|
| The war against boys | | Date Created: Jun 12, 2005, 04:26 PM |
From a friend who is a lawyer in a very liberal state:
"Herewith today's "the world has passed me by" moment. There has been an on-going sex scandal at prestigious Milton Academy outside of Boston. To make a long story short, a 15-year old girl at the school started handing out blow jobs to the boys like a personal injury lawyer hands out business cards. Not surprisingly, the word got around and she started doing small groups of boys, 5-6 at a time. She and half the hockey team got caught in the locker room. Some of the boys were 17-18.
Now here's the "I don't get it" part: She got put on "administrative leave." The boys got expelled (thereby putting a damper on their college plans). Today I pick up my Boston Globe and read that the DA has decided to bring criminal charges against the boys, and the ones that are over 17 will be charged as adults for statutory rape. This raises several questions for me:
A. Where were the girls like this when I was in high school?
B. I thought that a former President of the U.S. established for all time that oral sex is not sex.
C. Back in the stone age when we were kids, a little slut like this girl would have been forced to leave town in shame. Now she's deemed (by the school and the DA) as a "victim."
D. I know that "boys will be boys" doesn't cut it anymore, but think back to when you were in the hormonal storm of teenage years. You are sitting around your dorm room bored to death and thinking about nothing but sex. A hot girl knocks on your door and says "How 'bout a blow job-- meet me down at the hockey locker room after dinner?" How many red-blooded American boys are going to resist that invitation ("Sorry, can't make it-- gotta review my Trig homework"). And now society wants to label them as "rapists" and put them in jail?
Sorry, I just don't get it. This is not a construct of reality that I can relate to. "
and later:
"A short while ago I wrote to you guys about the Milton Academy SEX SCANDAL (there-- got your attention, didn't I?). You may remember-- the 15-year old girl (smart enough to be admitted to one of the best prep schools in the country) who was giving groups of boys blow jobs in the dorms and in the locker room? Well, here's the latest from the front page of the Boston Globe.
The boys (previously expelled) have now been indicted by the local DA and charged as adults with statutory rape. They are facing a possible maximum sentence of LIFE. The boys have had their names and pictures published in the Globe.
The girl has been admitted back to school after her "administrative leave" and is, according to school sources, "fitting in well" (you betcha!). She, of course, has not been charged with anything. The Globe will not publish her name and picture, citing its policy of not disclosing the names of victims of sexual abuse.
You cannot make this stuff up."
Herewith my response:
Since I'm developing the tenets of Victimology for a book or course on the subject, I thought I'd throw some thoughts in.
One is that in general, victimology is all about liberal dogma and political correctness, which, as someone pointed out, is your state in spades. On campus or among intellectuals, this is expressed as postmodernism, deconstructionism, or moral relativism. The idea is that there are no moral absolutes and that all cultures are equally valid and all behaviors and lifestyles are legitimate. If they appear to be primitive or counterproductive cultures or if the behaviors are viewed to be bad or harmful in some sense, then it's because of oppression, racism, sexism, capitalism, or some other white male patriarchy or US American cause. Everything is relative unless the person claiming relativism doesn't like it. Then it's oppression. If you doubt this, then figure out how "hate crime" squares with postmodernism.
It turns out like Nat Hentoff's famous phrase, "Free speech for me but not for thee," that relativism isn't about equality and diversity of thought or deed, it's about perceived victims and a hierarchy of political power. As we've seen, it's okay to abuse and eventually kill your ex-wife if you're black and she's white. In this case, the only thing that could have trumped "believe the children" and "sexual oppression" of females is if the boys were black and the girl was white. Then the behavior would have been excusable for the boys as it was for a liberal President. Of course it helps if you're a celebrity and/or you have a lot of money. (I've already gone on record that Michael Jackson will be acquitted. If the plaintiff were a black girl he'd have a harder time).
The other aspect of victimology that follows liberal dogma and which plaintiff attorneys have bought into, is that for every perceived bad thing that happens, there is someone who is at fault and is therefore liable. The person liable has to have money and/or political power. If they don't, then they're not liable. The victim can't be liable because of their own choices because there's no money or power transfer in that. The drunk that rear ends the car with the family in it and causes the gas tank to burn and injure the people in the car doesn't have any money, so the person liable must be the car company. MacDonalds is not only liable for the hot coffee you spill on yourself but for your obesity. The poor person firing a gun at someone isn't liable, the manufacturer of the gun is.
In this case, the girl can't be liable for the behavior, she's the victim. It must be the boys (not for money here but for power reasons). Sexual harassment and even rape cases usually work the same way. We know how divorce and custody cases usually go using this logic. The mother can never be blamed -- she's always the victim. The liability must rest with the father. We certainly don't want any moral absolutes -- those are for radical conservative Christians Republicans. |
|
|
|
|
|
