Sunday, February 27, 2011

Shoot First, ask Questions Later

or... being on your local FemiNazi campus.

The "New England Center for Investigative Reporting" wrote this piece of trash. It is a self-described "nonprofit newsroom based at Boston University."

The article was written in whole or in part by Boston University journalism students Jenna Ebersole and Allison McKinnon.

Jenna and Allison, please grow a brain. I don't even know where to begin. This is your "investigative journalism?" Wow. Well here's a lesson for you that apparently the women's studies program at BU forgot to give you, but my father taught me when I was about 6: there are two sides to ever story. TWO. Not one, but two.

The men in all of these cases of yours have a side too. The police took it. You couldn't get it, but further, YOU DID NOT EVEN PRESUPPOSE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE WOMEN COULD BE WRONG AND THE MEN EXONERATED OR AT LEAST FOUND TO BE LESS CULPABLE THEN YOU IMAGINE.

You are WOMEN. The people you are demonizing are MEN. It would only make sense that you would be aware of your strong potential for bias and CONSIDER WHAT SIDE THE MAN MIGHT HAVE IN THE STORY.

Let me clue you into reality. Read slowly.

The article starts:
It was supposed to be a fun college version of Friday night at the movies. A group of students at the Massachusetts College of Art and Design in Boston gathered in a classroom building, spending the autumn evening in 2009 drinking rum and Cokes and watching films.

No, that's what the girls thought. The guys thought that they would have an opportunity to get close to some cute (hopefully HOT, they were thinking) girls and flirt with them, charm them and maybe get some physical affection. They're men for chrissake, they're full of hormones. It doesn't make them monsters - but you need to keep an eye on the nature of the beast and not pretend they're girls. THEY ARE NOT GIRLS. They don't look, act, or think like girls. They are men. Get it?

But in the middle of the night, a 28-year-old sophomore said she woke to find a male student, whom she did not know apart from seeing him in class, fondling her, according to a police report. He was found responsible following a campus disciplinary procedure.

She just woke up to find him there? He just busted in and started grabbing her? Is her door not locked? If some strange guy grabbed any girl I've ever met she would start screaming or else strike him. Was he bruised? Was she? Scratched, cut, dishelved, etc.? Anything? The article doesn't say; perhaps she was too drunk to remember. I'm guessing right off that he was more sober than she. She "woke up" to find him there. Was he a cat buglar? I'm guessing he just walked right in, girded his loins and made his play - which she rebuffed eventually.

This is classic he-said, she-said, yet the article does not reach for the first thing the police do: PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF A CRIME. Without that, how do you know there has been any crime? Because someone claimed there was? That doesn't mean it actually happened, girls. Don't trust the "victim" because she claims to be a victim. Look for evidence.

Let's get what little we have of his side.

Telephone and e-mail messages for the male student were not returned. When interviewed by campus police, he said the victim was looking at him as he kissed her and didn’t tell him to stop.

He said he began to feel weird because she didn’t seem “into it," the police report states. Asked by police if he put his hands near or under her pants, the assailant “nodded in the affirmative and said ‘I may have,’ ’’ according to the report.

The student’s father then told his son he did not have to answer further questions, the report states.

He kissed her and she let him (not surprising, kissing isn't like being stabbed, dear reader), plus she was drunk and not in her right mind - as always you'll see that his drinking is his responsibility, her drinking is something he's supposed to notice, plan for, and take responsibility for as well. Next? Seems he made another move and it snapped her out of her drunken stupor (or changed her mind - her right) and told him to leave and he did - the poor, stupid guy probably had no idea she was drunk; men seldom understand when women are drunk until they start acting strangely - she was sleepy, or else asleep and he didn't realize why. No screaming, no violence, no 'assault' of any kind took place by either party. He certainly didn't seem to intend to actually hurt her and her intoxicated state probably resulted in him thinking she was fine with what was happening.

In other words, what we have, YET AGAIN, is a couple of college kids drinking, a guy making a move, and a misunderstanding arising. Imagine that.

The "victim" in the case is horrified that the "assailant" wasn't drawn and quartered.

MassArt sanctioned him by placing him on probation until graduation, and ordering him to stay away from the victim and participate in an educational workshop and counseling, according to US Department of Education records obtained by the New England Center for Investigative Reporting. The victim complained to the department’s Office for Civil Rights about the inadequacy of the sanctions, but the agency determined the school did nothing wrong, the records show.

“I’m kind of blown away because what he did to me, in a criminal court, would be a felony,’’ said the victim, a MassArt transfer student, now a senior. “It’s just really weird that his rights come before mine.’’

Sorry Ms. Victim, you're WAY off the mark. Let me help you.

In Massachusetts felonies are often defined as crimes that are the most serious and are more grave than misdemeanors. Felony charges usually offer a prison sentence of at least one year. This amount of time depends on severity of the crime.

