Education Over Expulsion At Dalhousie

Argus · January 11, 2015

I don't think anybody is suggesting that these guys' comments represent an actual intention to drug or rape their classmates. I'm just asking you to imagine for a moment that you're walking into a classroom where a group of people have singled you out as somebody they'd like to "hate-f-ck" and think how that would feel.

-k

It would be extremely uncomfortable. As it would if you found out guys had been talking about what they wanted to do to you in the locker room (which I'm sure has happened numerous times). I get that. I do understand the very legitimate discomfort of the women involved. Mind you, the men involved are almost certainly mortified, as well. I certainly would have been back in the day.

I'm not against sanctioning these guys. I'm against throwing away their future careers a few months before graduation after all those years of time and effort and money invested simply because they didn't understand how to work the privacy settings on Facebook.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Argus

Argus · January 11, 2015

If the women want justice they should go to the police.

The university will do whatever it has to to protect its reputation: Justice for the women isn't a priority.

.

That would make them quite a bit different from every other university in north America. I believe I posted a long writeup on the way universities govern and enforce the harassment and behaviour rules against their male students.

jacee · January 11, 2015

That would make them quite a bit different from every other university in north America.

That's my point. Universities are very adept at sweeping things under the rug, pressuring student victims to use the internal process (in fear of academic retaliation?) and not call the police.

It needs to be challenged.

I believe I posted a long writeup on the way universities govern and enforce the harassment and behaviour rules against their male students.

Well if it's that good, it's up to scrutiny by the courts.

.

jacee · January 11, 2015

I don't think any of the stuff that has been reported from the Facebook group would actually be a criminal matter.

Maybe not ... but I think that determination of criminality should be made by the police and the Crown counsel we pay to do that.

The issue here is a hostile environment, as well as violations of the student code of conduct. Those are matters for the school's disciplinary system,

That too.

not for the police.

The only avenue I could see for this to go to court would be a civil suit against the school, if students claimed that the school's refusal to address concerns that were raised last summer (in regard to chauvinist professors, not later the later Facebook issue) contributed to a hostile environment.

I am not a lawyer (I refused to use the abbreviation IANAL!) but I suspect that might be one avenue they could use to go after the school if they were so inclined.

-k

Maybe that too.

Smallc · January 11, 2015

I'm watching Louis CK. He said it best I think. Men are prisoners to their sexual perversion. Women are just tourists there. I wouldn't expect women to understand what men actually think about and how normal this is. I'm not sure why some of the men here are trying to pretend.

jacee · January 11, 2015

I'm watching Louis CK. He said it best I think. Men are prisoners to their sexual perversion. Women are just tourists there. I wouldn't expect women to understand what men actually think about and how normal this is. I'm not sure why some of the men here are trying to pretend.

Because they are smart enough to keep their violent rape thoughts private perhaps?

Because you're telling them they have to have such thoughts to be 'men', and maybe they don't?

Because it's nobody's business what's in their heads as long as they don't act on it like these idiots did, threatenig specific women?

.

Smallc · January 11, 2015

Because they are smart enough to keep their violent rape thoughts private perhaps?

I don't think anyone has said that they shouldn't have stayed private.

Because you're telling them they have to have such thoughts to be 'men', and maybe they don't?

I never said any such thing. If I had, I'd have been disqualifying myself from manhood. That said, very many men have these kinds of thoughts. They are, in other words, quite normal.

Because it's nobody's business what's in their heads as long as they don't act on it like these idiots did, threatenig specific women?

Get back to me when you understand what a threat is.

kimmy · January 11, 2015

I'm watching Louis CK. He said it best I think. Men are prisoners to their sexual perversion. Women are just tourists there. I wouldn't expect women to understand what men actually think about and how normal this is. I'm not sure why some of the men here are trying to pretend.

I think that some of the older cats in the room may be a little square to the far-out slang that the kids who are hip and with it are using these days. I'll try and clear things up a little.

Saying you want to "Hate f***" someone is not an expression of sexual desire. It's said of someone you detest (hence the "hate" part) but you want to f*** them anyway as a means of degrading them, putting them in their place, and so on. Aside from being directed people someone hates in real life, it's also sometimes directed at politicians like Hilary Clinton or Sarah Palin, generally reprehensible people like Nancy Grace, criminals like that chick who killed her kids, annoying celebrities, and so-on. The implication isn't "she's really attractive", but more along the lines of "I hate her so much that I want to abuse her like a cheap prostitute."

