Monday, September 8, 2008

False rape claims should be used as an occasion to teach men about our "hypermasculine" culture and privilege that hurts women. Say what?

Professor K.C. Johnson, the guru of the Duke Lacrosse case, reports on a breathtaking piece of "scholarship" by a University of Kansas professor named Barbara Barnett which argues that Duke University should have used the false rape allegations against three innocent lacrosse players as an occasion to reeducate it's student population about rape. See Professor Johnson's essay here.

Among many other things, ├╝ber radical feminist Barnett's vile piece contains the following:

"The university might have moved beyond defending itself and tried to educate its staff and its publics about sexual violence, including the notion of rape cultures, the relationship between alcohol abuse and sexual coercion, and the effects of hypermasculine cultures that privilege violence and abuse of women . . . Sexual violence is a serious matter, and organizations that find themselves confronting such charges, even charges they suspect may not be true, need to speak clearly and strongly to the issue of rape itself.”

(Who, outside of the pretentious fairyland of academia, uses words like "publics"?)

Professor Johnson exposes the inanity and the misandry at work in Barnett's piece. Among other things, he writes:

"To reiterate: no rape occurred in this case. Overwhelming evidence appeared in the public domain almost from the start to suggest that no rape occurred in this case. But, again, guilt or innocence appears not to matter to Barnett: the fact that a mentally disturbed woman made a false allegation against a University’s students was enough, in and of itself, for the University to try to reprogram its students’ behavior according to an extremist agenda championed by the fringe of the academy. And parents could get all this for only $50,000 a year in tuition and fees."

Whenever someone wants to use a false rape allegation -- especially one that turned the lives of three innocent young men upside down for a year -- as a teaching occasion to reeducate men about their "privilege" and our "hypermasculine" culture, that person can legitimately be called a misandrist.

The three men falsely accused of rape, and the men we report on in this Web site every day, would gladly give Professor Barnett their "privilege."

Get it straight, Professor Barnett, the victims in the Duke lacrosse case were the three young men. Not Crystal Gail Mangum, the false accuser, and not women and men who are victims of actual rapes. The Duke case had nothing to do with an actual rape, except for the fact that a woman falsely claimed she was raped. To use that lie as the premise for a "scholarly" piece that condemns the "rape culture" is nothing short of astounding. The actual lesson of Duke Lacrosse has nothing to do with the rape culture -- to the extent Barnett's piece suggests it does, then her piece is the equivalent of holding the facts up to a funhouse mirror. The actual lesson is that even men and boys who are supposedly "privileged" can be victimized by a corrupt district attorney and the forces of nefarious political correctness -- including radical feminism. In this case, the young men were victimized precisely because they were white males and pre-judged as "privileged."

When will academia return to scholarship that strives for objectivity and rid itself of this angry, radical gender feminist pestilence that views a complex world through a simplistic, politically motivated gender lens and, with a bigotry that would not be tolerated if directed at any other group, vilifies anything sporting a pair of testicles as evil, flawed and oppressive? It is attitudes such as Barnett's that engender our culture's immoral tolerance of false rape claims.

Barnett's rationale follows the great tradition of Catherine Comins. You remember what Time Magazine wrote about Ms. Comins in 1991:

Comins argues that men who are unjustly accused can sometimes gain from the experience. "They have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration. 'How do I see women?' 'If I didn't violate her, could I have?' 'Do I have the potential to do to her what they say I did?' Those are good questions."

I've not read Barnett's piece (and will spare myself of it, thanks to Professor Johnson), but her ilk have one, and only one, overriding objective: jack up rape convictions even if it means treating innocent men and boys falsely accused of rape as collateral damage in their imaginary war on rape.

They justify their hysteria by manufacturing phony statistics that rely on "under-reporting" of rape of Biblical proportions. This "under-reporting," of course, can never be objectively verified, so they can make up whatever they want. It is nothing short of a fabrication.

So what's a few more innocent males imprisoned for decades so long as their sacrifice services the radical feminist sexual assault metanarrative?

One of the radical gender feminist rallying cries to increase rape convictions -- due process be damned -- is to call for engorging the legal definition of "consent" in rape cases. They would allow women to deny that they objectively manifested their assent to have intercourse based on some false and belated, after-the-fact, ex post facto, hissy fits of regret. This sort of advocacy, in all its Star Chamber ramifications, would turn time-honored Constitutional protections on their head. Oh, but of course, those protections were only designed to provide safe harbor for men and to preserve male privilege to abuse women.

There is a legal term for such an argument: horseshit. Not even the witch hunts in Salem were backed by persons masquerading as scholars the way this witch hunt is.

Any father paying tuition at the University of Kansas probably should read Professor Barnett's piece, and Professor Johnson's analysis of it. And fast.