Felonies in Massachusetts include rape, fraud, racketeering, burglary, assault and battery, grand theft, aggravated assault, illegal drug use and possession, embezzlement, kidnapping, murder, robbery, and arson.

Burning and killing, madam. Those are serious crimes. Misunderstandings are not. They're not even misdemeanors. Further, we have millions of people in jail for being in possession of some illegal drugs who are otherwise non-violent, tax-paying citizens; you want to add to that men who were too forward?

In your case, Ms. Victim, there is no PHYSICAL EVIDENCE to suggest a crime even took place. IN THIS COUNTRY, EVEN IF A CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED, UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE THAT BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, THE ACCUSED GOES FREE. This can be pretty inconvenient sometimes and downright ugly other times. But it protects the innocent.

Is the man in this case innocent - no. He's guilty of not figuring out the girl he was making a pass at was in a alcohol-induced stupor. Was he taking advantage of her? I doubt it. If he was, he didn't go very far - a kiss and some touching? Some predator he is. He wasn't TOLD by the 'victim' something was wrong until after he did it. You want us to put this kid in jail for that? Are you kidding? Under what law? Illegally making out? If this was gross sexual misconduct or assault, fine, let him do the punishment for that. But what evidence is there of that? Did she scream, cry, push him away, punch him, kick him, etc.? Anything? No. Why not? Because she was too drunk to understand what was happening and he was too stupid.

When guys attempt to "make out" they kiss a girl, usually. Then move a little further and a little further. That's what this guy was doing. He was too scared to talk to her and apparently felt there was something between them. So he may be both stupid and socially awkward - both of those things are not crimes. The school's conclusion? Pretty much my own; she was too drunk to get around to stop him from touching her after he KISSED her, and he was too stupid to realize she was drunk. So they tell him to stay away from her (they should've sent him to a how-to-be-a-lady-slayer seminar). That might've done more good.

If you believe his story, he kissed her and received no negative feedback so he continued even though it felt "weird," but he stopped. Sound like a predator to you? He didn't rape this woman. He stopped. And he did leave. There was no "attack." She wasn't physically harmed. Legally, this is VERY gray. When someone is doing something to please you that you feel is injurious, YOU MUST SAY SOMETHING FAST BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW THEY ARE "INJURING" YOU. He had no knife or gun. Until she said something, he thought he was doing something she liked. Stupid, naive, insensitive? Sure. Illegal? No.

Since we don't want things like this to happen, let's be honest about why men hang out with women to begin with, shall we? Its not to watch movies. We can do that with our buddies, thanks. My buddies and I watched movies in college - girls just started showing up - they wanted our attention and we didn't mind because we wanted to hit on them and get some physical affection, eventually. The girls had no pretenses about what we wanted. They were there and they knew what time it was; they kept a firm eye on us and we kept an eye on them to make sure we didn't cross any forbidden lines and there was never any misunderstandings. Modern day college men and women seem to get together and drink and think they are both after the same things for the same reasons; this is just foolish. Let's not be stupid, shall we?

The "authors" are still outraged that this dumb man and others like him aren't hung on the courthouse steps:

The Department of Education’s MassArt decision last October comes even as federal education officials are touting a tougher approach to colleges and universities that fail to adequately punish perpetrators of campus sexual assaults.

Speaking on the condition her name not be used, the MassArt victim said she is fearful of her attacker, whom she regularly sees on campus. She has considered dropping out, she said.

“I have had a hard time being a student at this school in the last year,’’ she said.

She sees him on campus because its a small campus. He committed no legal crime. He pays his tuition. The school cannot just kick him out of school and charge him with a felony because she's upset. That's not the way the law works. If we based the law on crimes with no evidence but someone's word, lots of confused people would be in jail and this would all amount to witch-hunting.

Further she claims she "fears" him. Why? Has he been accused of harassing her, stalking her, threatening her, calling her, contacting her, e-mailing her, or any derivative thereof? No. Just a bad, drunken pass. He stays away from her as he was told. He's probably afraid of her too. Jesus Christ, a misunderstanding with her nearly got him thrown in jail. Would you go near her if you were him?

The authors in this article focus entirely on her feelings as if they were perfect and unfettered truth. This is foolish and childish of them at least and grossly incompetent at worst. Further, they seem to agree with her because they share her feelings on the matter; that men are unthinking predators to be feared and that this 'incident' is a prime example of it. As a logically-thinking adult, I must emphatically say: GIVE ME A BREAK.