While the "who would you hate-f***" poll does indeed suggest that these men had strong feelings about the two classmates they voted on, the feelings they're expressing are not amorous ones. It's along the lines of another post from the "Gentlemen's club" that went something along the lines of "the penis is a tool for turning lesbians and feminists into productive members of society."

Similarly I'm not buying that the jokes about chloroforming as a means of obtaining sex Bill Cosby style is a genuine sexual fantasy for these men either. I think Black Dog nailed it earlier: it's aggressive locker-room banter. They're not sharing their sexual fantasies, they're saying that stuff to show each other that they're balls-out kind of guys who aren't afraid to be politically incorrect, etc.

I get this kind of thing sometimes. You might be surprised (or you might not...) at how many guys think that a fresh and clever way to open up a conversation with me is with a dumb blonde joke. Why do they do that? Is it because they think it's a hilarious joke, or that I'll be tremendously amused? No. They do it because they want to show me they've got big balls, that they're not intimidated by me.

-k

jacee · January 11, 2015

Those are guys you write off immediately.

Smallc · January 11, 2015

I think that some of the older cats in the room may be a little square to the far-out slang that the kids who are hip and with it are using these days. I'll try and clear things up a little.

You know that I'm 25, right?

Smallc · January 11, 2015

And I don't expect women to understand the complexity that is male sexual desire....it's not meant as an insult, it's simply a reality of brain differences.

kimmy · January 11, 2015

It would be extremely uncomfortable. As it would if you found out guys had been talking about what they wanted to do to you in the locker room (which I'm sure has happened numerous times). I get that. I do understand the very legitimate discomfort of the women involved. Mind you, the men involved are almost certainly mortified, as well. I certainly would have been back in the day.

I suspect that the anxiety they're feeling has to do with the potential ramifications to their degree and their professional careers, not with any discomfort they caused the women.

That's one of the things that annoys me about this "restorative justice" clap-trap. "We are bringing offenders together with their victims so that they can understand the pain they have caused." What a load. I assure you, they understand. They just don't give a crap. They care about consequences, not the feelings of the women they hate enough to "hate-f***."

As I've mentioned here in the distant past, my family went through an extremely stressful situation as my younger brother was a target for bullies, and particularly so at one school we went to. Part of the "conflict resolution process" involved face-to-face meetings with his tormentors where they all sat down in a room with a school counselor and "shared feelings". These meetings were terrifying for my brother, to the point that he was vomiting and couldn't eat or sleep. They were certainly not terrifying for the bullies, because nothing changed. It just reinforced their position: we can keep doing this, and the only punishment is that we go to this joke of a meeting and glare at you while you cry.

I'm not against sanctioning these guys. I'm against throwing away their future careers a few months before graduation after all those years of time and effort and money invested simply because they didn't understand how to work the privacy settings on Facebook.

To be clear, I do not favor expulsion either. I jumped into this thread when some of the members here were suggesting that this is purely a free speech issue, which I thought was pretty ridiculous.

If it was me in charge of this, I'd drop the formal process, drop the "restorative justice", and just make their names public. I don't see why their identities should be shielded, particularly at the expense of the other men in their class who've done nothing wrong but will nonetheless face unfair suspicion..

-k

cybercoma · January 11, 2015

Nearly every man has that mentality. That's kind of the point. Most of us arent politically correct to the point of repressing our sexuality.

So men who don't get off on screwing someone who they've drugged are repressing their sexuality? Do you have any idea how sick that is? What a disgusting thing to say.

cybercoma · January 11, 2015

First, no male doctor of any kind would be alone with an unconscious female patient, for liability reasons if no other.

None. Because it has never ever happened in the history of mankind.

TimG · January 11, 2015

If it was me in charge of this, I'd drop the formal process, drop the "restorative justice", and just make their names public. I don't see why their identities should be shielded, particularly at the expense of the other men in their class who've done nothing wrong but will nonetheless face unfair suspicion.

