Evil behind the shroud of "victimization"

For most people, life is 95 percent work and fulfilling the needs of the metabolic processes. What makes life worth living falls under the category “pursuit of happiness.” We all die eventually, so we have to find some way to make it all worthwhile. For most people, this requirement is simple,  enough, if only because their resources are limited; me, I have my books, videos, music and this blog. For others, “happiness” requires a lot of money and an inflated sense of self, and it doesn’t matter who they trample on in the process.

On the journey in the pursuit of this “happiness,” some people might wonder what their lives might have been like if they could start all over again, knowing then what they know now. That would mean changing one’s nature, not an easy thing to do. Sometimes life hinges on a chance encounter with a person who either gives them a fair opportunity, or one who does not. Or it  might pivot on a single event; but if a person knew the consequences of a particular course of action that seemed “innocently” intended in the beginning, would that necessarily have prevented it? How can you foretell being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or encounter someone who harbors prejudicial notions and evil intentions? 

We live in a world where no one is “perfect.” There is good and bad in everyone. The only people who don’t believe this are self-deceivers and those who are mired in their own sense of “victimization.” It doesn’t matter who you are regardless, race, color, religion, creed, and gender. It may be manifested in different ways by people with different social and economic realities, which makes it more obvious in some, less so in others. I suppose that most people have more good in them than bad, but certainly others have more bad in them than good. All of us have encountered both kinds of people; for me, although I feel obligated to those who have shown me the former, it is the latter variety tends to stick in my mind, in no little part because I have this sense that whether out of ignorance or narcissism or preconceived notions, they are in the ascendance in numbers. 

The dark side of some people comes in many guises—and the ones that wear the mantle of “victim” is perhaps the most difficult to overcome. The Germans (and Europeans generally) thought (and still think) that they were the “victims” of alleged Jewish avarice; one may note the way they “solved” this “problem.” Today a certain demographic has been repeatedly told (by advocates whose very existence depends upon the belief in a perpetual state of victimization) that they are victims of society, even as examples of success and influence are numerous and given inflated importance. The target audience accepts this as “fact” without acknowledging other opinions, but they use it as a rationalization to avoid confronting personal limitations and shortcomings. 

It is the people who have plenty of bad that they don’t recognize in themselves who are the subject of this post. There are four different stories in recent days that disturb me, and I want discuss them in order of “least” controversial to “most.”

First up concerns “politically-correct” politics in the “entertainment” media. There is an A&E/History Channel production called “The Vikings” which I dislike for more reasons than just being about Nordic types. I just happened upon one episode that features a scene in which the new Viking headman is out of town, having recently killed the king. His wife is left to preside over some domestic dispute; a man who has been unable to have children with his wife demands that the now with new baby in tow wife be punished. It seems that she had an adulterous affair with an itinerant laborer now departed, and who is the natural father of the child. It is clear by his wife’s over-the-top acting that she is guilty as hell, but her obvious distress and fear of punishment is such that the headman’s wife decides not to punish her, but him, claiming that the father was actually a “god” in human form providing them with the gift of a child. If the man dares to abuse his wife because of this in any way, he will answer to her. 

But things can get worse, depending on your sensitivity to abuse of illogic. There is an upcoming film starring Angelina Jolie called “Maleficent,” based on the, uh, “evil” witch in “Sleeping Beauty.” I put the word evil in quotes because you know where this is headed; it goes without saying that if Jolie is involved in the project, extreme feminist revisionism is taking place, just as it did in her portrayal of Grendel’s mother in the 2007 revisionist version of Beowulf. In that retelling, Beowulf is no longer a heroic character, because he can’t be. Jolie’s character is no longer the evil, murderous demon, but the beautiful, seductive mother of a misunderstood son, who just likes to kill humans because that is just the way he was made. He can’t help it, meaning he needs a “back story.” So does his mother, although it is not clear why. Unlike actresses whose work is greatly underappreciated (like Michelle Pfeifer), Jolie is too arrogant and political to be honest; her character not only is allowed to have “good” qualities, she lives to see another day to seduce another hapless male victim, while the real hero (flawed or not) must die.

