Hacker News Reader

Comment by danso | Hacker News Reader

The judicial concerns that the OP raises are not trivial, however, I do wonder if her attempt to tie them to a critique of the feminism movement is just a bit of a non sequitur.

The judicial problems here are orthogonal to the aims of feminism, because they originate more directly from how difficult it is for schools to act as extra-judicial bodies and work within the framework of student privacy rights. At some schools, these adjudication processes deal with victims quite badly:

http://www.publicintegrity.org/accountability/education/sexu...

This is not to trivialize what happened to the OP's son. But to cast aspersions on feminism seems to be missing the bigger point: academic bureaucracies are not very good at handling these types of cases, which are mishandled quite often by actual judicial systems.

View on HN

The judicial problems came about as the Office of Civil Rights demanded schools lower evidentiary standards in sexual misconduct cases.

institutions should consider such allegations under the "more likely than not" standard of evidence, rather than the stricter "clear and convincing" standard that some now use.

Why would the OCR do that?

Cui bono?

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/04/sexual-h...

http://title-ix.blogspot.com/2011/04/commentary-on-yale-and-...

Looked at another way, the author of the WSJ piece, a woman, a lawyer, a feminist, tells you that underlying this is a feminist demand. What knowledge do you have to disagree with her? Is it possible your "reasonable skepticism" might actually be a "ignorance of the issue at hand and its history"? (BTW, I do agree she could have been more explicit in making the connections.)

The reason why I don't see this as a "feminist" demand, explicitly, is because sexual harassment is a crime that affects both males and females. That it currently seems to be something that victimizes more females is the matter of another discussion. But the judicial procedures that she criticizes, and I don't wholly disagree with her, would fall as harshly on women accused of sexual harassment as it would on men.

Now, if the OP had more evidence, even anecdotal, showing that the unfair pressure applied to her son was uniquely something that afflicts males, then I would not think the connection to feminism is a non sequitur.

And before you say, "Get real, men are almost never victimized by sexual harassment in today's world"...I would contend that you're thinking of "female assaulting male" situations...and I would agree. However, Title IX would cover male-vs-male harassment and female-vs-female harassment too, so to the extent that the OCR's directives could go awry, it is not much of a function of feminism. AGain, I would say the problems here arise much moreso from the difficult nature of prosecuting sexual harassment incidents than feminist sensibilities.

And before you say, "Get real, men are almost never victimized by sexual harassment in today's world"

I wouldn't say that. At all.

But I would say, and seriously with respect, that your writing on the subject seems curiously ignorant of the feminist demands, support, defenses of Title IX.

And though I would not say men are not harassed by sexual harassment, regardless, the statistics, all the evidence is that these sexual harassment star chambers are overwhelmingly targeting men.

Would you agree though, that women, historically, have been the greater share of sexual harassment and assault victims between the two genders? If so, then to call these reforms the machinations of overbearing feminists would to, some degree, be stating the obvious...because, it is not a surprise that the group most concerned with women being disenfranchised as victims here would be women, and that those women would also be feminists.

Now to argue that this attempted reform has become corrupted by overbearing feminists, then I ask: to what end? The motive is not clear and I think the simpler explanation is that sexual harassment and assault is by its very nature hard to investigate and adjudicate, and that these difficulties alone can cause the school's disciplinary system to go awry. Or are you arguing that in cases of sexual harassment between males (such as a homophobic attack or male on male rape), that things go just fine for all parties involved because no feminists are there to exert undue forces on the proceedings?

No, I am saying you seem ignorant of the history -- of the many many feminists groups demanding that no rape go unpunished, demanding that the public believe there is no such thing as a false rape allegation, demanding that all rape allegations be believed, demanding that law enforcement take on predominant aggressor policies (that are necessarily biased towards women), and telling us all that innocent until proven guilty as well as Blackstone's ratio should be put aside for rape allegations and rape prosecutions.

You make your points in this vacuum, seemingly ignorant of 40 years of bogus feminist statistics, anti-democratic feminist behavior.

Hmm, is there a critique of the feminist movement in there? I didn't really see one. There might be one of Title IX specifically.

I think it more likely that she is merely attempting to qualify herself against feminist extremists that would not tolerate any critique of Title IX.

My guess is she's equating support of Title IX specifically as analogous to support of feminism generally. Not sure I agree with her on that point.

I think you're right. If anything she states she's a feminist just to clarify that she's not a far-right political hack.

From the OP's concluding graf:

> I fear that in the current climate the goal of "women's rights," with the compliance of politically motivated government policy and the tacit complicity of college administrators, runs the risk of grounding our most cherished institutions in a veritable snake pit of injustice—not unlike the very injustices the movement itself has for so long sought to correct. Unbridled feminist orthodoxy is no more the answer than are attitudes and policies that victimize the victim.

It's not a non sequitur. Feminism is a giant umbrella. Currently, in the first world, the loudest, most influential men and women under that particular umbrella are decidedly hateful, divisive, and deliberately antagonistic toward men.

When it comes to even daring to open a discussion about false rape/paternity accusations, the current mantra is:

If you hate and distrust feeeeeeemales soooooo much, please don't associate with them, have sex with them, or marry them. Thx! But you're probably alone in your parents' basement, like all MRAs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com