You have no way to know if all 13 were active participants or just some of the them. Publicly naming them simply gives the lynch mob a target to persecute and the lynch mob would not care if someone actually wrote the offensive words or did nothing but join a FB group started by his friends. For that reason, they should NOT be named until the investigation is complete and the university can publish exactly what each individual did wrong.

You also missed the point about free speech: using threats to silence people harms free speech - whether threats are legal or not. There is no difference between a lynch mob demanding an immediate expulsion of the students with no hearing and the people who murdered the workers at Charlie Hebo. We have processes for a reason.

Edited January 11, 2015 by TimG

Smallc · January 11, 2015

So men who don't get off on screwing someone who they've drugged are repressing their sexuality? Do you have any idea how sick that is? What a disgusting thing to say.

I like how you ignore my subsequent post that clearly states that this doesn't apply to all men. It does however, apply to a very large number. As men, we've all spent time with other men I'm sure. The sexual repression I'm talking about comes from ignoring the very large number of men that we all know think this way.

Smallc · January 11, 2015

is no difference between a lynch mob demanding an immediate expulsion of the students with no hearing and the people who murdered the workers at Charlie Hebo. We have processes for a reason.

I've been told in this very thread that we have to abandon process for the cause. We're all Rosa Parks, apparently.

jacee · January 11, 2015

You have no way to know if all 13 were active participants or just some of the them. Publicly naming them simply gives the lynch mob a target to persecute and the lynch mob would not care if someone actually wrote the offensive words or did nothing but join a FB group started by his friends. For that reason, they should NOT be named until the investigation is complete and the university can publish exactly what each individual did wrong.

You also missed the point about free speech: using threats to silence people harms free speech - whether threats are legal or not. There is no difference between a lynch mob demanding an immediate expulsion of the students with no hearing and the people who murdered the workers at Charlie Hebo. We have processes for a reason.

The university is in a conflict of interest because they benefit if their investigation finds nothing and does nothing. The police should be involved as neutral and qualified investigators.

.

jacee · January 11, 2015

I like how you ignore my subsequent post that clearly states that this doesn't apply to all men. It does however, apply to a very large number. As men, we've all spent time with other men I'm sure. The sexual repression I'm talking about comes from ignoring the very large number of men that we all know think this way.

Evolution is an amazing thing.

Nobody has to accept that as normal, and fewer and fewer such undesirables get a chance to procreate these days.

.

Edited January 11, 2015 by jacee

Argus · January 11, 2015

I suspect that the anxiety they're feeling has to do with the potential ramifications to their degree and their professional careers, not with any discomfort they caused the women.

I suppose it depends on the man. There are, as you're certainly aware, men with about as much empathy as a rabid dog. And there are men with the thick hide of a rhino. However, most guys I've known in life would have been horribly embarrassed if the subject of their sexual fantasies had become aware of them. I certainly would have, whether it was the girl at the bus stop or my friends girlfriend or a classmate my friend's mom!

They care about consequences, not the feelings of the women they hate enough to "hate-f***."

I suspect you're taking the word 'hate' too literally. I admit I wasn't previously that familiar with the term, but from what I've seen it's more along the lines of who is a bitch (or one you perceive to be) but hot who you'd just like to do hard and fast like Michael Douglas did Jeanne Tripplehorn in Basic Instinct.

I also suspect the other guys would simply have voted for whichever woman in the class they thought was most attractive.

As I've mentioned here in the distant past, my family went through an extremely stressful situation as my younger brother was a target for bullies, and particularly so at one school we went to. Part of the "conflict resolution process" involved face-to-face meetings with his tormentors where they all sat down in a room with a school counselor and "shared feelings". These meetings were terrifying for my brother, to the point that he was vomiting and couldn't eat or sleep. They were certainly not terrifying for the bullies, because nothing changed. It just reinforced their position: we can keep doing this, and the only punishment is that we go to this joke of a meeting and glare at you while you cry.