But they won't let it go:

The Office for Civil Rights’ effort to crack down on schools failing to adequately punish assailants follows a series of reports on campus sexual assaults led by the Center for Public Integrity and published last year

Adequately punish "assailants"?!?!?! What does that mean? Throw a girl, a guy, emotions and alcohol in a bottle, mix them up and then start convicting people of felonies? That's a good idea, now, isn't it? The authors do not even acknowledge that false rape charges are possible, that they have happened, and that they can ruin a man's life and even put an innocent man in jail. True rapists or sexual predators, I have no pity for. Hang them on the courthouse steps, quite frankly. But you better be GODDAMN SURE that's what you're hanging! Otherwise this turns into a low-grade witch hunt for any man who did something while intoxicated that another intoxicated person believes to be "inappropriate." Again, with all due respect, give me a break. If you walked into a middle eastern country and told them girls and boys with lots of hormones should live in close quarters, party and drink, they would look at you cross-eyed and ask you how you got to be so stupid. Yet that's exactly what's done in this country and ONLY THE MEN who get mixed up in these "incidents" are accused of improper, AND EVEN ILLEGAL!, activity.

This kind of attitude has resulted in universities passing laws requiring a man "ask permission to touch a woman (such as put his hand on her leg) or kiss her." And they say romance is dead. Imagine that. The current thinking, laws, regulations and attitudes between men and women propagated by people like the authors, the mindset that all men should be girls' protectors and 'sense' when they've had too much to drink or are doing something they don't want to do WHILE they are doing it, or else go to jail for it, is what KILLED romance. It is exactly the reason why college campuses are FULL of frustrated, lonely girls who discover the supply of "well-employed, available men" outside of college is actually MUCH WORSE. Would you want to be a guy trying to kiss a girl on one of these campus's? How would you do it? Better make sure she likes you, wants you, is comfortable with everything you are doing ahead of time, isn't inebriated, isn't going to change her mind about what you are doing, and isn't going to accuse you of any Class A felonies afterwards.

This is why guys play videos games. The rules are much clearer and the game is much less work.

Further, bear in mind, dear reader, that colleges are defining "sexual assault" as what happened in the example previously examined here. Was this really a sexual assault? She admits there was no violent sexual attack, only inappropriate groping which her 'assailant' thought was not wanted until after the fact. When did she tell him no? What EXACTLY happened? He's afraid of saying anything that could be used against him - and he should be - and her story leaves many, many unanswered questions. There is no evidence of violence and no evidence GROSS misconduct. Just two careless, intoxicated kids. I am happy to convict this man of misconduct, but there just isn't any hard evidence suggesting it, and the authors of this article refuse to provide any. They have convicted him based solely on the word of an intoxicated person and moved on to save the "hordes" of other female victims on college campuses, nationwide, who are similarly "attacked."

I have seen and read of genuine incidents of valid sexual assault and rape, and a blame-the-victim response to it. THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE. Do NOT compare apples and oranges. I have no problem with the guilty doing their well-deserved punishment for genuine crime. But I have no desire to send what would be a taxpaying citizen to jail where he will become a taxpayer EXPENSE for what amounts to an improper sexual gesture that was not, at first, rejected.

The authors need to use their head and quit trying to 'save' every female romantic complaint and focus on GENUINE societal problems and crimes. Would the authors like to help AVOID incidents like this? Then make behavioral recommendations to prevent misunderstandings from happening in the first place.

I would start with suggesting the ladies demand respect and romantic gestures from men; yeah, that's right, demand romance! How do you demand romance? You can start by not dressing like whore, getting drunk, gyrating suggestively on the dance floor and throwing guys come-hither looks (standard weekend college behavior, I've seen plenty of them). Be ladylike, honest and vocal with men at all times. For men: act like gentlemen and treat women with respect - and its easy to treat ladylike women with respect; sorry, respect isn't the first thing that comes to mind when a girl is impersonating Madonna, on-stage. I will always sympathize with the men because I am one and because I know the mindset of a man, intoxicated or not, when surrounded by flirtatious, intoxicated, sexy, scantily-clad college girls; it can't possibly result in anything good for them or for the intoxicated men surrounding them.

The ladies have been told or else have been given the message that dressing VERY provocatively, drinking and acting like a dominatrix around intoxicated men is a good idea; some I believe have divined you will hook a boyfriend this way. THIS IS A LIE. It results in getting no respect, fleeting, bad sex, no intimacy and basically being treated like who you are impersonating: a prostitute. Sorry, this man-fan doesn't like seeing women treated like that. I think they deserve better. But then feminists hate me, so that makes sense.

While I believe men should be held responsible for their actions, I have no doubt you will find dear reader, more gentlemen are to be found in countries that contain women who insist men be gentlemen; they are also the ones that insist ladies act like ladies. And another thing - the ladies in these countries don't have to hunt for dates, as in this one - the men court them. COURT them. Romantically. The ladies have their pick of COURTING GENTLEMEN. Misunderstandings like the one described here are practically non-existent and there are no articles in Cosmo asking where all the "real men" are. But we have "transcended" that way of courtship here.

Look at how well its working for us.


No comments:

Post a Comment