She was incensed to find out after the event, so to speak, that the man had a child with another woman and a track record of amorous entanglements as long as your arm and already in the public domain. It’s odd in these days, where almost every aspect of human activity necessitates a risk assessment, that a woman can almost simultaneously feel exonerated from assuming any responsibility for her own person and aggrieved at the inevitable consequences.
Perhaps the young woman who aspires to be Miss Belgium is chiefly interested in world peace and is looking forward to working with children so thinking things through may not be her particular strength. Perhaps as a gentle and slightly gullible soul, she might be just as prone to falling into bed with a footballer as to cuddling kittens.
However, the brightest young women should be able to be rather more self-aware and yet the dispensations of modern radical feminism mean instead that they also engage willingly in more or less spontaneous and ill thought-out acts of congress, with the difference that they aggressively lay off responsibility for their subsequent feelings of remorse and guilt on the luckless fellows with whom they coupled.
And so it is that The Sunday Times reveals that Oxford has been struck by an “epidemic of sex harassment”.
Their story begins with a student who has filed a complaint with the university authorities against a male professor. She is in her twenties and slept with the man several times before coming to the conclusion that he was a serial sexual predator. The kindest gloss one can put on this is that the student fundamentally misunderstood the concept of one-on-one tutoring.
But rather than crawl away embarrassed by her own bad behaviour and poor decisions, she consulted a lawyer who specialises in this kind of business, an American woman as one has come to expect. The lawyer is quoted as saying that a number of academics at Oxford are “doing this” and they are all about 50 and not particularly attractive while her latest client is young and attractive – which is a massive and flagrant irrelevance.
The article also mentions another student who earlier this year accused the university of failing to investigate her rape claim. Rape is a crime which should be investigated by the police and by no other agency. The new ‘crime’ of regret rape is not yet a matter for the police and should be referred back by the university to the quondam consenting parties themselves because it’s really no business of the university at all.
The first prize for stupidity however belongs not to these Oxford women with their overweening sense of entitlement or the progressive American lawyer egging them on – although both deserve an honourable mention. The top award must go to the university itself which has let itself be bullied into declaring that it is committed to “a campus free of all forms of sexual harassment” and has “policies in place which support its commitment”.
Leaving aside that the university authorities in Wellington Square should have noticed that the university has no campus, there will always be sexual harassment of some kind at Oxford, as indeed anywhere else on earth, and the hope must be that the student intake should be sufficiently mature and intellectually robust to cope with the world as it is.
But the pinnacle of stupidity is the belief that there is anything that the university can do to satisfy radical feminists who will always be ready to come back for more concessions and additional demands for special treatment.
Consider the news that the Federal Drug Administration has approved a drug called Addyi.
This treatment is aimed at increasing the libido of pre-menopausal women and has twice before been rejected by the FDA because of its undesirable side-effects. These include dizziness, drowsiness, nausea, falling blood pressure and fainting and the side effects are aggravated if the subject uses alcohol or hormonal contraceptives.
Unlike Viagra, which is meant to be swallowed an hour or so before it’s needed, Addyi needs to be taken for a month before having any effect at all so the FDA’s position seems pretty sound. Why the change of heart? The answer is that a sustained lobbying campaign accused the FDA of sexism because men can have Viagra and women must have equality.
Equality is all well and good but where are the men to welcome the prospect of intimacy with a woman who, though sober, is unsteady on her feet, who feels like throwing up, who could pass out at any moment but – and here’s the good bit - who is very, very definitely up for it? And given that she can’t be on the Pill and might have lost consciousness in her frenzy of carnality, the possibility, when she does come round and has time for reflection, for a paternity claim or prosecution because consent was not explicitly given at the critical moment will add an extra frisson of excitement.
Queue up, chaps.
The victims are those women who believe what their modern radical sisters prescribe for them. Experts ranging from anthropologists to zoologists will explain the differences between male and female according to their particular insights but until today’s woman has been retrofitted to walk away from casual sexual encounters as readily as a man, she’d be far better advised not to try.
Source
Perhaps the young woman who aspires to be Miss Belgium is chiefly interested in world peace and is looking forward to working with children so thinking things through may not be her particular strength. Perhaps as a gentle and slightly gullible soul, she might be just as prone to falling into bed with a footballer as to cuddling kittens.However, the brightest young women should be able to be rather more self-aware and yet the dispensations of modern radical feminism mean instead that they also engage willingly in more or less spontaneous and ill thought-out acts of congress, with the difference that they aggressively lay off responsibility for their subsequent feelings of remorse and guilt on the luckless fellows with whom they coupled.
And so it is that The Sunday Times reveals that Oxford has been struck by an “epidemic of sex harassment”.
Their story begins with a student who has filed a complaint with the university authorities against a male professor. She is in her twenties and slept with the man several times before coming to the conclusion that he was a serial sexual predator. The kindest gloss one can put on this is that the student fundamentally misunderstood the concept of one-on-one tutoring.
But rather than crawl away embarrassed by her own bad behaviour and poor decisions, she consulted a lawyer who specialises in this kind of business, an American woman as one has come to expect. The lawyer is quoted as saying that a number of academics at Oxford are “doing this” and they are all about 50 and not particularly attractive while her latest client is young and attractive – which is a massive and flagrant irrelevance.
The article also mentions another student who earlier this year accused the university of failing to investigate her rape claim. Rape is a crime which should be investigated by the police and by no other agency. The new ‘crime’ of regret rape is not yet a matter for the police and should be referred back by the university to the quondam consenting parties themselves because it’s really no business of the university at all.
The first prize for stupidity however belongs not to these Oxford women with their overweening sense of entitlement or the progressive American lawyer egging them on – although both deserve an honourable mention. The top award must go to the university itself which has let itself be bullied into declaring that it is committed to “a campus free of all forms of sexual harassment” and has “policies in place which support its commitment”.
Leaving aside that the university authorities in Wellington Square should have noticed that the university has no campus, there will always be sexual harassment of some kind at Oxford, as indeed anywhere else on earth, and the hope must be that the student intake should be sufficiently mature and intellectually robust to cope with the world as it is.
But the pinnacle of stupidity is the belief that there is anything that the university can do to satisfy radical feminists who will always be ready to come back for more concessions and additional demands for special treatment.
Consider the news that the Federal Drug Administration has approved a drug called Addyi.
This treatment is aimed at increasing the libido of pre-menopausal women and has twice before been rejected by the FDA because of its undesirable side-effects. These include dizziness, drowsiness, nausea, falling blood pressure and fainting and the side effects are aggravated if the subject uses alcohol or hormonal contraceptives.
Unlike Viagra, which is meant to be swallowed an hour or so before it’s needed, Addyi needs to be taken for a month before having any effect at all so the FDA’s position seems pretty sound. Why the change of heart? The answer is that a sustained lobbying campaign accused the FDA of sexism because men can have Viagra and women must have equality.
Equality is all well and good but where are the men to welcome the prospect of intimacy with a woman who, though sober, is unsteady on her feet, who feels like throwing up, who could pass out at any moment but – and here’s the good bit - who is very, very definitely up for it? And given that she can’t be on the Pill and might have lost consciousness in her frenzy of carnality, the possibility, when she does come round and has time for reflection, for a paternity claim or prosecution because consent was not explicitly given at the critical moment will add an extra frisson of excitement.
Queue up, chaps.
The victims are those women who believe what their modern radical sisters prescribe for them. Experts ranging from anthropologists to zoologists will explain the differences between male and female according to their particular insights but until today’s woman has been retrofitted to walk away from casual sexual encounters as readily as a man, she’d be far better advised not to try.
Source
No comments:
Post a Comment