In “Maleficent,” Jolie is allowed to play another “misunderstood” bad person. People who are not invited to weddings because they are known for their evil inclinations and wreak vengeance because of it apparently need their self-justifying back story as well as anyone who isn’t really “inherently” bad. As Maleficent, Jolie gets to exert her miniscule frame against all male comers with her fantastic powers. However, engaging in your average everyday misandrist feminist revenge fantasy would probably alienate half the audience right off, so this Maleficent must be provided with a suitably “noble” motivation, in this case appears to be protecting the environment (or something), to which purpose she enlists various plant and animal life to aid her in wreaking vengeance on (male) humans. I mean, why would they do this if she really was an evil person? She’s not “evil,” she just seems that way because she tend to go overboard with her powers. 

Then there is the revisionist history of OZ, “Wicked.” Here, the Wicked Witch of the West was, wouldn’t you know it, a bullied, picked-on kid at Witch School, forever belittled by the pretty witches. I suppose that explains “everything” as well as anything. Revisionist superhero comics fare less well; in Kelly Sue DeConnick’s short-lived “Ms. Marvel” comic series, Ms. Marvel interacts solely with WWII-era female characters who are not based on actual historical examples, with story arcs that were too contrived even credulous—and mostly male—comic book fanatics. The political point was made, perhaps, but what is “point” if the readership is alienated to the point that they don’t see it? 

It sure is tough being a male these days. We are accused of having “too much” confidence, while women have too little. Says who? Says two very confident-looking white women in the latest issue of Atlantic Monthly,  Katy Kay and Claire Shipman, authors of The Confidence Code: The Science and Art of Self-Assurance--What Women Should Know. This might confuse some people (like me) who encounter women who at least act like they are the center of the known universe. It might also extract something less than a chuckle (from people like me) who see some women acting out their sense of racial “superiority” and privilege. The truth of the matter is that the only males they are competing against in the race to the “top” are white men, and under-represented minorities can remain in their ghetto scenes. You don’t think this is the way some white women think? In the feminist version of the future, The Handmaid’s Tale, while fertile white women are little more than harem-kept receptacles to keep the species going, dark-skinned people are kept in concentration camps in some far off place and never thought of again.

But who ever accused uber feminists of facing the truth? “For years, we women have kept our heads down and played by the rules (with the help of things like Title IX). We’ve been certain that with enough hard work, our natural talents would be recognized and rewarded.”  Kay and Shipman should know; they are pompous journalists whose natural “talent” is writing sexist tomes like this. “In the United States, women now earn more college and graduate degrees than men do. We make up half the workforce, and we are closing the gap in middle management. Half a dozen global studies, conducted by the likes of Goldman Sachs and Columbia University, have found that companies employing women in large numbers outperform their competitors on every measure of profitability. Our competence has never been more obvious. Those who closely follow society’s shifting values see the world moving in a female direction.”  Such arrogant, conceited assumptions are the very definition of “confidence,” although of a very bigoted variety. 

Yet women’s confidence is “elusive.” This is based on “dozens” of conversations with “accomplished and credentialed” women who kept “bumping up against a dark spot that we couldn’t quite identify, a force clearly holding them back.”  So they set out to discover this “dark spot,” no doubt with a preconceived notion leading to a foreordained conclusion. “Why did the successful investment banker mention to us that she didn’t really deserve the big promotion she’d just got? What did it mean when the engineer who’d been a pioneer in her industry for decades told us offhandedly that she wasn’t sure she was really the best choice to run her firm’s new big project?” Possibly because they knew that there were better qualified people who were passed over for “diversity” reasons? I have to admit it just kills me when “diversity” means just another version of white.

The article goes on and on, and on and on and on about how women are ‘hurt” by the unjustified “confidence” of men. Women are really superior to men, but men have denied them the full flower of their superiority to bloom out of “fear” that they will take the world away from them.

Some people live in a world of illusion; I don’t. Shipman was not “lucky” when she became a CNN correspondent in Moscow when barely out of her teens. How did she get such a “prestigious” job at such a young age with sufficient education but little practical experience? Because she was white, attractive, spoke well and looked good on television. Life is always this “fair,” and “luck” had nothing to do with her rapid rise which she apparently doesn’t have a proper appreciation of. It is impossible for some of us to have any empathy for such hypocrites.

