Well, It's Good Princeton Is Against Gender Stereotyping, Because Otherwise This Would Be Pretty Obvious Gender Stereotyping

From the College Fix (my empahasis added):

Are young men at Princeton University violent, aggressive, hyper-masculine, stalkers, or rapists?

A new position at the Ivy League institution indicates campus officials apparently think enough of its male students grapple with such problems that it warrants hiring a certified clinician dedicated to combating them.

The university is in the process of hiring an “Interpersonal Violence Clinician and Men’s Engagement Manager” who will work with a campus office called SHARE that’s dedicated to “survivors” of sexual harassment, assault, dating violence and stalking.

According to SHARE, one in four female undergrads experienced such misconduct during the 2015-16 school year.

The men’s manager will also launch initiatives to challenge “gender stereotypes,” and expand the school’s Men’s Allied Voices for a Respectful and Inclusive Community, a self-described “violence prevention program” at Princeton that often bemoans “toxic masculinity” on its Facebook page.

According to the job description, the men’s manager will develop educational programs targeting the apparent “high-risk campus-based populations for primary prevention of interpersonal violence, including sexual harassment, sexual assault, domestic/dating violence, and stalking.”

The job posting implicitly refers to men as perpetrators and women as victims.


Fortunately, stereotyping does not count if done about men, whites, or heterosexuals so this is all OK.

By the way, apparently since the one in five statistic was not absurd enough, SJW's have upped the ante with a new one in four stat.  I am all for aggressive responses to actual violence, and would be more harsh in its punishment than most universities (I would throw the perpetrator into the legal system, rather than merely some administrative punishment and expulsion regime.)  The problem is that I do not know the actual rate of violence.  The one in five, and now one in four stat is almost certainly bullsh*t.  If this were really true, college campuses would be more dangerous than Syria and people would not be competing so hard and paying so much to send their daughters there.

The problem with these stats is that they hoover up all sorts of complaints by women that range from true violence down to things like boorish comments by males and post-sex regret.  By rhetorical slight of hand, all these complaints are morphed into violence and every complaint, no matter how trivial, is essentially counted as a rape.  Perhaps sexual assault on campus is indeed more common than in the broader community, but if so I would like to see real statistics.  When advocates purposely inflate and obfuscate their core statistic, it makes me suspicious that the actual number is not really that bad and therefore a fake one needs to be provided instead for the activist to get my attention. But for me, this has the opposite effect, turning me off on an issue I perhaps should be energized about because I can't see past the fakery.


  1. kidmugsy:


  2. bloke in france:

    This makes no sense on any dimension.
    To get in to an Ivy League college you presumably need to have buckled down, done your homework and appear half way normal at interview.
    But 1 in 4 or 5 is a rapist.
    For the rest of the poplulation, guys who've missed classes, smoked weed, got fake ID to buy beer... The number of rapists would presuably be nearly 100%.
    But the cops don't prosecute 100% of 20 year olds.

    Maybe it's because most young men aren't rapists.

  3. Griz Hebert:

    I'm a microaggressions survivor. How much does that pay?

  4. Mercury:

    This kind of BS will stop when and only when incoming college males make a pledge, not to a fraternity or secret society, but of abstinence from dating or intimately socializing with their female classmates while they are students at their college/university.

  5. cc:

    It has often been noted that most of the complaints about sexual "assault" involve women getting attention from the wrong sorts of men, low status men or ugly men or short men or minorities. It is not assault if a rich guy or handsome guy or star athlete does it. So they want protection from low status male looking and flirting. By the way, if flirting and looking were to actually stop, we would go extinct. There must be some way to signal interest. The feminist rhetoric implies that somehow men should know when their attention is welcome and only then flirt, but no male has ever known this unless the girl flirts first, which only happens sometimes. Also, this is the same culture that encourages binge drinking, during which refinement is simply impossible. A drunk shows his affection by grabbing and slobbering.
    If 1 in 4 women got truly assaulted during 4 years of college, this would be virtually 100% over a lifetime. Really? I have known exactly 3 people who admitted they were raped and one was a man. These people think we are innumerate, to match their own innumeracy.

  6. SamWah:

    Will the "men's manager" be a man or a woman? My money's on "a woman". Anybody want to bet on "a man"? Anyone? Buehller?

  7. Jeffrey Deutsch:

    As one who's fought this SJW campus lunacy for years...you are wrong in the opposite direction. Right alongside Candice Jackson's recent "90%" blooper.

    Over half a dozen women have confided to me that they were raped. ("Admitted"???)

    Now, it's not 1 in 4 or even 1 in 5 on campus, but quite a few women are sexually assaulted (no, not just stared at or even kissed without their advance permission) or raped on campus. It's just that until relatively recently (including when I went to college) schools had every incentive to hush things up. Which many if not most did. So each victim thought she was all alone -- and stayed silent. Of course, victims' staying silent meant the next group of victims also thought they were alone. Lather, rinse, repeat.

    And yes, some women prefer that BMOC come on to them rather than shy or poor nerds. Guess what? More than a few men assume that women dress and act sexy for them personally and have trouble taking "no" for an answer.

    You might not be that kind of guy (though some who think they aren't, truly are) -- but when you decide to flirt with a woman who doesn't know you, if she happens not to be interested she now has to roll the dice and take her chances. I'm just fine with flirting with strangers, but I can see why some women (and even more than a few men) are against it.

    As for grabbing and slobbering? That kind of "affection" is assault at the very least. And drunkenness is no excuse.

  8. Jeffrey Deutsch:

    Strike "with their female classmates".

