Columbia student carrying mattress until school expels her rapist

[derspiess]

Why can't more feminists be this reasonable?

http://time.com/3444749/camille-paglia-the-modern-campus-cannot-comprehend-evil/

Camille Paglia: The Modern Campus Cannot Comprehend Evil
Camille Paglia  9:40 AM ET     

Paglia is the author of Glittering Images: A Journey Through Art From Egypt to Star Wars.

Young women today do not understand the fragility of civilization and the constant nearness of savage nature

The disappearance of University of Virginia sophomore Hannah Graham two weeks ago is the latest in a long series of girls-gone-missing cases that often end tragically. A 32-year-old, 270-pound former football player who fled to Texas has been returned to Virginia and charged with "abduction with intent to defile." At this date, Hannah's fate and whereabouts remain unknown.

Wildly overblown claims about an epidemic of sexual assaults on American campuses are obscuring the true danger to young women, too often distracted by cellphones or iPods in public places: the ancient sex crime of abduction and murder. Despite hysterical propaganda about our "rape culture," the majority of campus incidents being carelessly described as sexual assault are not felonious rape (involving force or drugs) but oafish hookup melodramas, arising from mixed signals and imprudence on both sides.

Colleges should stick to academics and stop their infantilizing supervision of students' dating lives, an authoritarian intrusion that borders on violation of civil liberties. Real crimes should be reported to the police, not to haphazard and ill-trained campus grievance committees.

Too many young middleclass women, raised far from the urban streets, seem to expect adult life to be an extension of their comfortable, overprotected homes. But the world remains a wilderness. The price of women's modern freedoms is personal responsibility for vigilance and self-defense.

Current educational codes, tracking liberal-Left, are perpetuating illusions about sex and gender. The basic Leftist premise, descending from Marxism, is that all problems in human life stem from an unjust society and that corrections and fine-tunings of that social mechanism will eventually bring utopia. Progressives have unquestioned faith in the perfectibility of mankind.

The horrors and atrocities of history have been edited out of primary and secondary education except where they can be blamed on racism, sexism, and imperialism — toxins embedded in oppressive outside structures that must be smashed and remade. But the real problem resides in human nature, which religion as well as great art sees as eternally torn by a war between the forces of darkness and light.

Liberalism lacks a profound sense of evil — but so does conservatism these days, when evil is facilely projected onto a foreign host of rising political forces united only in their rejection of Western values. Nothing is more simplistic than the now rote use by politicians and pundits of the cartoonish label "bad guys" for jihadists, as if American foreign policy is a slapdash script for a cowboy movie.

The gender ideology dominating academe denies that sex differences are rooted in biology and sees them instead as malleable fictions that can be revised at will. The assumption is that complaints and protests, enforced by sympathetic campus bureaucrats and government regulators, can and will fundamentally alter all men.

But extreme sex crimes like rape-murder emanate from a primitive level that even practical psychology no longer has a language for. Psychopathology, as in Richard von Krafft-Ebing's grisly Psychopathia Sexualis (1886), was a central field in early psychoanalysis. But today's therapy has morphed into happy talk, attitude adjustments, and pharmaceutical shortcuts.

There is a ritualistic symbolism at work in sex crime that most women do not grasp and therefore cannot arm themselves against. It is well-established that the visual faculties play a bigger role in male sexuality, which accounts for the greater male interest in pornography. The sexual stalker, who is often an alienated loser consumed with his own failures, is motivated by an atavistic hunting reflex. He is called a predator precisely because he turns his victims into prey.

Sex crime springs from fantasy, hallucination, delusion, and obsession. A random young woman becomes the scapegoat for a regressive rage against female sexual power: "You made me do this." Academic clichés about the "commodification" of women under capitalism make little sense here: It is women's superior biological status as magical life-creator that is profaned and annihilated by the barbarism of sex crime.

Misled by the naive optimism and "You go, girl!" boosterism of their upbringing, young women do not see the animal eyes glowing at them in the dark. They assume that bared flesh and sexy clothes are just a fashion statement containing no messages that might be misread and twisted by a psychotic. They do not understand the fragility of civilization and the constant nearness of savage nature.

[Valmy]

Why can't more feminists be this reasonable?

Same reason why ideologues of all stripes (sorry Ide) have a hard time being reasonable.  They inhabit an echo chamber that protects them from having to process outside views.  There actually are lots of pretty insightful and good Feminists but, you know, they have to have spent time out in the world experiencing life and stuff.