Kay and Shipman then despicably attempt to undermine black men by quoting a WNBA player who suggested that on men’s teams, while the guy who didn’t play a minute had just as much confidence as the superstar player (how does she know this?); it wasn’t like that on women’s team (suggesting that a female team recognized class distinctions). The implication was the male athlete living on the bench was undeservedly “overconfident,” and women in a like position apparently just sit there moping.

First of all, the player who made the statement only assumes that in relation to the fact that the WNBA is a league that is largely supported by  non-sports fans who see it as a political statement; even know the names of their “superstars” are a mystery to most serious sports fans. You need a bottle of aspirin to watch a WNBA game; if it wasn’t bankrolled by the NBA and secret government subsidies, we would see just how far people who attend games merely as a political statement would go to keep it alive. Pay more for tickets? Doubtful. On the other hand, it is very hard to get on an NBA squad; anyone who lacks “confidence” wouldn’t last a day on an NBA roster. 

The entire article is basically a compendium of “studies” and opinions made almost exclusively by women, no doubt using self-fulfilling language and leading definitions. Men are never asked their opinion. They are not asked why many feel alienated in high school by policies meant to subvert a learning environment where they prosper, since it might “hurt” girls. That is what an editorial in Seattle Times cautioned; boys were dropping out of high school at alarming rates, but we shouldn’t do anything to “help” them if it meant “hurting” girl—such as toughening up requirements for pre-college mathematics. That is probably why a “tech entrepreneur” who founded an untechlike social media company thought of herself as an “imposter” for having the highest GPA of any computer science major in her class; inflated GPA’s in courses high in bullshit quotient can mask less competence in others. 

One example of the flawed research quoted in the story was that women only attempted to seek promotion if they were “certain” they were “100 percent” qualified, while men supposedly sought promotion if they were only 60 percent qualified. First off, women who are very “confident” in themselves may think they are 100 percent qualified when they are not. As for men not being “as qualified,” I remember a scene in the film The Best Years of Our Lives when Dana Andrews’ humbled former Air Force captain was asked by a junkyard foreman if he had any “experience” in the junk business;  he replied no, but that he could “learn,” just as he learned his job in that bomber over there. Every new job is a learning experience, and sometimes those who think that they are qualified are not motivated to do what is necessary.

Another “study” claimed that because more men than women accepted invitations to a science competition. Why must it be is it that this is due solely to a lack of confidence? Why can’t it just be because they are not interested? This has nothing to with the “real-world impact of self-perception,” but the real world impact of the truth. Men can of course doubt themselves, but not with “such exacting a repetitive zeal” as women. Huh? Women have “honest confidence” and are not trying to “fool” anyone. Women are “perfectionists.” “Study after study confirms” that it is largely a female issue, one that extends through women’s entire lives (where’s that bottle of Pepto?). It doesn’t matter that most of these studies are bogus with thinly disguised political agendas; what is worse is that they don’t dare go into inner-city ghettos and low-income neighborhoods and ask what anyone—male or female—think about a future where self-absorbed bigots like Katt and Shipman hold court.

 Again and again, these two make the broadest assumptions based solely on their own belief that women “naturally” are more talented than men, competing for the exact same jobs and interests. Why do they assume this? Why didn’t they go into the sciences and engineering themselves if they are so “smart”? No one is "stopping" them. Instead, they went into journalism because they thought this was the instant path to “stardom,” having their faces and names known to all. This self-conceit is also a form of self-confidence, and plenty of women have it. The “sad” fact is that if some women have a “confidence” deficit at all, it is because they insist upon defining themselves as “victims.” They like being “victims.” It is the “feeling good about feeling bad” syndrome. If something goes not the way they envisioned, they need someone to blame, and if not themselves, there are always men to beat on. 