    Colleges and universities are happy to pursue charges even with complainants who aren't students there.

    As long as the alleged conduct would contribute to a hostile environment at the school itself (and if the respondent is in fact harassing others, how can his/her fellow students be safe either?), the school has every obligation to act.

  9. The_Big_W:

    Nice anecdotal evidence. Run. The. Damn. Numbers. If the true figure were really 1 in 5, or the newly hot 1 in 4, there would be a rape or sexual assault EVERY DAY at campuses over 10,000 and MULTIPLE per day for campuses over 25,000. As stated many times elsewhere if the problem were really that bad we'd be shutting down colleges everywhere in the country as that level of violence is worse than in war zones.

    Of course I'll likely be ridiculed for this post because I actually know how to do math...

  10. The_Big_W:

    You're really really missing the point. There are going to be LARGE numbers of men at colleges remaining completely celibate throughout their whole time at college. The weaponized life destruction female students can wield against them is too powerful for them to even take the risk...

  11. Jeffrey Deutsch:

    You're absolutely right about the weapons female classmates can wield.

    Here's the thing: Any other female, with whom a male student interacts that way, can also wield those weapons.

    In other words, if John Smith decides: "To heck with this, it's not worth the Title IX risk," he'll need to swear off all women -- not just fellow students.

    That's because if the college gets a report that John Smith sexually harassed or sexually assaulted Jane Jones, the college isn't going to drag and drop it into the recycle bin just because Jane Jones isn't a student there. If they get a report that their student John Smith sexually harassed or assaulted anyone, they know that his female classmates might live in fear that they could be next.

    (And even if they don't, if John Smith is also accused of sexually harassing or assaulting a classmate you better believe people will be asking "How could this have been prevented? Did the school have any previous indication that he might do something like this...and if so, how did they respond?")

  12. Jeffrey Deutsch:

    Read. My. Damn. Post. Where I wrote:

    Now, it's not 1 in 4 or even 1 in 5 on campus...

    The_Big_W, why should we be arguing? We're on the exact same side!

    I was just responding to cc, who had made the exact opposite error.

    As is often the case elsewhere, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

  13. The_Big_W:

    That's why I used the word celibate in my post. Although some men will find that even celibacy will not keep them from being falsely accused.

  14. Billford:

    Well, if sexual misconduct is defined, as it should be, as un-welcomed groping on the dance floor or at a party, then the 1 in 4 statistic seems plausible if not downright low. Observe too that much dancing at college bars or parties is begun literally by the man grinding his pelvis on the female's. I would say that without eye contact first, and some sort of agreed-upon prelude to such grinding, it qualifies as sexual misconduct and so the technical figure ought to probably be closer to 1 in 2.

    On the other hand, the most serious offenses, which are what the mind usually conjures up when hearing "sexual assault" or "sexual misconduct" are prolonged groping, under the clothes groping, or actual attempted or completed sex acts So, I think both sides are talking past one another in this respect.

    I would also say that it is not unreasonable for a woman who wakes up with little to no memory of a sex act to assume it was coerced or she didn't consent. I feel like this is a common sense difference between the sexes that those on the right and left should be able to agree upon, but you have this weird situation where the left is advocating as if the difference exists, but won't openly admit to it, meanwhile you have folks on the right asserting that there is no different for a man or a woman to wake up to learn that he or she engaged in a sex act but can't remember the event. It is so clear to me (not all the time, but most times), that a man is more likely want to perform an act with a person, especially a stranger, that if he did not not want to engage in an act, than he could more easily physically resist and/or he physically would not be able to perform. Of course this is a huge generalization, but I estimate that a man who can't remember a sex act is three times more likely to have consented than a woman. Of course, it is very possible that both sides are so intoxicated neither can consent. When that happens, the fact that the tie goes to the woman is not a bad policy, in my mind. Unequal, but not bad policy.

  15. Billford:

    No, misconduct is literally touching over the clothes of the rear-end, bust, or crotch area. The numbers hold up. The numbers fail if one is talking about "serious" assault (groping is pretty serious, but I feel like most understand what I am trying to say). Everybody is so lose with the numbers and definitions that nobody know what each other is talking about.

  16. The_Big_W:

    The thing is the REAL numbers aren't somewhere in the middle they are way closer to 0 than to 20(25!)%

    This is purposeful obfuscation with a incidence value high enough to encourage people to think "every college man is a potential rapist", which is a total falsehood. But enslaving and putting their boots on the neck of college age men is the goal so....

    So I get it that you agree with me on a lot of this, I think its just that I believe the SJW's motives to be wholly evil and you give them some benefit of the doubt.

  17. The_Big_W:

    Sure, the numbers can include all those other things, which may even include incidental touching in crowded spaces. But the SJW's scream 1 in 4 RAPIST!!! Which is a god damned lie, and they know it....

  18. The_Big_W:

    You act like you're coming from middle ground then openly advocate and back the SJW interpretation of mostly everything. Even while making up a number of men who get drunk and can't remember what they've done being likely perpetrators....

    And if Unequal treatment is not bad policy, then I can see you must have very little use for the Constitution....

  19. Jeffrey Deutsch:

    Yep, that's about the size of it The_Big_W.

    And our movement needs both types. Stalwarts like you and aisle-crossers like me.

  20. The_Big_W:

    I hear you and can agree with that.

  21. Bill Drissel:

    What parent would send her girl-child to a college where she stood a 25% chance (per year?, lifetime risk?) of genuine sexual assault?

    Bill Drissel
    Frisco, TX