real judge and real evidence, and decide whether to follow up."

Yes, and if you don't have enough evidence for a prosecution in a real court, the solution is NOT to take it to kangaroo court.

"Tell me this doesn't cause a feedback loop, where the police start to NOT pick up complaints, where they start to tell the girl, so sadly, "There's not much hope it can be prosecuted", and more and more cases get handled by these boards?"

I am much more concerned about justice and due process than the number of cases these half witted boards handle because the prosecutors are telling people rightly, that they have no hope of successfully prosecuting a case where two 19 year olds were drunk on the butts, and the accusation was made a month after the supposed event.

If the boards were using the same due process standards as a real court, they wouldn't be hearing many cases either.

But there are a lot of nitwit administrators hanging around colleges these days who fall far short of even the extremely low standards required to get into law school these days.

Isab, that's the thing.

Even if college admins don't want to handle this, the Title IX thing says that they have to, and also that they have to use the lower standard of proof in doing so. I am coming to the conclusion that it's really not a college power-grab so much as a government end-run around constitutional justice.

It is absolutely the right solution, for a prosecute-able crime to be handled by police, prosecutors, and courts held to the appropriate standard of justice.

Back to ..
"Real crimes should be reported to the police, not to haphazard and ill-trained campus grievance committees."

When we quit doing that, we cause all kinds of other problems.

"Even if college admins don't want to handle this, the Title IX thing says that they have to, and also that they have to use the lower standard of proof in doing so. I am coming to the conclusion that it's really not a college power-grab so much as a government end-run around constitutional justice."

Where are you getting these supposed Title IX requirements?

I don't think you are reading Title iX correctly. It doesn't require witch hunts, with negligible standards of evidence, nor does it require kangaroo courts.

Colleges right now are getting sued for this. I hope they aren't raising Title IX as a defense against violating due process for the accused. I don't think it is going to fly.

Isab, you asked for a citation. Did you read it?

"Typically, colleges enjoy wide leeway in responding to student misconduct, whether that means using a disciplinary board to enforce their own rules or simply punting the matter to law enforcement. But as Title IX is now interpreted — and would be reinforced under a new version of the Violence Against Women Act awaiting a Senate vote — colleges must respond if a sexual assault is reported, even if prosecutors refuse to get involved. Moreover, they face often precise instructions from the government for conducting their investigations and proceedings, and even the standard of proof to use."

" — colleges must respond if a sexual assault is reported, even if prosecutors refuse to get involved. Moreover, they face often precise instructions from the government for conducting their investigations and proceedings, and even the standard of proof to use."

Posted by: flbeachmom at September 30, 2014 3:24 P

A standard of proof has nothing to do with railroading people by not allowing them legal counsel or even to defend themselves against an accusation.

Due process, both procedural, and substantive is what is required by the Constitution.

Title IX does not require the elimination of the rights of the accused, which is why Universities are being successfully sued.

These idiot college administrators have been brainwashed into believing the woman, regardless of the evidence.

I hope a lot of colleges stop accepting any Federal money at all in response to this. They are in a ridiculous situation of trying to read minds.

I am quite familiar with Title IX. I don't need to read some journalists interpretation of what the law requires.

There are plenty of court cases out there.

When you expel someone on an accusation alone, you are probably depriving them of a property right

Colleges may technically be able to expel anyone they want, but the day may come when they have to refund all tuition paid.

Isab,

Flbeachmom is correct that the widening scope and loose interpretations are coming from DC. The white house pushed out the lowered requirement for evidence. They also made it quite clear that failure to convict enough men could result in loss of federal funds. So many colleges are caught between a rock and a hard place. Break the law or loose federal funds.

But that is the price you pay when you take someone else's money. So I don't feel too bad for the colleges. If they got off the federal dole they wouldn't be in this mess.

"Tell me this doesn't cause a feedback loop, where the police start to NOT pick up complaints, where they start to tell the girl, so sadly, "There's not much hope it can be prosecuted", and more and more cases get handled by these boards?"

Yes, it's a lose-lose situation. I can see that police departments will be tempted to dump everything, even the solid cases, back on the college disciplinary board because it's easier and because "those crazy kids". Meanwhile, said board acts as a star chamber, running men off campus for the flimsiest of accusations. The reputation of male students in general is trashed, real rapes don't get prosecuted, and the word "rape" is cheapened by being redefined downward. Nobody wins except the college administration and the authoritarian government that stands behind them.

What Cousin Dave said. Ben too.

"Yes, it's a lose-lose situation. I can see that police departments will be tempted to dump everything, even the solid cases"

A solid case, is stranger rape, with DNA evidence, and will most likely be committed by an unidentified male, not a jilted boyfriend, or a drunken hook up of the woman in question.

First they are going to have to find the guy. A lot harder to do than the TV show make it out to be.

The College administrators are doing the regulatory equivalent of searching for their keys under the street light.

Much easier to prosecute men with no evidence, than find the ones that you do have *solid evidence* against.

And no, these cases with real evidence are going to have to be investigated by real law enforcement, and prosecuted by a real DA.

However don't expect women to run down to the police department and report these things in great numbers. First of all these cases are more rare than you think, and the justice system is designed to protect the rights of the accused for a reason.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_Bryant_sexual_assault_case

The case linked above details how messy a real rape investigation is, even when you can identify the *attacker*

...this woman's never needed to test her beliefs. ~ Posted by: Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at September 30, 2014 1:24 PM

She's never wanted to test her beliefs. Deep down in her mind, in the primordial recesses she dare not explore, she knows just how shaky her arguments really are ... and that scares her.

She runs from serious debate. She presents her views only in front of audiences which will nod along and murmur with agreement.

She considers her ideological opponents to be neanderthals and evil - as you pointed out, never having faced real life. Not knowing true evil, she believes anyone who does not agree with her "righteous" arguments must be evil.

You read way too much into this Conan. There was no thought involved. She spouted ritual gibberish by reflex. Then everyone around her nodded by reflex. Anyone who disputes these righteous truths are unbelievers and should be punished as such. Thought need not apply.

Right, so the magnificence of your libertarian intention isn't clear.

Wrong thread, sorry

Ben, she spouted gibberish that she actually believes because she's never tested those beliefs in the crucible of actual debate.

It's easy to dismiss your ideological opposites as naive waifs, troglodytes, neanderthals, etc. in an effort to cling to a belief system that makes you feel warm and fuzzy. That's a security blanket, not a way to go through the world ... and scant protection when the barbarians hit the gates.