And speaking of journalism, there was the recent hubbub over the firing of New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson. The initial outrage over the firing naturally centered around perceived sexism and the claim that Abramson was sacked because she complained that she was being paid less than her predecessor. However, the gender advocates were forced to quickly back-off from this claim when it was revealed that her pay package was actually 10 percent higher. The Times’ publisher, Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., issued a statement that said in part

During her tenure, I heard repeatedly from her newsroom colleagues, women and men, about a series of issues, including arbitrary decision-making, a failure to consult and bring colleagues with her, inadequate communication and the public mistreatment of colleagues.  I discussed these issues with Jill herself several times and warned her that, unless they were addressed, she risked losing the trust of both masthead and newsroom.  She acknowledged that there were issues and agreed to try to overcome them.  We all wanted her to succeed.  It became clear, however, that the gap was too big to bridge and ultimately I concluded that she had lost the support of her masthead colleagues and could not win it back.

Now, instead of the bogus complaint about equal pay, we now hear of “double standards” in the way behavior is interpreted. If a male editor is guilty of “arbitrary” decision-making, fails to consult colleagues, communicates inadequately and publicly humiliates employees—all of which has a noticeable impact on morale and efficiency—he will keep his job for long? I think not. But more telling is the fact that we have been repeatedly told that women have “superior” management skills, that they have that special “touch” that brings people together, that brings peace and harmony and efficiency to the work place. 

Again, reality is a tough thing to face, but face it we must. The fact of the matter is that people may appear to have all the “qualifications” when they work under someone, but once they reach the pinnacle, the power they have corrupts them, and they forget that they didn’t make it there alone; Abramson only succeeded in alienating all those editors, reporters and copy editors whose support she needed to cultivate. 

And finally there is TIME magazine, whose most recent cover story is about “Rape: The Crisis in Higher Education.” Once more we are inundated with long discredited statistics supplied by the likes of the American Association of University Women, which used the broadest definitions imaginable—and still managed to deliberately misinterpret and inflated their numbers enough to claim that one-in-three college women are “raped.” This is quite unlike a newspaper story that I recall reading, which listed the crimes committed at the University of Washington in 2006; there were only six reported sexual assaults on a campus of 25,000 students, none leading to charges. Of course there were more that could have been reported, but certainly nowhere near the “epidemic” or “crisis” level.

The current “crisis” seems to be driven by well-publicized reports of sexual assault accusations made by blonde white females (or so it usually appears) against black male athletes, with the most notable recent example that of Heisman Trophy winner Jamies Winston. I don’t know if he was guilty or not, but I suspect that how the people involved perceived their actions is just as much a matter of social considerations as crime. And the kind of cases that are included in the “crisis” statistics sometimes make it hard to determine who is the actual victim—the accuser, or the accused. 

Take for example the recent expulsion of three University of Oregon basketball players from the school, based on an accusation of rape that was dismissed without charge by Lane County District Attorney Alex Gardner. Brandon Austin, Dominic Artis and Damyean Dotson may not have been charged, but their future dreams were ruined by an accusation that, based on the facts, was predicated on the conceit of a person who chose to see herself as a “victim” after the fact. The DA’s statement deserves to revealed in its entirety:

The DA’s office “no-filed” charges in a sexual assault case in which several University of Oregon basketball players allegedly forced a female University of Oregon student to have sex. The no-file decision is based entirely upon analysis of the available evidence and it’s insufficiency to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.

A no file decision is not a statement about who we believe or don’t believe. It is simply an analysis of the available evidence and its sufficiency to meet the State’s burden of proof. From time to time, additional evidence becomes available after an initial no-file. When that happens, the evidence is reviewed and, if sufficient, a case may be revived and prosecuted.

Recent investigation of sexual assault involving UO basketball players: All three suspects report having consensual sex with the alleged victim. The alleged victim, claims that some or all of the sexual contact was involuntary. In such cases our analysis centers on any evidence of force, the absence of consent, or victim inability to consent. In this case, it’s important to note that the alleged victim and the alleged assailants describe substantially similar sexual activity, timing and order of events. The principal differences between the versions of events told by the alleged victim and the alleged assailants centers on the apparent level of victim intoxication and whether and at what point the victim expressed a desire to either not have sex, or stop having sex. For purposes of this investigation, we are equally concerned with evidence that the victim was forcibly compelled, or unable to consent by reason of intoxication.

