I can only presume you're referring to my comment of " Just a thought. I am sure this will generate some very interesting comments back."
Damian Schloming, my but you do jump to some odd conclusions. Do you actually listen or are you just looking for a fight? Where do you get off accusing me of cheapening anything? Back off and pay attention. You and your responses are the reason a lot of women won't post in a forum. Who needs the personal attacks?
There's nothing to read between the lines here, so pay attention to what's actually being SAID. I'm starting to suspect you can't handle the truth. Why else would you cheapen the discussion by vilifying those who disagree with you?
Calm down. You're embarrassing yourself.
Wow! And then wow, some more! The paranoia exhibited by certain volatile male posters in this forum has gone way, way over the top with with conspiracy theories and blatant ignorance of what words like feminism actual means. The fact these guys are actually ARGUING a dictionary's definition and trying to redefine the word based on their own paranoias and misogyny is absolutely incomprehensible.
This article is about a private university expelling a student based on the preponderance of the EVIDENCE presented of sexual misconduct by a male student on a female student.
The woman didn't cry rape because she cheated on a boyfriend as some have stated. She called on her former, that's right, her EX-boyfriend to help her while she was in the frat house (read the article!). Another frat guy who retrieved the woman's wallet communicated to McLeod that she was acting terrified (read the article!).
Preponderance of evidence SIMPLY MEANS MORE OF THE EVIDENCE supported her allegations than his denials. The panel was UNANIMOUS in finding HIM responsible for sexual misconduct but he's not going to prison, he's just being expelled. Guys, take a breath!
What's apparent is that men and women have very different views of what is consensual sex and what is rape. The courts don't always provide justice and as a result, some innocent people go to jail while some guilty go free. Remember, this case isn't about giving alleged rape victims an automatic win/slam dunk at the expense of men. The alleged victims still have to supply enough evidence to convince impartial panels to take action. Applying a preponderance of evidence standard in a quasi-legal hearing means if the legal system refuses to prosecute these difficult types of cases, at least perpetrators will face some impactful consequence well outside of prison.
This case does not make men MORE vulnerable to false accusations of rape, it just makes it easier to punish the guilty ones. Another valuable takeaway is if someone is hesitant to have sex with the proverbial you, then stop. Don't try to persuade or negotiate to get what you want or you'll run the risk of being accused of rape. No means no, even if she's naked in your bed.
FYI for those who don't realize what a feminist actually is or mistakenly assume only women are feminists. According to the actual definition, it stands to reason if you're not a feminist, you might just be a gender-bigot. There is no gray area. Either you believe in equality for all or you don't.
adjective Sometimes, fem·i·nis·tic.
1. advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men.
2. an advocate of such rights.
There are two standards at play here for adjudicating the allegation of rape in this case, muni versus uni. The local police work to help the prosecutor meet the highest bar of beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard whereas the university uses the preponderance of the evidence standard.
With police, prosecutors decide if the case has enough evidence to win a conviction or is dropped because rape allegations are not EASY to prove. I'm not making this up, check out this report: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/c….
The article states "When a college woman reports a rape to police, it does not often result in a prosecutor pressing charges. Sexual assault is consistently both an underreported crime and one that rarely leads to an arrest, let alone a conviction." The situation boils down to a he-said, she-said scenario so winning a case of he-said-it-was-consensual/she-said-it-was-not is very difficult when the bar is set at reasonable doubt, much higher than the quasi-legal standard of pre-ponderence of the evidence as Duke applied.
Expelling McLeod is their call. Universities can expel students for plagiarism as an example. Those who assert melodramatic claims of McLeod's future as "ruined" are being willfully ignorant and grasping at straws. It's not like McLeod is going to prison or will have a record! He need only transfer his credits to another university to complete his degree and, down the road, few will ever know he was expelled by Duke. It's the height of hysteria to link McLeod's expulsion to being unemployable.
The problem seems to be these he-said/she-said rape cases are too difficult to prosecute, and perpetrators know this. Its only when victims report the crimes that there's a slight chance the next victim's investigation might unearth any prior police investigations involving the same suspect.
Its understandable that men view this case so differently from women. The issue is increased vulnerability. Whereas women are vulnerable to being raped, men are now suddenly vulnerable to repercussions outside of the courts. Think about it. The legal system has a near-impossible standard to meet when there are just two people involved who have completely opposing perceptions of what actually happened. Not being arrested or convicted for a rape allegation is NOT the same thing as being innocent. Cases get dropped all the time for lack of hard evidence. It's how system works....or doesn't work.
Seriously though, millions of women can't all be making things up, can they?
" Ultimately she didn't respect herself if she let herself be pressured into something."
Damian Schloming, are you serious? She wasn't pressured into having sex, she was ignored after she said no. She does seem to have enough backbone to say no so please stop blaming the victim. If she's guilty of anything its being naive, trusting this stranger to control himself. Being naive is not a crime but having sex with someone against their consent is. Big, big difference. Huge!
Is it so difficult for men to take SOME steps to protect themselves from potential accusations of rape? Smart phones with video capability are commonplace, so why not ask a potential sex partner to do a simple sobriety test like police use on drunk drivers? Walk a line, touch your nose, answer a question and video tape it. It doesn't compromise anyone should it be uploaded to the web later. If he/she fails the test and you have sex with him/her, you've broken the law. Pure and simple. If they past the test, you've got nothing to fear with this as evidence.
Just a thought. I am sure this will generate some very interesting comments back.
Liz Carlson, thank you for stepping up and adding to the conversation. It appears as women, we have struck a nerve amongst the male commenters. I find it fascinatingly appalling that not one male poster thus far has found the victim credible despite the second frat bro's text of her terrified state immediately after the rape. Guys, what is wrong with you? The story is about these two individuals and Duke's response, not all guys in general, not you. I've mentioned it a couple of times since its also a big news story right now...have any of you fellas bothered to check out the #YesAllWomen hashtag conversation on Twitter for the past 2-3 days? It is an eye-opener for many unaware of what women are living with. Please do check it out. It's not anti-male, its female experiences. It might give you some insight to the age old question "what do women want?"
Proudly Unaffiliated, you may find TNL's "points" valid but his clearly antagonistic attitude and chauvinistic assessments are just too laughable to take seriously. TNL is not debating, he's venting. Any useful points he may have made are too deeply buried by his feminist vitriole to spend time dealing directly with him. Having him attack me and any other woman involved in the actual news story makes it clear he has bigger problems.
Here's a few examples of TNL's contributions to this conversation:
- ...in this case some obviously biased undergraduate gender studies major and two non-tenured university staff members,"...
- "Guys, just ignore Catherine. That chick is crazy. Broads like her don't understand ..."
- "You know, she reminds me of the sort of privileged white woman who is way too quick to condemn and who not too long ago would have been hanging African Americans boys and men from trees if a white girl claimed rape, even if the reality was said white girl was caught in bed with her black boyfriend by a member of her own family and didn't want to own up to it. She's a shoot first and ask questions later type of girl."
Yeah, TNL's not a troll. Right.
And Proudly Unaffiliated, I am far from being a coward. Why not use your real name as I have? I am not attacking you or anyone else. I'm stating my opinion pure and simple about the story and its players. Why don't you give it a try because it's painfully obvious to any intelligent witness that when you, PU, attack the individual instead of their views, you've conceded the fight.
All Comments »
Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.
Login to choose your subscriptions!
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation