George Will Comes Under Fire For Rape Comments

[DC Tom]

not only does the left routinely exploit issues, they usually create them and then exploit them. that's pretty much Will's point, which you obviously didn't grasp to begin with.

 

Ironically, exactly like they're doing with Will's op-ed.

[B-Man]

 

George Will pointed out that there is another privilege on campuses — false or contrived claims of victim status.

 

Will did not argue that real victims, be it of actual racism or sexual assault, share some special privilege, but rather, that there are people who contrive or encourage others to falsely create victimhood where none exists.

 

 

 

We see it in theories such as microaggression, where in the absence of proof of actual racism, critical race theorists find racism in routine everyday interactions where the participants do not even realize they are being “racist,” much less have any racist intent.

 

We see it in repeated instances of fake, self-inflicted “hate crimes” in which the victim is, in fact, the perpetrator.

 

We also see it in the lowering of the standards of proof and definitions of what constitutes sexual assault.

 

I think everyone agrees that sexual assault as used in the criminal law deserves condemnation and punishment. But colleges, under pressure from the Justice Department and supposedly feminist groups, have started using definitions of sexual assault that can reach absurd results.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

George Will: ‘I take sexual assault more seriously’ than those trying to silence me

 

Will went on to dismiss those for whom he said “indignation is default position.” He added that the outrage over his column will, like “summer storms,” dissipate as rapidly as it arose. In conclusion, the columnist said that he would not take one word of his column back if he had the chance.

 

 

 

Re-post for those with no comprehension

[Rob's House]

 

 

Here is what he said:

 

 

I can see why people would get angry. Many institutions don't want to deal with this issue--see US NAVY--and sweep it under the rug and try and quiet it up. So naturally shining a light on the problem will bring forth more victims. He's making it sound like these girls are suddenly stars on campus. What an utter and malicious nonsense.

 

Then he calls it the "supposed" epidemic of college rape. What, its in the poor little dears heads that this is taking place.

 

Does anyone remember the SNL Skit of George Will trying to throw a baseball? Or how he is proud to only own one or two pairs of blue jeans?

 

He doesn't live in the real world

 

As to the left exploiting an issue, if by trying to stop rape and helping victims is exploiting something, then I'm all for it. Just another case of Conservatives screaming bloody murder when someone tries and fix a problem. Cry babies

 

He's correct that the victim status does attract a particular element. That's true of victim status generally. You see this with domestic violence cases. There are a lot of women who are stuck in truly abusive relationships with men they live in constant fear of.

 

Anyone with half a heart feels genuine sympathy, if not empathy for people in that situation, wants to do whatever can reasonably be done to help stop/prevent it, AND people generally want to comfort or protect them. That means they get a lot of attention.

 

Some other women lacking class, morality, mental stability, and/or perspective find themselves in a relationship they're not happy with and decide victim status is a good way to get attention and/or cast herself in a more positive light.

 

Acknowledging the latter doesn't minimize the situation of the former. If you've spent any significant time around them it's easy to tell them apart. The legitimate victims are usually timid, passive, have been bullied both physically and emotionally, and more often are [to varying degrees] resistant to wear the victim label.

 

Then you've got those who got in a slight shoving match with their boyfriend, or he grabbed her by the arm leaving a bruise, often after she admittedly hit or pushed him first or destroyed his property. These people are usually loud, offensive, take zero accountability for their own actions, and are the first to declare themselves battered women. A similar situation can exist here.

 

I thought the example of the girl who couldn't be bothered to say stop the second time the guy she had dated and was going to bed with initiated sex minutes later and she accuses him of rape, was fitting. Now I'm not saying he should have done it, or that she should have to say no again, but come the !@#$ on. We're talking about a !@#$ing rape charge here. If you're going to throw around charges like that in that kind of situation, I don't think it's out of bounds to question the mentality behind these policies, and it's certainly not to much to ask that accepted due process standards to be followed.

 

 

And the liberal exploitation of the issue is not a genuine attempt to responsibly reduce sexual assault. It's an attempt to exploit a hot button issue through dishonesty to sway political favor. First, as per usual, they overstate the problem (or put another way, lie about the prevalence of the problem) so as to call it a crisis. Then when their math is corrected they cry foul. None of it helps victims. And the manufactured outrage over a George Will column isn't doing dick **** to reduce sexual assault.

Edited June 23, 2014 by Rob's House

[B-Man]

Rage Against The Outrage Machine.

 

But let’s be clear. People aren’t “misunderstanding” what Will wrote.

 

They deliberately misrepresented what Will said, and they did it to chill debate.

 

That’s who they are, that’s what they do.

 

 

 

 

Related: George Will Meets The Clerisy Media.

[Jauronimo]

His argument that victimhood of rape is a status symbol is absurd. There is a very real problem of women not wanting to come forward and in the wild atmosphere of college with horny guys, alcohol, super hot women--drunk guys and not so hot women--lines will get crossed. Sure, it's hard to tell sometimes when a line has been crossed, but making it seem like victims of sexual assault are privileged citizens, or just on power trips is a really stupid argument.

