Well, the outrage at this scurrilous attack on freedom of speech is certainly justified.
But that’s only part of the story. The sneaky, malevolant weasels infesting the halls of power are counting on that outrage to distract people from the attack within the attack.
So let’s not take their bait. Let’s look a little deeper.
This seems custom-made to drive alpha males off campus – and off the professional career track – faster and farther than anything else that’s been tried.
Let’s be real, here. The neutered marshmallows that pass for nice guys these days don’t interact with women anywhere near enough to have much chance of violating these regulations.
And gay guys won’t have a problem, because anyone who accuses them of anything must be some kind of homophobic bigot, whose accusation therefore has no credibility.
It’s the confident, dominant herosexual males who will run afoul of these new regulations. Probably sooner, rather than later.
These alpha males will then be unable to get qualified for a decent job – and labelled as sex offenders to boot – which will dramatically reduce their reproductive prospects.
In consquence – for the first time ever – weak, meek, girly boys will out-reproduce strong, virile, manly men.
And that is how you covertly implement a selective breeding program aimed at turning people into domestic livestock – with all the cleverness of a human and the all docility of a dairy cow.
Hmmmm…I thought it was simply a desire to drive all sexuality off of campuses…
I think this will, in the longer-term, lead to the rise of autodidacts. There are a lot of niversity courses one can access online for free already and, while the name escapes me, there is already one accredited US college that has advertised that it will permit, for a nominal fee, for people who have not taken a course to sit the exam and, if they pass, they will accumulate the credit as having taken the course.
This trend will, in my never-humble-opinion, grow: and as campuses become more hostile places, more people will elect to go to College for the exams only. Eventually, this will lead to the collapse of the bureaucratic systems themselves and wrest the control of the educational system away from the current powers…
As someone who is in college (and does talk to women on campus) , to Codeslinger and Xan, I will make a few comments.
Many of these sexual harassment laws go too far because it’s no longer about protecting women from men who are vulgar. It’s about restricting the freedoms of one group of people to cater to a handful of people who radical feminists, see all men as pigs or otherwise have a chip on their shoulder.
Honestly, I don’t think it’s harassment just if someone makes you uncomfortable. Lots of people annoy me, but I have no reason to report them to the police. If someone says something extremely vulgar or repeatedly talks to a girl after she has asked him to leave her alone, THEN it’s harassment. But telling a girl she is hot or beautiful, for example, is not harassment. IMO, it’s not socially acceptable and it’s a rather weak move, but it’s not the government’s job to ban social awkwardness.
Though, I would never say that to a woman I just met, not to avoid offense, but because it doesn’t lead to interesting conversation period. But if you have good body language and people skills, you won’t ever violate sexual harassment policy (even by the standards of the biggest feminazis).
It’s not (and shouldn’t be) a crime for a man to tell a woman she’s hot or beautiful. However, personally, I’d never comment on a woman’s looks if I wanted to get her phone number. Not because it’s offensive, but simply because it doesn’t lead to any interesting conversation. Honestly, if you have good people skills, a guy could flirt with a girl without ever being sexual harassment in the eyes
As for codeslinger, I don’t disagree with you on a fundamental level. I’m just suspicious that your rhetoric (especially basing it around natural selection and alphas) is on parallel with insecure PUA propaganda.
Not to absolve these poorly placed policies in any way. I’m just saying that people who are decent socially shouldn’t ever have a problem with sexual harassment laws.
There is no desire to drive all sexuality off campus. Only heterosexuality.
Specifically, male heterosexuality.
This is perfectly aligned with the progressive (cultural Marxist) attack on what they call the “heteropatriarchy.”
In “Heteropatriarchy and the Three Pillars of White Supremacy” (chapter 6 of Color of Violence: The INCITE! Anthology, South End Press, 2006), Andrea Smith writes
“Heteropatriarchy is the logic that makes social hierarchy seem natural. In order to colonize peoples whose societies are nor based on social hierarchy, colonizers must first naturalize hierarchy through instituting patriarchy. In turn, patriarchy rests on a gender binary system in which only two genders exist, one dominating the other. Consequently, Charles Colson is correct when he says that the colonial world order depends on heteronormativity. Just as the patriarchs rule the family, the elites of the nation-state rule their citizens. Any liberation struggle that does not challenge heteronormativity cannot substantially challenge colonialism or white supremacy.”
She concludes as follows:
“Unfortunately, in our efforts to organize against white, Christian America, racial justice struggles often articulate an equally heteropatriarchal racial nationalism. … The response is often increased homophobia, with lesbian and gay community members construed as “threats” to the family. But, perhaps we should challenge the “concept” of the family itself. Perhaps, instead, we can reconstitute alternative ways of living together in which “families” are not seen as islands on their own. Certainly, indigenous communities were not ordered on the basis of a nuclear family structure – it is the result of colonialism, not the antidote to it.”