I have to say that was quite a Hobbesian little essay.

[grumbler]

Why can't more feminists be this reasonable?

I'd say "this reasonable" isn't terribly reasonable at all.  The piece is full of half-truths, exaggerations, and outright lies, most of which I suspect the author knows will be recognized as such.  She seems pretty indifferent to truth, like most preachers.

[The Brain]

She seems to be insane.

[Barrister]

Are you not familliar with Camille Paglia, one of garbon's favourite feminists?

[The Brain]

She is insane.

[garbon]

Are you not familliar with Camille Paglia, one of garbon's favourite feminists?

To me this is one of the worst attempts on her part to extol her perceptions on date rape. To be fair, she's had the same argument for over 2 decades, so I guess she mistakenly feels she can just phone it in. I have to echo statements that the sounds crazy from this blurb.

[Martinus]

So her point is "more Grimm, less GRRM"? 

[derspiess]

Are you not familliar with Camille Paglia, one of garbon's favourite feminists?

To me this is one of the worst attempts on her part to extol her perceptions on date rape. To be fair, she's had the same argument for over 2 decades, so I guess she mistakenly feels she can just phone it in. I have to echo statements that the sounds crazy from this blurb.

You seem to disagree with her more often than you agree

[Barrister]

Are you not familliar with Camille Paglia, one of garbon's favourite feminists?

To me this is one of the worst attempts on her part to extol her perceptions on date rape. To be fair, she's had the same argument for over 2 decades, so I guess she mistakenly feels she can just phone it in. I have to echo statements that the sounds crazy from this blurb.

Having been a defender of "no means no" and that "date rape is rape", I thoroughly disagreed with her quote.  It was just that grumbles and The Brain acted as if they didn't know who she was, when she's been referenced numerous times here on Languish.

[Martinus]

Are you not familliar with Camille Paglia, one of garbon's favourite feminists?

To me this is one of the worst attempts on her part to extol her perceptions on date rape. To be fair, she's had the same argument for over 2 decades, so I guess she mistakenly feels she can just phone it in. I have to echo statements that the sounds crazy from this blurb.

You seem to disagree with her more often than you agree

Well, her point seems to be "we do not do enough to protect oir women from serial killers". From statistical perspective, it's like basing your accident response policy around the possibility of a meteorite strike.

[Valmy]

Are you not familliar with Camille Paglia, one of garbon's favourite feminists?

To me this is one of the worst attempts on her part to extol her perceptions on date rape. To be fair, she's had the same argument for over 2 decades, so I guess she mistakenly feels she can just phone it in. I have to echo statements that the sounds crazy from this blurb.

Having been a defender of "no means no" and that "date rape is rape", I thoroughly disagreed with her quote.  It was just that grumbles and The Brain acted as if they didn't know who she was, when she's been referenced numerous times here on Languish.

Any thoughts on the 'yes-means-yes' law that just passed in California?

[Valmy]

You seem to disagree with her more often than you agree

You are one of my favorite posters yet I disagree with you more often than I agree

[Barrister]

Are you not familliar with Camille Paglia, one of garbon's favourite feminists?

To me this is one of the worst attempts on her part to extol her perceptions on date rape. To be fair, she's had the same argument for over 2 decades, so I guess she mistakenly feels she can just phone it in. I have to echo statements that the sounds crazy from this blurb.

Having been a defender of "no means no" and that "date rape is rape", I thoroughly disagreed with her quote.  It was just that grumbles and The Brain acted as if they didn't know who she was, when she's been referenced numerous times here on Languish.

Any thoughts on the 'yes-means-yes' law that just passed in California?

Not sure how much it adds to be honest.

It's not that "no means no" is unclear.  It is not.  At all.

What is always difficult though in sex assault prosecutions is that you have two differing versions of events, with little to distinguish which version is true and which is not.  This "yes means yes" law will still have that problem.

[garbon]

Are you not familliar with Camille Paglia, one of garbon's favourite feminists?

To me this is one of the worst attempts on her part to extol her perceptions on date rape. To be fair, she's had the same argument for over 2 decades, so I guess she mistakenly feels she can just phone it in. I have to echo statements that the sounds crazy from this blurb.

You seem to disagree with her more often than you agree

She challenges my view points. That doesn't mean I have to go around agreeing with everything that spills from her lips (like her hatred of Hillary!).