She quickly takes exception to the notion that “female sex offenders are on the rise” I believe that she is absolutely correct to do so, also in her interpretation that “people are tired of keeping these peoples secrets”
I would suggest that the timing of #metoo should be seen as highly suspect – in that there was an increasing level of reporting of female molesters at the time, that this very conveniently disrupted, like it or not. It is also the business she speaks of regarding “girlfriend” that needs to be examined from the perspective of who is perceived to be driving it. She is correct that lots of men – will assert that a boy is lucky, but who set these norms, who is in control of the portions of childhood where they are driven, who is in a position to drive gender roles and stereotypes, and who is not? (who does, more?) https://csahs.uoguelph.ca/content/feature/mothers-push-gender-stereotypes-more-fathers-study-reveals
We are at a point where we are understanding that the choice to define this as a male (“no woman would”) issue has been a choice to shame male victims, to ensure the needed male role models will not be present, and to protect female predators.
The reality of which she speaks is very broad, and it is also reflected in very small areas, that are however very revealing. Consider how men are expected to get clear consent – when they are initiating a hug, how quickly a man can be judged when he steps too close, where a woman – stepping up to give a hug can presume that he is ok, and if he is not – he is the issue.
The reality of the double standards is also dangerously broad in how it spills into general society, and how clear it becomes when people stop and seriously ask themselves.
What do we call it – when a man lies about wearing a condom… We call it sexual assault not contraceptive fraud. If sex requires informed consent – her lie would clearly remove the informed part. Calling it contraceptive fraud is a choice to assert it is less serious, because it is a woman doing it.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/uk-news/96-women-are-liars-honest-2509965
While the headline is flashy, let us be frank when you include little white lies – the number for both men and women is likely higher, how many will really tell their wives they look fat in that (if she does and you say she doesn’t – that is a lie). The ones that matter are the “life-changing lies”
“Forty-two percent would lie about contraception in order to get pregnant, no matter the wishes of their partner.”
Please note, as discussed above, we are clear that this is deemed sexual assault gender-reversed, so what does this say?
. “Half said that if they became pregnant by another man but wanted to stay with their partner, they would lie about the baby’s real father.”
That is – half of the women polled, acknowledged they would commit paternity fraud, and force their husband to pay for another man’s child, and also in effect deprive him of the opportunity to pass on his genes. The purpose of marriage?
One has to ask, how much of this is a direct result of gendering so many narratives. How many women would be as willing to lie if they understood that this was a gravely criminal act? If it resulted not in his obligation but instead having her judged as a horrific monster? If it was understood that it should result in her incarceration, and she would have to rely on goodwill on his part, she likely just demolished?
So – why is it, that the same lie, which has resulted in the criminal prosecution of men in Canada is not seen as sexual assault when told by a woman?
Note the reality around the “Pro-choice” presentation
He should have a “conversation”. It does not take a genius to understand that some women would lie, but here, it is very clear, that it does not matter if his consent is obtained on the basis of a lie, in fact it seems clear that he is always assumed to be the initiator – and frankly she owes him no duty of reasonable care. So, consent for her has no further meaning, and if obtained with deception is sexual assault, his consent, even if presumed obligate him not only to sex but parenthood, and it seems very clear that this includes when she has molested a boy.
Note, Koss’s complete dismissal of the possibility of sexual assault by a woman. So, in her mind, a gun to his head clearly holds no sway, social threats etc. Odd how these same things are overwhelming for a woman, but she asserts a non-issue even for a boy. This is the same woman who as noted created a rape study, which asserted a woman was a victim if she had a single drink, regardless of her choice, initiation or even coercion. This was the basis of the campus rape hysteria.
Now I would ask, as this starts to die back, what are men to think, especially young men? Consider they know perfectly well that boys were expelled, because women committed sex act upon them while passed out, or in one case, because she invaded his bed, uninvited, and initiated sexual contact. If we reversed the gender, there would be no doubt, that the initiator would be one blamed and expelled, so the message that young men should reasonably walk away with? We see boys, molested required to pay child support, where we know gender-reversed the adult would have been prosecuted. We would not assert a girl who was pressured into sex by an adult had deemed herself an adult.
Consider the reality of what Koss says makes a woman a rape victim. So a wife wants to have a glass of wine, while seeking to seduce her husband, prior to sex, in an evening she has planned for days, and he needs to consider that makes him a rapist?
https://www.city-journal.org/html/campus-rape-myth-13061.html
This is not an accidental distortion, and not only does it demonize men, but it has clearly absolved women of any responsibility ever to get consent, as it is only hers ever in question, as is made clear both in the methods Koss used, and the reality of how mirror studies were ignored.
There is a reason that young women are becoming uncomfortable with feminism, the problem is, that they have seen only the very tip of the iceberg, and as the broader discussion spills into public. It needs to be understood that this discussion is likely in many cases to powerfully affirm what many young men already believed, and have been loudly screamed down for even beginning to suggest. Feminists around the domestic and sexual violence areas made a clear choice to treat men as other so that what was monstrous when he did it, was ignored (or even encouraged) when she did. We need to consider the reality of this elsewhere as well, where men are blamed for the economic choices of women as well. The reality that this has been allowed to stand for so long, now threatens to define women in an even worse light than feminism actively sought to define men.
A growing portion of young women are wondering what is required to actually create a family, and it clearly is not what was required for mom. They will need to start to examine the double standards, and increasingly the problem is that they are now in a type of race around those double standards, that young women are losing badly. It is not for those who have been declared as other, to invite themselves back into the village. It needs to be understood, there will be huge credibility issues with young men, given the reality of the views that would clearly have been understood as hate, gender-reversed.
I suspect young women as they come to see these double standards, the clear implications of them, and how they would very predictably destroy trust, will be furious. Those elder feminists, blindly often othered even their own sons, refusing to acknowledge the possibility of female abusers, when he could point to personal experience where it was beyond clear. Too many of these feminist women, are then bewildered that merely shifting her views when she finally sees truth does not repair the alienation.
Their daughters should understand, it is not in the reality that she missed the truth, but the why that is the source of alienation. Asserting innocent error cannot work, where the cause of belief was a profound sexism that these women would have been understood as hate, had it been held by men. Asserting you never hated men, when only men could be guilty was your starting point and you are asserting innocent error, is in essence saying I can’t be blamed for my hate, it was my hates fault.
(Logically, if you could not see the issue in asking only women victim questions, you started with the assumption of only men could be guilty. Using emotional arguments against this logic, should be expected to do nothing but confirm her lack of awareness of his humanity, in his mind).
evenhandedblog 