Cathy Young Wants Feminists to Describe Rape As “Ugly Sexual Encounters.” Don’t Let Her.

It might be irony, the way it’s commonly portrayed. Or it might just be rank hypocrisy. Whatever it is, Cathy Young, in her May 20, 2015, post embodies it.

The caption under the istock photo the Washington Post chose to accompany this vacuous and alarmist piece was the following: “We need to stop prosecuting bad behavior as rape.”

Really? As if a non-stranger rape prosecution tidal wave has formed, blocking all other efforts to seek justice at the courthouse?

No, that’s not happening, but thankfully we have Cathy Young showing us the way to avoid such abominations, what with her two anecdotes about regretted sexual encounters and literally nothing else. What’s funny, though, is that Cathy herself admits fully that she 1) didn’t view the negative sexual encounters she describes as a crime, and 2) she didn’t report them as such.

Welcome, Cathy, to reality. That’s what pretty much all women and men do, and by the way? It’s what the vast majority of victims do when the “encounters” actually are, objectively and by any statutory definition, rape. And this wasn’t just when you were young, Cathy. It’s still true now. And it probably will be for a very long time.

I’m sure Cathy would point out though, that what prompted her breathless piece was the idea that legions of women like her, armed now with 2015-era “feminist” notions of victimhood, are poised to suddenly push open the floodgates of litigation to incorrectly and unjustly imprison men who simply used “seductiveness” to turn a “no” into a “yes.” Ms. Young would have us believe that a few reasonable initiatives regarding consent, and a renewed movement against an age-old scourge have somehow eviscerated fair judgment in the average person and created a monster of inaccurate reports and false victims.

Garbage.

In fact, rapists now, just as rapists when Cathy Young was in her teens or twenties, rely on myths, shame, and fear in order to keep their victims silenced. In terms of what Ms. Young has brought to the issue, this means being 1) silently obedient to Cathy Young’s interpretation of their experiences, and 2) repentantly observant of the Washington Post’s clever istock choice of an obviously whoring slut searching for her pumps under a man’s bed.

The message? If you believe you’ve been raped, you’re probably wrong, and you probably did something to either bring it on or otherwise allow for it to happen.

So blame feminism. Blame the “liberal media.” Blame yourselves, certainly.

Just never blame the rapist. In Cathy Young’s world, there are far fewer of them than there are hysterical and litigious versions of you.

 

 

 

 

 

When the Columnist (Kristof) Doesn’t Recognize The Wrong Lede

To Nicholas Kristof, columnist, The New York Times:

Your May 23, 2015 column was entitled “When the Rapist Doesn’t See It As Rape.”

When I saw that you were taking this issue on, my heart soared. I’ve adored you for years. I love your compassion, your courage, your wit, and your willingness to embody my favorite of all journalistic pledges, “to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” So criticizing you does not come easily.

You wrote a timely, needed column on the phenomenon of non-stranger sexual violence that takes place in every area of society, but has gained attention most prominently within the college environment (mirrored by the military environment and many high school ones as well). But why did you lead (journalistically “lede”) with the story of Brian Banks and Wanetta Gibson, one of the very rare but most bluntly clear examples of rank false reporting seen in recent years?

As you note, Gibson not only recanted, but was demonstrated to be lying thanks to a sting video captured by lawyers who were rightfully assisting Banks in uncovering the crime of a baseless lie that appears to have been inspired by Gibson’s mother. Wanetta Gibson, from what is believed, was inspired by her mother to falsify an accusation against Brian Banks so that a payout could be obtained through a civil action against the school district she attended. The Gibsons pocketed 1.5 million dollars in a settlement, and that false accusation cost Banks not only five years in the California state correctional system, but apparently a professional football career as well. Banks has been gracious since his exoneration was, thankfully, made official by the Los Angeles County District Attorneys Office in May of 2012. Were it up to me as a prosecutor, I’d likely have gone after at least Wanetta’s mother (Wanetta was a juvenile at the time of the false allegation) assuming the facts are as they’ve been presented in the media.

But moving on from that, I am at a loss as to why you, in a column that otherwise correctly describes the daunting challenge of responding to sexual violence that is and has always been a sadly regular part of collage life, chose to spend roughly a third of your powerful piece on something that almost never happens.

You yourself point out the rarity of false allegations in rape cases. You then correctly spend the rest of the piece on the far more common and present danger to young women (and some men) posed by predatory people on college campuses who get away with rape again and again because of familiarity, culture, and institutional self-protection.

Still, you return to the convenient myth of allegations of rape that are the result of sexual encounters that are, “complex, ambiguous, fueled by alcohol, and prone to he-said-she-said uncertainties.”

Hogwash, Mr. Kristof.

In fact, most rape is predatory in nature; you yourself allude to Dr. David Lisak’s ground breaking research. Worse, most predators, whether articulate enough or not to describe it, are gleefully aware of the alcohol fueled, “he said, she said” patina of doubt that saves them from consequences and that you problematically promote even as you claim to do the opposite.

