St. Louis Post-Dispatch drops George Will from rotation

I am not at liberty to say why.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/06/18/3450722/st-louis-post-dispatch-drops-george-will-rape-victims/

 

Because pro-rape.

 

Haven't read the offending column but have been unable to avoid the shrill reactions to it.
People are kidding themselves if they think there hasn't been a vast broadening in the definition of "sexual assault," especially on college campuses, where there is a veritable war-on-men taking place.
Our culture does elevate victimhood on multiple fronts, too.
Turn the page, people. Change the channel. Chocolate vs. vanilla and all. Choice.
Squelching voices is not tolerant.

 

Increases in rape reporting are part of The War on Men? Now I've heard it all.

 

Sweet fucking Jesus.

In what way has the definition of sexual assault been vastly broadened? Victims should turn the page? War on Men? Really?

Will and others are suggesting that by offering improved support and services to female students who have been sexually assaulted we are elevating victimhood to a privileged, coveted status. It's basically reverse slut shaming.

 

It'd be nice if men retaliated to "The War on Men" by waging their own war on misogynistic scumbag would-be rapists instead of would-be victims.

 

Duh. Bros before hos.

 

Without getting into the Will column specifically, this is happening for sure. Here is a Philly Mag follow-up piece on the Swarthmore incident at the heart of Will's column.

http://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/04/28/sexual-assault-campus-rape-swarthmore/#disqus_thread

It talks to the lawyer who has been at the vanguard of the new policing of sexual-assault claims (victim's advocate type). Here's what he said (not necessarily about Swarthmore case but about the pattern):

Okay, so I’m all fired up again. In the last two weeks, I’ve worked on five cases all involving drunken hook-ups on college campuses. In each case, the male accused of sexual misconduct was found responsible. In each case, I thought the college got it completely wrong. … Some boards and panels still can’t tell the difference between drunk sex and a policy violation. … Surely, every drunken hook-up is not a punishable offense. … ”

And here's the student handbook:

Relying on non-verbal communication can lead to misunderstandings. Consent may not be inferred from silence, passivity, lack of resistance, or lack of an active response alone. A person who does not physically resist or verbally refuse sexual activity is not necessarily giving consent.

That sounds like a vastly broadened definition of rape -- she doesn't say "no," she just doesn't have a whole lot of enthusiasm toward "yes."

That link is a good one.

 

If there's a bigger waste of space and money in newspapers than syndicated op-ed columns, I don't know of it.

 

Maybe the definition is being broadened because the vast majority of accusations deemed "unfounded" are found to be so due to inconsistent legal definitions (one might even say "loopholes") rather than false accusations.

 

Do you agree with the Swarthmore handbook that it can/should be considered rape when a woman passively goes along with sex?