 

"“They’d now decided — mutually, she thought — just to be friends. When he ended up falling asleep on her bed, she changed into pajamas and climbed in next to him. Soon, he was putting his arm around her and taking off her clothes. ‘I basically said, “No, I don’t want to have sex with you.” And then he said, “OK, that’s fine” and stopped. . . . And then he started again a few minutes later, taking off my panties, taking off his boxers. I just kind of laid there and didn’t do anything — I had already said no. I was just tired and wanted to go to bed. I let him finish. I pulled my panties back on and went to sleep.’”

 

Six weeks later, the woman reported that she had been raped."

 

 

Ok, and then what happened? He wants us to believe that all reported sexual incidents are like this? Hes an angry man who let's his emotions guide his options, IMO

What the !@#$ would you know about a college campus? You as may as well describe what its like in outer space as long as you're spouting off about things you've only seen in movies.

[Dorkington]

If someone says no, yet sex is still forced upon them, then that's rape, even if it's mild and nonviolent. I don't understand how that's even a debate.

[Jauronimo]

If someone says no, yet sex is still forced upon them, then that's rape, even if it's mild and nonviolent. I don't understand how that's even a debate.

I wasn't aware that it was a debate. Its certainly not a debate taking place in this thread.

[Azalin]

If someone says no, yet sex is still forced upon them, then that's rape, even if it's mild and nonviolent. I don't understand how that's even a debate.

 

did you read the linked article?

[birdog1960]

 

 

THEY DIDN’T “MISREAD” GEORGE WILL. They deliberately misrepresented George Will to advance a political agenda. That’s who they are, that’s what they do. And the St. Louis Post Dispatch is joining in because it’s just part of the team.

 

 

.

this is a well written piece but bernstein admits that criticism of Will on several conditions is reasonable. and it is. the swarthmore case is the crux of the issue to me. Will clearly thinks what happened there is ok. many people including, i suspect, many other newspaper journalists, don't. that's a fundamental difference over which those taking the opposite opinion can reasonably feel outraged.

 

did you read the linked article?

did you? the woman involved in the swarthmoe incident said "no".

[Azalin]

this is a well written piece but bernstein admits that criticism of Will on several conditions is reasonable. and it is. the swarthmore case is the crux of the issue to me. Will clearly thinks what happened there is ok. many people including, i suspect, many other newspaper journalists, don't. that's a fundamental difference over which those taking the opposite opinion can reasonably feel outraged.

 

Will clearly thinks what happened there in okay? what portion of his column states this 'clearly'? I see this:

 

 

'Colleges and universities are being educated by Washington and are finding the experience excruciating. They are learning that when they say campus victimizations are ubiquitous, often not discernible to the untutored eye, are everywhere), and that when they make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges, victims proliferate. And academia's progressivism has rendered it intellectually defenseless now that progressivism's achievement, the regulatory state, has decided it is academia's turn to be broken to government's saddle.'

 

could you enlighten me as to what portion of Will's column clearly states that he thinks what happened in the Swarthmore case is okay?

Edited June 24, 2014 by Azalin

[Jauronimo]

Will clearly thinks what happened there in okay? what portion of his column states this 'clearly'? I see this:

 

 

'Colleges and universities are being educated by Washington and are finding the experience excruciating. They are learning that when they say campus victimizations are ubiquitous (“micro-aggressions,” often not discernible to the untutored eye, are everywhere), and that when they make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges, victims proliferate. And academia’s progressivism has rendered it intellectually defenseless now that progressivism’s achievement, the regulatory state, has decided it is academia’s turn to be broken to government’s saddle.'

 

could you enlighten me as to what portion of Will's column clearly states that he thinks what happened in the Swarthmore case is okay?

If I know birddog as well as I think I do, he will respond with a totally unrelated article which actually furthers your point. Lets wait and see.

[Tiberius]

He's correct that the victim status does attract a particular element. That's true of victim status generally. You see this with domestic violence cases. There are a lot of women who are stuck in truly abusive relationships with men they live in constant fear of.

What?? Are you saying women stay in abusive relationships because they like feeling like victims?

[Azalin]

did you? the woman involved in the swarthmoe incident said "no".

 

of course I did. we're not debating the definition of rape. what the hell is wrong with reading comprehension around here? the whole thread is about the misrepresentation of Will's piece and the visceral reaction from the left, not whether or not the Swarthmore (or any other rape case) case is valid or not.

 

 

[Tiberius]

He's correct that the victim status does attract a particular element. That's true of victim status generally. You see this with domestic violence cases. There are a lot of women who are stuck in truly abusive relationships with men they live in constant fear of.

 

Anyone with half a heart feels genuine sympathy, if not empathy for people in that situation, wants to do whatever can reasonably be done to help stop/prevent it, AND people generally want to comfort or protect them. That means they get a lot of attention.

 

Some other women lacking class, morality, mental stability, and/or perspective find themselves in a relationship they're not happy with and decide victim status is a good way to get attention and/or cast herself in a more positive light.