But more importantly, most victims of rape, meaning women and men who have been clearly perpetrated against by any commonly accepted legal description, do exactly what perpetrators hope for and expect: They blame themselves, they fold the experience into their lives, and they move on. The idea that false or “mistaken” claims of sexual assault are anywhere near as a big a problem as sexual assault itself is simply baseless and misleading.

I don’t doubt that you believe these things, sir. I only wonder why you structured a column that seems to devalue those far more profound truths in the interest of giving column inches to what is largely a dangerous distraction.

What’s to Blame for Josh Duggar? Institutionalism, not Christianity

What we know: Josh Duggar’s admission is great fodder against Duggar Family Values, which include anti-gay stances as well as assertions that “non-traditional” values endanger children.

What we don’t know: What created the awful urges in Josh to begin with. Those opposed to what this powerful family both believes and attempts to influence politically are triumphantly declaring things like home-schooling and hyper-religiosity to be petri dishes for the kind of sexual deviance Josh displayed as a teenager.

They’re probably wrong.

As deliciously tempting as it is for some on my side of the political spectrum to demonize the Duggars and their way of life as some sort of catalyst for awful behavior, there’s little psychological evidence to support that. In fact, Josh’s deviance was most likely not (in and of itself) the product of home schooling or any other religious dogma or tradition the Duggars took part in. Sexual deviance, as far we know at this point, does not generate that way. More likely, Josh was (or is) deviant for reasons we don’t understand, but that are probably innate (“nature”) and/or the product of his environment (“nurture”), but in a different way than we normally observe.

I am no soothsayer, but what I’ve come to understand after a career of dealing with this pathology is that it is simply everywhere. The conservative numbers (1 in 3 girls and about 1 in 6 boys) remain replicable, reliable and constant. Sexual abuse happens everywhere: Among the religious and non-religious. Among the rich, the poor, the city dweller, the farmer, etc., etc., etc. The sexual abuse of children, whether by teenagers like Josh Duggar or by more mature adults, happens continuously and universally.

Therefore, the question better asked is not “what made this happen?” but “what allowed it to flourish and continue in that particular situation?” In the case of the world of “19 and Counting,” we should look, as always, to an institution.

In Josh Duggar’s world, the institution of dogmatic, insular Christianity provided him two things: First, It made it easier for him not only to offend, but to get away with offending. Second, it did so in a manner that leaves him today free of legal consequences, still married, and still employable. Here’s how:

Whatever Josh was (or is), he grew up in a male-dominated world where “the father is the head of the family as Christ is the head of the Church.” Firstly, his was an environment that exalted a Christian-based order that, among other things, clamped down on any opposition or suggestion of “rebellion.” This very likely discouraged his victims from reporting his actions to other family members or anyone who might have made a difference. Rebellion, after all, can be perceived as anything that upsets the proverbial apple cart. This was a fact probably not lost on Josh himself as he chose his victims.

Secondly, this same Christian-based worldview necessitated, as it does with any religiously based orthodoxy, an “in-house” solution to conflict or deviant behavior within the environment. Why? Because it reinforces the idea that the religion itself has within it the answer to every problem- there is never a need to consult outside sources which are doubtlessly less pure and enlightened.

But even more dangerous is the insistence on handling matters of “conflict” within the religious environment so that the outside world will not perceive flaws or weaknesses within its structure. The Duggars likely perceive themselves, as many do in their circumstances, as holdouts against a world moving in a direction they neither trust nor respect. The last thing they want that outside world to perceive is a weakness within their structure.

It’s important to understand how these things explain (but do not excuse) the Duggar’s response to a heartbreaking and haunting problem, and why offenders like Josh Duggar can flourish in environments otherwise mortally opposed to behavior like his. But it’s equally important to understand what they don’t explain.

They don’t explain Josh’s deviance to begin with. That’s a question we dare not breezily discard with the easy answer of demonizing religion. Or culture. Or anything else. Because as far as we know, deviance poisons all of these equally.

What Harvard Law Professors can Learn From Stanford Undergrads

Last July, Harvard University adapted both a new policy on sexual harassment and a new set of investigatory procedures to respond to it. Not surprisingly, both policy and procedures are designed to ensure compliance (and general harmony) with Title IX of the U.S. Code. IX prohibits discrimination and ensures access to educational programs that receive federal funding.

Sexual violence and harassment implicates Title IX in that federally-funded schools must preserve educational environments that are as free as humanly possible from these things. That’s the bottom line. Harvard is pursuing that bottom line surely in the interest of doing what’s right as well as in preserving an important funding stream. Good on them.

Regardless, a few months ago, 28 Harvard Law School professors signed a statement published in the Boston Globe expressing “strong objections” to the new policy and procedures. Indeed, the principal author has stated her belief that current federal efforts in this area will be looked back on as a “moment of madness.”