The alleged sexual assaults took place at different locations over a period of many hours. According to the victim, the first sexual assault took place at the hands of two of the three suspects in the bathroom of a house where a party involving about thirty people was taking place. She reports the assault being comparatively brief and interrupted when she asked to get a drink of water. The assault allegedly ended after which the victim reports resting on a couch with a drink of water, mingling briefly with other partygoers, and then returning to the bathroom with the same two assailants and a third individual who, she reports, all resumed a sexual assault similar to the assault the first two assailants had initiated earlier.

During the second sexual assault episode, the victim reports getting a text from a friend telling her that it was “time to go”. This assault reportedly ended promptly when the victim told her assailants “I need to go”. At that point, all four people reportedly left the bathroom and the victim went outside where one of her friends was waiting with her ride home. The friend reports waiting for the victim, repeatedly warning her that the man/men “just want you for sex”, and encouraging the victim to leave the party with her. According to the alleged victim, this is the point at which one of the assailants grabbed her and pulled her back towards the house. (At this point the victim’s friend and others describe a playful, flirtatious interaction between the victim and her alleged assailants, with no element of force, no indication of victim fear or apprehension, and no indication that the alleged victim was physically or mentally impaired by alcohol.) The alleged victim then went back towards the party-house and, shortly thereafter, got into a taxi with the same men who had allegedly assaulted her (now twice). The taxi took the group back to a residence shared by two of the alleged assailants. 

Shortly thereafter, the victim and the three men from the second bathroom assault went into one of the bedrooms and resumed various sex acts similar to those that had taken place in the bathroom at the party house. A fourth man was allegedly present and watching the sex acts, but did not participate.

According to the alleged victim, she started crying during the third sexual assault and the assault promptly stopped. She then spent the rest of the night sleeping with one of the three men who had reportedly assaulted her, but she reports no further sex between them. (This is an area of material disagreement concerning the sex acts themselves. The man who slept with the alleged victim reports having consensual vaginal sex one more time in the morning. When reminded of this, the alleged victim confirms that they had oral sex the following day, but can’t remember whether they also had  intercourse.)

The following day the alleged victim reports being tired and upset. When she goes to visit friends she finds two of her alleged assailants in the residence playing video games, so she withdraws outside.

While waiting there another friends walks up, consoles her, and they end up having sexual intercourse. There are multiple sources of information in this case. Since consent is the issue, not whether the sex acts took place, DNA is of little value. The focus was on evidence of consent or the inability to consent. In making the initial determination we evaluated the presumption of innocence and the State’s burden of proof in light of the following:

1) Several interviews with the alleged victim,
2) Interviews with victim’s friends and associates who saw her before and after various critical
points during the time in question
3) Surreptitious recorded phone calls with the alleged suspects
4) Police interviews with the suspects and others. 

A) Although the alleged victim reports being impaired by alcohol prior to any sexual contact, there is no evidence, from her or from others, that suggests she had enough to drink to become substantially impaired prior to the first two sexual encounters in the bathroom. There is also no independent behavioral evidence that the victim appeared significantly impaired: nobody reports her having slurred speech, difficulty walking or any other symptom of impairment from intoxication at any point in the evening.

B) Friends and associates of the alleged victim describe her as friendly and flirtations, both before and after the first and second alleged assaults in the party-house bathroom. Moreover, all witnesses agree the alleged victim had the opportunity to leave the party, or at least ask for help, after the first series of sexual assaults. Friends and others report her “walking and talking fine” both before and after both sex-in-the-bathroom events.

C) The alleged victim recalls extensive detail about all aspects of the evening, including the timing, order of events – even the exact amount of the cab fare and her decision to have another drink of alcohol during the ride to the alleged assailants’ residents, and most of the detail is consistent with the events reported by others (so she does not appear to have been affected to the point of perception or memory impairment. Similarly, there’s no evidence she was ever unconscious during the sex acts, nor is there any evidence she was ever impaired to the point where it adversely effected her balance or stability.)

D) The alleged assailants stopped the sex acts several times – first when the alleged victim asked for a drink of water, next when the alleged victim said she “had to go” and, finally, at the second residence, when the alleged victim started crying (the first point at which suspects claim they  realized she wasn’t “in to it”).

E) Victim returned to isolated locations with her alleged assailants repeatedly, although she had friends nearby and she was in a crowded party.