Adolescents are not always good at empathy. But this discussion could have some positive impact. There is, in general, a vast disconnect between how young men and young women think of sex. I think most young men simply do not 'get' why women aren't all as slutty as they are themselves. To young men sex is sport and fun and pleasure, and they can do it with anyone attractive at the drop of a hat without knowing them, without respecting them, without caring a damn about them. It's not surprising that there's a huge failure to understand why women aren't the same way. If a guy found out a girl was having sexual fantasies about him then, presuming she wasn't hideous, he'd be delighted to let her bring those fantasies to life. Men are sluts. It's how we're raised. I don't think such a meeting will clue them in emotionally, but it should have some impact on their intellectual understanding, and perhaps more importantly, it could well relieve the women involved of much of their embarrassment over the thing. You can only be embarrassed about something for so long, after all, and once its confronted, and the men are confronted, that will hopefully fade.

To be clear, I do not favor expulsion either. I jumped into this thread when some of the members here were suggesting that this is purely a free speech issue, which I thought was pretty ridiculous.

No, I don't believe it's a free speech issue. I don't think many do. I don't think any organization would or should allow people to say things about other members of that organization which would cause them distress. I understand why the university is involved. What I don't get is why so many outsiders are. This has been adopted as part of the gender wars, and another example of how cruel and misogynistic men are.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Argus

Argus · January 11, 2015

I get this kind of thing sometimes. You might be surprised (or you might not...) at how many guys think that a fresh and clever way to open up a conversation with me is with a dumb blonde joke. Why do they do that? Is it because they think it's a hilarious joke, or that I'll be tremendously amused? No. They do it because they want to show me they've got big balls, that they're not intimidated by me.

And what have women stated they like most about guys who come onto them, through years and years of polls, surveys and interviews?

Confidence.

Honesty just isn't present in such interactions, not from either side. Since we're talking comedians, perhaps Chris Rock said it best, that when you meet or date someone for the first time you're not seeing them, you're seeing their representative.

Some of those representatives are idiots, of course. Some of them are a lot more cocky than the person they represent (often with liquid reinforcement), and all of them are trying very, very hard to hide their flaws.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Argus

Argus · January 11, 2015

Evolution is an amazing thing.

Nobody has to accept that as normal, and fewer and fewer such undesirables get a chance to procreate these days.

.

That's nonsensical. For every wife beater there's a woman who married that guy. The prisons are filled with violent scumbags who have devoted wives and girlfriends waiting on the outside. There is no correlation between whether a guy is more 'sensitive' and kind and gentle to who gets the girl. In fact, the saying is, and with some truth to it, 'nice guys finish last'.

Women don't want a nice guy. Well, they do, but mainly they want a hot, sexy guy. They don't have fantasies about meeting a nice, sweet accountant or computer programmer, they have fantasies about a muscular guy who needs a shave and rides a Harley and gets into bar fights, or a billionaire who likes to tie women up and whip them. To women, the perfect guy has to have that rough edge (of course, with a heart of gold buried somewhere deep inside which only they can see).

Edited January 11, 2015 by Argus

jacee · January 11, 2015

kimmy, on 10 Jan 2015 - 11:28 PM, said:

I get this kind of thing sometimes. You might be surprised (or you might not...) at how many guys think that a fresh and clever way to open up a conversation with me is with a dumb blonde joke. Why do they do that? Is it because they think it's a hilarious joke, or that I'll be tremendously amused? No. They do it because they want to show me they've got big balls, that they're not intimidated by me.

And what have women stated they like most about guys who come onto them, through years and years of polls, surveys and interviews?
Confidence.

Yes ... and putting someone down shows a pathetic lack of confidence.

Like I said ... evolution works.

Women aren't attracted.

.

jacee · January 11, 2015

That's nonsensical. For every wife beater there's a woman who married that guy. The prisons are filled with violent scumbags who have devoted wives and girlfriends waiting on the outside. There is no correlation between whether a guy is more 'sensitive' and kind and gentle to who gets the girl. In fact, the saying is, and with some truth to it, 'nice guys finish last'.

Women don't want a nice guy. Well, they do, but mainly they want a hot, sexy guy. They don't have fantasies about meeting a nice, sweet accountant or computer programmer, they have fantasies about a muscular guy who needs a shave and rides a Harley and gets into bar fights, or a billionaire who likes to tie women up and whip them. To women, the perfect guy has to have that rough edge (of course, with a heart of gold buried somewhere deep inside).

Argus ... the expert on 'what women want' ... ?

:lol: