The advantage of leaving Sulkowicz (Mattress Girl) off the lawsuit.

The Other McCain explains the advantage of Nungesser not including Sulkowicz in his suit against Columbia in Emma Sulkowicz Is a Vindictive, Dishonest and Crazy Slut — Allegedly

Now, if we ponder every possible avenue by which Paul Nungesser could (a) vindicate his reputation, (b) possibly collect a large cash settlement, and (c) deliver a brutal payback to Sulkowicz for her effort to destroy him, I doubt he could have done better than what he has done: Instead of suing Sulkowicz, he sues Columbia. Why?

  1. Columbia’s endowment is reported at $9.2 billion — that’s billion with a “b” — which means they may (and probably should) decide that quietly paying Nungesser a couple of million bucks is a small price to pay for ridding themselves of this bad publicity.
  2. Suing Columbia calls attention to how the university violated its own policy by permitting Sulkowicz to breach the confidentially requirements of the university’s sexual misconduct hearing process and, indeed, by endorsing this breach through Professor Kessler’s role in Sulkowicz’s “performance art” project.
  3. Most of all, by not naming Sulkowicz as a defendant, this means that Sulkowicz does not have cause to respond to the allegations he makes against her in the Columbia lawsuit, and guess what? You can’t be sued for defamation because of allegations made in a lawsuit.

I claim no legal insight here, but this sounds like a very clever strategy.  See McCain’s full post for more.

Posted in Mattress Girl, Rape Culture, Robert Stacy McCain, Ugly Feminists | 32 Comments

Be quiet, lie back, and take it.

As reported by Ashe Schow at the Washington Examiner in Columbia student defamed by mattress girl is suing, survivor Paul Nungesser alleges that he was forced to remain silent during his long, humiliating, ordeal.  After a seven month university disciplinary process cleared Nungesser of the claims Sulkowicz (mattress girl) made against him, and after Sulkowicz’s appeal was denied, Nungesser claims he had no choice but to shut up, lie back, and take it while Sulkowicz and the university had their vile way with him:

Just days after Sulkowicz’s appeal was denied, she began getting advice from a publicist and Nungesser began being followed by the media, the lawsuit alleges. The accusers shared Nungesser’s name to the New York Post, despite a confidentiality agreement with Columbia. Sulkowicz also gave Nungesser’s name to a Columbia student reporter.

Nungesser had been abiding by the confidentiality agreement, and says in his lawsuit that Columbia University advised him to ignore the media. Nungesser says the school never took action against his accusers for breaching the confidentiality policy.

At the core of this alleged brutality is an astounding inability the university president and Sulkowicz to feel empathy for Nungesser as a fellow human being:

Columbia president Lee Bollinger is included in the lawsuit for publicly supporting Sulkowicz’s harassment campaign against Nungesser.

“This is a person who is one of my students, and I care about all of my students,” Bollinger told New York Magazine. “And when one of them feels that she has been a victim of mistreatment, I am affected by that. This is all very painful.”

Of course, no such care was taken for Nungesser.

Threats to Nungesser have appeared online and on Sulkowicz’s Facebook account, including one message suggesting Nungesser commit suicide. (Sulkowicz “liked” that comment.)

Hat Tip Instapundit.

Edit:  Courtesy of Jezebel.  According to Nungesser’s lawsuit, Sulkowicz’s ugly attack on Nungesser occured after her desires for him were unrequited:

As is evident from Emma’s Facebook messages to Paul during the summer prior to their sophomore year, Emma’s yearning for Paul had become very intense. Emma repeatedly messaged Paul throughout that summerthat she loved and missed him. She was quick to inquire whether he was in love with the woman he was seeing abroad.

Thereafter, she continued purusing him, reiterating that she loved him. However, when Paul did not reciporcate these intense feelings, and instead showed interest in dating other women, Emma became viciously angry.

See also:  Guilty until proven innocent, and nothing proves you innocent.

Posted in Instapundit, Mattress Girl, Rape Culture, Social Justice Warriors, Solipsism, Ugly Feminists | 91 Comments

A giant misunderstanding.

Screen-Shot-2015-04-23-at-1.49.30-PM

In an effort to improve communication between Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit and Lisa Madigan, I offer the following suggested correction.  What Madigan no doubt meant was (corrections in bold):

If someone without a penis tells you they’ve been a victim of sexual assault by someone with a penis, I want you to believe them.