These quotes show very clearly how cultural Marxism combines the Marxist dialectic with Freudian psychology to produce that exceptionally corrosive concoction called Critical Theory, which it uses to deconstruct Western culture and values by rewriting history in terms of sexual and racial power struggles.
They illustrate the exact mechanism by which Feminism, Queer Studies, and Critical Race Theory interlock to become essential elements of a concerted and deliberate attack – in their own words – “against white, Christian America.”
As such, they provide the necessary context in which to see how initiatives like this new speech code fit together with others – punishing boys for acting like boys, elimination of scorekeeping from school sports, prohibition of home schooling, promulgation of white guilt, erosion of individual rights, intrusion into people’s private affairs, deprecation of family values, and so on – all fit together into a coordinated attack on Western civilization.
My point is that the new speech code is bad enough, with its infringement of the right to free speech, criminalization of normal male heterosexual behaviour, misrepresentation of the law as laid down by the Supreme Court, and utter disregard for the Constitution.
But when you step back and see how it fits into the big picture…
I have to say, I’ve never found telling a woman she’s hot to be a bad move. It only elicits a negative response from shrill, neurotic, chip-on-the-shoulder feminists – and they’re the ones I most want to filter out anyway!
The quintessential qualities of the female are fecundity and receptiveness, and those of the male are strength and proactivity. The degree to which we forget this is the degree to which we are diminished, individually and as a culture.
And this is the goal of cultural Marxism.
Your claim that commenting on a woman’s attractiveness is socially unacceptable, and your implication that “alpha male” = “asshole” are proof that the cultural Marxist agenda is working. The alpha male is precisely the one upon whom the so-called heteropatriarchy depends, and buying into critical theory’s scurrilous defamation of the alpha male is a huge mistake – primarily because it will it stop you from learning to become one. And if that happens to enough of today’s young men, the West is done for.
Once again, this is the goal of cultural Marxism.
And your claim that “if you have good body language and people skills, you won’t ever violate sexual harassment policy” is so far removed from reality that it would be funny if it weren’t so tragic. You might as well say “if you always tell the truth, you won’t ever be accused of hate speech.”
Have you actually read the letter from the Justice Department to the University of Montana, which caused this uproar? It states that “sexual harassment should be more broadly defined as any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature” including “verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct.” Thus it equates asking a girl out to raping her, provided only that she – unilaterally – considers the invitation unwelcome.
It has nothing to do with what the guy actually said or did.
Further, the ruling of the Supreme Court in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education defines sexual harassment to be “severe, [and] pervasive, and objectively offensive.” However, the Justice Department directly and deliberately contradicts this ruling, by misquoting it as “severe or pervasive” – not just once, but twelve times!
And, as if driving home the change from “and” to “or” by mind-numbing repetition weren’t sleazy enough, the relentlessly repeated misquote entirely removes the requirement of objectivity!
According to the Supreme Court, conduct is objectively offensive if and only if it is offensive “from the perspective of an objectively reasonable person of the same gender in the same situation.”
Again, removing this criterion isn’t any kind of mistake or oversight on the part of the Justice Department. The letter explicitly claims that “whether conduct is objectively offensive … is not the standard to determine whether conduct was ‘unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature’ and therefore constitutes ‘sexual harassment.’”
In short, this letter makes the definition of sexual harassment entirely subjective!
Remember the age-old joke about a woman’s way of thinking:
“Don’t confuse the issue with facts! I’ve made up my mind about how I feel.”
By the way, I’m not going into the whole “nice guy” debate, but it seems like you are resting quite a bit of your argument on the apparent belief that I’m a disgruntled nice guy who thinks that women are only attracted to assholes. Which is far from the case, but if you want to strawman that to align it to your views, you can if you want to.
It’s not that it’s fundamentally wrong to say to a girl “hey, you’re really beautiful, i want to meet you”. But I prefer to ease up on the compliments, take it slowly, more naturally and subtle, and keep how I feel about her (at least at first) to myself.
It all boils down to whether she enjoys your company or not. If she’s interested in your company, she won’t report you. If she isn’t, and you’re too dense too figure that out and you keep hitting on her, who knows.
But I talk to women all the time (without having to compromise my masculinity) and I never got reported. Never knew any one of my friends that was either. I really have nothing to worry about. But socially awkward dudes who approach women, this law is going to suck for them.
Agree with you on objectivity of law. With the liberal interpretation of the law, even sneezing by a woman is sexual harassment. If you think I view these sexual harassment laws any differently than you do, then you are missing the point.