F) Telephone calls between the alleged victim and alleged assailants were recorded surreptitiously. The contents of those conversations are consistent with suspect’s version of consensual sex, or at least their belief it was consensual sex.)

G) Friends of the alleged victim say she did not appear to be impaired by alcohol at any time during the evening.

H) Alleged victim had consensual sex with one of the suspects the morning after the alleged assaults and, later the same day, she had sex with another friend.

I) The crimes are reported by victim’s father days after the alleged assaults took place and alleged victim is angered by the reporting (because of timing).

J) Alleged victim indicated a desire to only have her assailants’ “wrists slapped”, not ruin their  lives.

K) Assailant interviews with police are consistent with recording made without their knowledge and the statements of other witnesses None of the above would be individually inexplicable, but collectively, and in the absence of additional evidence, they provide an insurmountable barrier to prosecution.

There was outrage on campus concerning the DA’s handling of the case, mostly instigated by gender advocates. There was no outrage over how the athletes’ due process rights were violated by the university. Subsequently, a witness named Kelsey Alston (referred to as “student-witness) gave the following interview to a local television station:

Student-Witness: “I talked to her friends and they gave their opinions on how she interacts with men typically and it mirrored what she was doing at this time.”

Describing her own account of the incident in the bathroom, she says,

“This disrupts her evidence in the police report.” 

“She also states that she left the bathroom when someone opened the door and Dameyean followed her down the hallway. And, that is not true.”

“She returned to the bathroom out of her own accord where she was allegedly being assaulted.”

Interviewer: “Did you feel she was intoxicated to a far extent?” 

Student-Witness: “I, given my knowledge of intoxication of people, she was fully able to think, walk, run…she did not seem intoxicated to any disabling extent…furthermore, this was a party where drinks were not supplied.”

Student-Witness then describes going into the bathroom to find the alleged survivor with two of the men. The alleged survivor said, “Don’t go into the bathroom with me.”

Then,*after* the alleged first assault in the bathroom, the Student-Witness, describes the situation outside the party….

“When I came outside, there was one of her friends telling her, ‘Get in the car. Get in the car.’ And, her friend is repeatedly trying to persuade her to get in the car. ”

“She [the alleged survivor’s friend or roommate] is asking the girl that filed the report to get in the vehicle. And, the girl that has filed the report did not want to go. And, she and her friend were debating about whether she was going to go or stay. And, she [the alleged survivor] was coupled up with one of the boys, to my memory it was Artis. And, she was comfortable.”

“Her friend was telling me, “She always does this. She always hooks up with guys and then the next day we have to help her out. We have to listen to her. She’s hurt… she’s broken the next day. And, I told her friend, you need to let her make her own decisions. And, if she doesn’t like the decisions she makes, a good friend will still be there. I asked the girl who has filed the report whether she wanted to stay or go and she said that she wanted to stay. And, I said “If you want to stay, [then you should] stay.’ ” 

Interviewer asks: “That’s the point where in the report, she claims that Austin had her in a chokehold?” 

Student Witness responds: “Yes. She made it seem like she was being forced to stay and she was not. She *chose* [emphasis added by witness] to stay there.”

“I gave her friend my number. And, I told her friend that is she needs help the next day trying to figure out how do you console someone who doesn’t like what they did the night before to go ahead and call me. Her friend said, ‘OK.” And, her friend left. And, she [alleged survivor] stayed with them and she was comfortable. And, at that point, I went about my night…” 

“The next morning I had gone home and I had gone to sleep and I woke up with a text message from this person saying, ‘Hey it’s me. We had met at a Black party’…. And, I said, ‘Oh, hey, how was your night?’ She said, ‘Haha. It was interesting. What about yours?’ And, I said, I’m really glad you had a good time. And, my night was great. And, she goes ‘Thank you. I’m glad you had a good time as well.’

“And, it has been on record, the things that I witnessed. And, it has been filed in investigations, that these were things that other people can corroborate, that they witnessed as well.”
Interviewer: “We’ve already heard what the report states, we’re hearing some different things out of you.”

Student-Witness: “Correct.”

Interviewer: “How do you kind of slice and dice..” 