You’re welcome.

Posted in Feminists, Foolishness, Instapundit, Rape Culture, Satire | 67 Comments

They can’t experience manly pride, so neither can men…

When I first saw the story making the rounds about ROTC cadets being forced to march in women’s shoes I thought it was a hoax.  But I see that the Washington Times has picked up the story and has a photo from a similar march at a different university showing ROTC men marching in uniform wearing red high heels.  The caption under the picture reads:

ROTC cadets participate in a “Walk a Mile in Her Shoes” event held at Temple University on April 1, 2015.

While the date of the Temple photo is (suspiciously) April first, the date of the Times article is April 21st.  The Temple march also shows up on April first on the event calendar for the organization, so the photo appears to be legitimate (although perhaps somewhat misleading).  As the Times mentions this isn’t a new event for the Army, and I was able to find a photo on army.mil of U.S. men in uniform marching in high heels in Germany back in 2011:

“We are here to raise awareness,” said Capt. Lonnie Colbert, company commander for Delta Company, 1st Battalion, 2nd Infantry Regiment, 172nd Infantry Brigade. “Raising awareness ensures our Soldiers are educated on the subject to better take care of our families and always be ready to deploy and take care of each other. We want our spouses to thrive while they are back home waiting for their Soldiers.”

It still hasn’t been confirmed that the recent ROTC event was really mandatory, so I would take the claim with a grain of salt until proven.  According to this article a spokesman from US Army Cadet Command (commanded by Major General Peggy C. Combs) confirmed that the ROTC detachments were directed to participate in the event, but marching in women’s shoes was not mandatory:

I contacted the US Army Cadet Command and asked them about this. I received a response from the command public affairs officer, Mister Mike Johnson. According to Mr. Johnson, ROTC detachments were directed to participate in university activities that focus on reducing sexual assault. No instructions were given on how they were to participate. Participation by cadets was not mandatory and no directive was given to penalize absent cadets. According to Mr. Johnson, only 15 or so cadets at Temple participated as the walk was held during class hours. The Army did not require the purchase of high heels and is looking into that question.

Either way, the ugly feminist compulsion to extinguish manly pride is on full display.

Edit:  Welcome Instapundit readers.

See Also:

Posted in Envy, Feminist Territory Marking, Military, Ugly Feminists, You can't make this stuff up | 246 Comments

Rabble rousers

The Daily Mail has a new article by Peter Lloyd plugging his  book Stand by Your Manhood, and also referencing Dr. Helen’s Men on Strike.

Why men refuse to marry: Women complain chaps today won’t settle down. Sorry, ladies, but it’s all your fault, argues a wickedly provocative new book…

Lloyd goes through the string of problems with our modern family courts, an institution which exists in order to break apart families.  He identifies the root of the issue as a fear of ever holding single mothers accountable:

…everyone is petrified of inadvertently apportioning blame to single mothers, even though it’s not about them. Only recently, in a bid to woo the female vote, David Cameron said deadbeat dads ‘should be looked at like drink drivers’, yet said nothing about the mothers who deliberately steer them off the road.

As I’ve written previously, I don’t believe we are seeing a marriage strike;  I believe we are seeing something more ominous.  Still, the problems with the insane family courts and our social contempt for husbands and fathers are all too real, and it is clear that marriage delaying women are starting to become concerned.  This is a real problem for proponents of the status quo, because as women become more concerned the problems which have been swept under the rug for decades will now be discussed in the open.

The whole system is built on denial, with feminists and traditional conservatives standing in agreement that the only problem is weak men screwing feminism up.  But the more that this is discussed in the media, the greater the likelihood that we could start to see men striking, at least on the margins.  For this reason even attempts to improve the system are likely to make it harder for women to find husbands, at least initially.

All of the momentum which to date has propped up the system is pent up and will one day swing the other way.  When our society started changing the meaning of marriage nearly all women married in their late teens and very early twenties.  Now large numbers of women are delaying marriage to their late twenties and early thirties and more and more women are finding it impossible to jump into marriage at the last minute.  The problem for marriage delaying women is that they now approach marriage not in the power position in the SMP, but at an age when men are in the power position.  A panic at this stage would fundamentally shift the dynamics of the marriage marketplace.

Posted in Denial, Dr. Helen, Feminists, Finding a Spouse, Marriage, Marriage Strike, Traditional Conservatives, Weak men screwing feminism up | 328 Comments