My legal betters seem to have objections in two major areas: First, they bemoan what they see as a lack of due process protections for students accused of violating school policy based on Title IX protections. They see an adjudication system “overwhelmingly stacked” against accused students. Second, they believe Harvard has gone too far in defining offending conduct under their Title IX-based disciplinary policy, apparently believing it threatens things like “individual relationship autonomy.”

I’ve carefully reviewed the new procedures, and while I can’t go point by point in this space as to why they are basically reasonable, suffice to say I don’t see anything that should raise an alarm as if Harvard has decided to do away with anything resembling American legal tradition in favor of a politically-correct mob. Regardless, reasonable minds can differ on whether an adjudication system for student misconduct provides enough procedural safeguards. Fine.

It’s their second area of objection (the new definition of impermissible sexual harassment) that I find somewhere between mystifying and dangerously naïve. They apparently object- at least in some way- to Harvard’s new prohibitions against sexual conduct with a person “so impaired or incapacitated as to be incapable of requesting or inviting the conduct…provided the Respondent knew or should have known about…” such a condition.

That’s right. To a united legal mind of 28 in arguably America’s finest law school, this clear prohibition is somehow problematic because of “complex issues in these unfortunate situations involving extreme use and abuse of alcohol and drugs by our students.”

With due deference to this brilliant group, they seem to know precious little about 1) sexual violence as it plays out when intoxicants are a weapon of offenders, and 2) the reality of how victims perceive their own victimization in most cases.

It’s a fact that intoxicants, particularly but not exclusively alcohol, are often used by sexually predatory people to disable victims, ensure destruction of their credibility, create confusion and doubt due to memory loss, etc., and also because a sad majority of people (like the Harvard Law 28) are blind to this kind of behavior, believing it instead to be some kind of misunderstanding. Predators depend on this naivety when it comes to what they do. They always have.

But it’s a far more crucial fact that the vast majority of women (and men) who are clearly sexually violated- particularly when voluntarily intoxicated themselves- never report sexual assault in the first place, let alone cases of what is likely college-age confusion or awkwardness.

Why? Because in the great majority of cases, the truly victimized do exactly what thinkers like the HL28 want them to do: Blame “confusion.” Blame college inexperience. Respect “relationship autonomy.” But above all, blame yourself.

So might a new (and utterly reasonable) definition of sexual harassment lead to a floodgate of aggrieved people “crying rape?” Will “madness” from the government then subject legions of inoffensive young men to academic ruin?

No. Both notions are silly. Yet I’m amazed at how many otherwise brilliant people believe them.

The HL28 could learn something from a recent and brilliant op-ed by two undergrads at Stanford, describing very similar efforts that will be undertaken at that equally august institution. Contrasted to the hand-wringing of the HL28, it’s genius.

Young White Privilege, a Camera, and an Apparently Good Cop

I teach a sociology class called “Policing and Society” at a state college in Northern New Jersey, not far from where I live in New York City. My class is almost evenly split between white, African-American and Latino students. Some come from the ghettos of Paterson and Camden, some from wealthy Bergen County suburbs. Most want jobs in law enforcement.

Not surprisingly, my students have been sharing with me videos of police interactions captured by bystanders or police-issued body and dash cameras all semester long. Most depict suspected misconduct and abuse, but a few portray police men and women doing the right thing under remarkably stressful circumstances.

There’s one that’s apparently gone viral over Facebook (shown here from Youtube) that was brought to my attention earlier this week. We watched it together, all of us, and it sparked a discussion I was grateful to have; it was was probably the most honest and open one we’ve had all semester around this difficult topic.

Very simply, it captures the eviction of a group of young people (and the eventual, lawful arrest of one of them) from an IHOP by a Fort Wayne, Indiana, policeman. By the opinion of most who have viewed it, attempts by the amateur videographer to capture “police brutality” and improper use of force have backfired. The officer involved instead appears remarkably restrained and professional despite behavior that can only be called reprehensible and most certainly criminal.

The larger point the video made to me, though, and that my class seemed to agree with (across racial and cultural lines) is this: If you don’t believe that young, white kids- from what appear to be at least middle class backgrounds- expect to be treated differently by police and are more emboldened to challenge their authority, you’re not living in the real world.

Of course, what’s depicted is only what was captured in one place on one night. Still, there is the undeniable hint of a microcosm here in terms of what these youth regularly believe is not only survivable, but not even reckless. In some way, in their minds, it’s actually appropriate. Don’t like what a cop is telling you to do? Scream in his face and dare him to arrest you. Have a friend follow along with a phone camera, demanding explanations from him from a couple of feet away as he tries to do his job in the face of despicable, taunting vulgarity and a repeated refusal to cooperate. Why not? What’s the worse that’ll happen?

Then contrast that with the young, African-American men in the same video, at just before the 1:00 mark, who look on silently and are utterly non-confrontational. There’s no evidence they were involved with the offending crowd in any way to begin with, and also none that the responding officer would have treated them any differently. Regardless, whatever their intentions were or their attitudes toward police are, they kept those things to themselves.

Why? Because they’re not stupid.

Neither are my students.