Student-Witness interrupting: “Piece it together? Yeah. In my opinion this is somebody who is new to the college scene, this girl. And, possibly new to the attention that she is getting. And she, her friends have explained, she’s done some things and disliked what she did the next morning. It’s my understanding that she had the same experience and expressed to somebody else what happened and they in turn told her, well maybe this may have been this. And, from what I gather, she, anything that took place was something that she wanted and something that she was OK with. And, she vocalized that that was something that she was OK with.”

Interviewer: “What about you or your background made, is this so important to you to let everyone come out and know?”

Student-Witness: “I facilitated a class for the Women’s and Gender Studies department here. And, I focus a lot on sexual awareness and wellness having been in victim situations myself. I understand that there is a 3% bracket of women that lie about these situations and 97% of women do not. When I heard the discrepancies in the story, it was clear to me that this was a 3% situation. These are not distinct numbers, these are numbers that go up and down by point –five of a per cent. But, this is a situation where the alleged victim in play, was consensual, and the claims being made are not true. And, being a victim’s advocate and being in a situation where people may not have believed a story. It’s important to me that the truth is told. And, it’s important to me that nobody can say false accusations because that reflects badly when somebody has something real to say.” 

In a nutshell, what is being said here is that the alleged perpetrators were never given the impression by the alleged victim that she believed that her interactions with them was not “consensual.” When she asked them to “stop” to get drink of water, they did, and she voluntarily returned to engage in sex acts, because she was apt to do so. She also appeared to be in full possession of her faculties. The DA rightly pointed out that the athletes’ perception of the incident was just as valid as the female who was sober enough to give a nonconsensual response, but never indicated an unwillingness to participate in the sex acts. The fact is that the alleged victim only had second thoughts about events after a friend told her she was being “used” for sex, and being “used”—given those “broad” definitions of “unwanted” sex—was tantamount to rape. Under the letter of the law, this was simply too unjust a notion, but apparently not so for the gender victim fanatics and fearful university administrators, who unjustly ruined these young men’s lives based on this accusation. 

Now, no one should ever say they “know” what it is like to walk in somebody else’s shoes, but all too often the media chooses to skirt the issue for the sake of making a political point. The alleged victim is clearly not psychologically “ruined,” but the hopes and dreams of these three men are. The fact is that being a “victim” for some people is a status symbol, it gives them power, a sense of "importance." In the face of pressure from political fanatics, the athletes were powerless, their due process rights ignored. Gender politics trumps the racism involved—particularly when “white pride” is at stake. 

The other day I was on a light rail commuter train heading to downtown Seattle. I pulled out my netbook and started to do some writing, since it had been several days since I posted anything. Unfortunately a newly arrived passenger sitting somewhere behind me decided to pull out their dumb phone and started playing the current noise without the aid of the required headphones. But I was not without proper defense, thanks to a project I had been working on for a few weeks. I had become bored with my mp3 playlist, and I thought it would be interesting to collect mp3s of all 253 Number One hits of the 1970s, placing them in chronological order on my mp3 player. 

Now seemed to be a good time to go back down memory lane. I popped in my headphones and turned up the volume loud so that I wouldn’t be disturbed by the noise pollution (and maybe educate some people). As I was settling in to resume composing on my netbook while listening to the classics, I became aware of the fact that a white female wearing a skirt was motioning me to move my bag so that she could sit down. I was somewhat perplexed by this, because there were other places for her to sit down, and white females never sit next to me even when there are no other seats available. I figured she was making some social statement. 

I figured I’d make my own “social statement,” given my current state of mind on the matter. I skipped over the Everything is Beautifuls, Bad Apples and Joys to the World to songs I thought were more appropriate. It’s remarkable how the cynical and “nondescript” Seventies provided music with political and social statements that makes today’s “making it real” sound so vacuous and narcissistic: “Brown Sugar,” “Indian Reservation,” “Maggie May,” “Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves,” and then “Family Affair”:

One child grows up to be

Somebody that just loves to learn 

Another child grows up to be

Somebody you’d just love to burn

This person sitting next to me must have been listening, because right after that she got up and went to another seat that was facing me, and just glared at me for a few moments. 

I’m sorry if I spoiled her illusion. Well, not really. I don’t live in a world of illusion, and refuse to do so. I know all too well the truth.