 

Acknowledging the latter doesn't minimize the situation of the former. If you've spent any significant time around them it's easy to tell them apart. The legitimate victims are usually timid, passive, have been bullied both physically and emotionally, and more often are [to varying degrees] resistant to wear the victim label.

 

Then you've got those who got in a slight shoving match with their boyfriend, or he grabbed her by the arm leaving a bruise, often after she admittedly hit or pushed him first or destroyed his property. These people are usually loud, offensive, take zero accountability for their own actions, and are the first to declare themselves battered women. A similar situation can exist here.

 

I thought the example of the girl who couldn't be bothered to say stop the second time the guy she had dated and was going to bed with initiated sex minutes later and she accuses him of rape, was fitting. Now I'm not saying he should have done it, or that she should have to say no again, but come the !@#$ on. We're talking about a !@#$ing rape charge here. If you're going to throw around charges like that in that kind of situation, I don't think it's out of bounds to question the mentality behind these policies, and it's certainly not to much to ask that accepted due process standards to be followed.

 

 

And the liberal exploitation of the issue is not a genuine attempt to responsibly reduce sexual assault. It's an attempt to exploit a hot button issue through dishonesty to sway political favor. First, as per usual, they overstate the problem (or put another way, lie about the prevalence of the problem) so as to call it a crisis. Then when their math is corrected they cry foul. None of it helps victims. And the manufactured outrage over a George Will column isn't doing dick **** to reduce sexual assault.

If this is George Will's argument than I more than ever hope my Left exploits this issue. You are an ass hole

[birdog1960]

If I know birddog as well as I think I do, he will respond with a totally unrelated article which actually furthers your point. Lets wait and see.

how bout this? if i've misread his me re this case, then so have robb ("now i'm not saying he should have done it") and bernstein. they both read it that way although bernstein allowed for an alternative expalnation.

 

of course I did. we're not debating the definition of rape. what the hell is wrong with reading comprehension around here? the whole thread is about the misrepresentation of Will's piece and the visceral reaction from the left, not whether or not the Swarthmore (or any other rape case) case is valid or not.

Will was using swarthmore as an example where rape allegations are out of control on college campuses. what else was his purpose in referring to that case?

[Tiberius]

of course I did. we're not debating the definition of rape. what the hell is wrong with reading comprehension around here? the whole thread is about the misrepresentation of Will's piece and the visceral reaction from the left, not whether or not the Swarthmore (or any other rape case) case is valid or not.

But I'll even admit that that was a bad example. Will deliberitly took a case that was fuzzy and complicated to make it seem like the rapist wasn't that bad a guy. I mean she was sleeping with him, ok. Is that what all rapes are like? What campuses are dealing with is all kinds and incidents of rape, stalking and abuse. It's part of his whole tone in the article of "victims" instead of victims. The guy is a **** head

 

Will clearly thinks what happened there in okay? what portion of his column states this 'clearly'? I see this:

 

 

'Colleges and universities are being educated by Washington and are finding the experience excruciating. They are learning that when they say campus victimizations are ubiquitous, often not discernible to the untutored eye, are everywhere), and that when they make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges, victims proliferate. And academia's progressivism has rendered it intellectually defenseless now that progressivism's achievement, the regulatory state, has decided it is academia's turn to be broken to government's saddle.'

 

could you enlighten me as to what portion of Will's column clearly states that he thinks what happened in the Swarthmore case is okay?

Making victimhood a coveted status? What does that mean?? None of you have been able to really explain that

[Azalin]

Will was using swarthmore as an example where rape allegations are out of control on college campuses. what else was his purpose in referring to that case?

 

no, he was using the Swarthmore case as an example of how the culture of victimhood is out of control. he may have used a questionable example in making his point, but the point is there regardless. if you focus on whether the Swarthmore case is or isn't valid, you miss the point of the column entirely.

[Tiberius]

no, he was using the Swarthmore case as an example of how the culture of victimhood is out of control. he may have used a questionable example in making his point, but the point is there regardless. if you focus on whether the Swarthmore case is or isn't valid, you miss the point of the column entirely.

What is this culture of victimhood? To me that's just the old excusing away of rape, its the she was asking for it excuse.

[birdog1960]

no, he was using the Swarthmore case as an example of how the culture of victimhood is out of control. he may have used a questionable example in making his point, but the point is there regardless. if you focus on whether the Swarthmore case is or isn't valid, you miss the point of the column entirely.

so how could this case illustrate a culture of victimhood if everyone agreed that this was clearly an example of rape? it couldn't. and that's the point. many peple would clearly see this case an example of rape and would rightfully be offended.

[Azalin]

What is this culture of victimhood? To me that's just the old excusing away of rape, its the she was asking for it excuse.

 

I should think that you'd understand the meaning of the phrase 'culture of victimhood', since you're apparently a victim of the public school system.

 

so how could this case illustrate a culture of victimhood if everyone agreed that this was clearly an example of rape? it couldn't. and that's the point. many peple would clearly see this case an example of rape and would rightfully be offended.

 

let's review the article:

 

'So Will is making two points here. First, that university culture encourages students to perceive themselves as victims, and those that can credibly claim victimhood are sometimes given higher status.'