Belinda Brown: Vengeful harridans can kick an innocent boy out of university

There is a new feminist assault on academia. They have won the battle of the numbers. Now wholesale behaviour change is their chosen prize.

Universities UK (UUK) have produced a report: Changing the Culture. This will examine violence against women, harassment and hate crime. Cambridge University will be one of the first to carry their beacon. Or perhaps it will be the canary in the mine.

The fact that the vast majority of students are extremely satisfied with the environment on the campus and around the university (but a lot less happy with the Student Union it should be noted) does not, according to this UUK Taskforce, indicate an absence of sexual harassment:

“Despite this positive feedback…separate evidence shows [it is] prevalent within wider society. Universities are a microcosm of society and are therefore affected by the same problems”.

Even the low number of reports on sexual harassment should not be taken to mean that a serious problem isn’t there:

“…a low number of disclosures it not necessarily proof that students are not experiencing such incidents”

Rather they just don’t know they are suffering from harassment. Their attitudes aren’t quite right…

“…in order to be agents of change in a culture that can be accepting of sexism or other negative behaviours, students and others need to believe that this culture is inappropriate. This often requires attitude change which is a gradual process…”.

The Student Union can help to change this by showing them they are suffering from harassment. This is established  through their sexual violence questionnaire, which simply has a very low bar. For example harassment includes:

 “making comments with a sexual overtone that made you feel uncomfortable”

“making noises with sexual overtones…”

“questions about your sexuality…”

The same report explains that  many women say that they are completely unaffected by less serious incidents. But the measures to be implemented will mean our young men will not be able to speak for fear of causing offence.

The aim of the UUK Taskforce is to dismantle “lad culture”. The fact that, as they acknowledge “there is no evidence to show that sexual harassment or homophobia is a direct result of ‘lad culture’”, does not bother them. When you have ideology, and above all funding, you don’t need figures and facts.

So while there  are altogether 281,000 fewer males at university * and this receives absolutely no funding,  if you want to tackle sexual misconduct, set up consent workshops or install a Sexual Assault Adviser, courtesy of the Higher Education Funding Council for England, there are very “generous” funds.

The commitments and actions that the UUK require from universities are significant. A zero-tolerance approach to sexual harassment reminiscent of that used by Mayor Guiliani. And a Bystander Intervention Initiative, which would be the envy of Chairman Mao.

There is no softly softly about this behaviour change programme. The same individuals who produced “Changing the Culture” worked with a law firm to draft guidance for how to deal with students that do not conform.

This ‘guidance’ enables universities to impose “precautionary measures” (such as suspending the accused student from his/her studies or excluding the accused student from sports facilities or a placement) simply on the basis of an allegation of misconduct. And serious sanctions if an allegation is proved. They give as an example:

“…the act of forcefully kissing another on the lips is likely to be regarded as a serious disciplinary offence, whereas the act of lightly kissing another on the back of a hand is likely to be regarded as a less serious disciplinary offence..”

However, the real purpose of the Guidance appears to be to give universities the power to impose sanctions where they should normally only be imposed by a court.

This was specifically prohibited in 1994 by Zellick’s Report  which stated that:

“At the other end of the spectrum are offences of such seriousness that substantive internal action prior to police investigation is out of the question”

And it is this which the Guidance wants to overturn.

The Guidance makes it possible for universities to take action, and impose sanctions on the most serious allegations as long as they don’t actually give them the same name as the criminal offence.

They explain that:

“It is unreasonable and dangerous for all involved to ask a university to make any findings about an alleged criminal offence. To do so would undoubtedly open universities up to legal challenge”

They even point out that:

“Institutions have neither the standing nor the expertise to make such findings about criminal offences.”

But it is drafted by a firm of lawyers and they know how to cover your back. So they:

“…strongly recommend that any such cases are dealt with as a potential breach of discipline and not as a criminal offence, and as such, no criminal offences should be referred to when seeking to define unacceptable behaviour in the Code.”

And by way of example they explain that:

“The facts and matters leading to an allegation of rape should be dealt with as potential sexual misconduct…”

As they recognise that institutions don’t have the expertise to make findings about criminal offences, they are called “breaches of discipline”, and the facts and matters are decided on a

“…balance of probabilities i.e. more likely than not/ 51 per cent or more”.

A woman can get a man kicked out of university without ever seeing the inside of a court.

While universities cannot mete out custodial sentences (some feminist lawyer somewhere will be pondering that one) being expelled  from your university course, which you have undoubtedly worked very hard for, paid a lot of money for and built your future hopes around, can still feel extremely hard.

Changing the Culture and the Guidance are not just hideous documents. They are loaded weapons in the hands of scorned or vengeful females. Any young man attending or about to go to university needs to know about these. And he had better watch out.

(Image: Guido van Nispen)

Belinda Brown

  • Russell

    There is a similar feminist programme in Australia with ‘cooked up’ surveys and a bogus ‘consent campaign’.

  • Colkitto03

    Its depressing to think that this may be starting in the UK.
    Multiple American universities are presently going though a significant amount of legal actions because of their version of this. It is looking very likely that they will be paying out tens of millions to young men.
    Things will only change when enough men successfully sue.
    Or when enough men stop going at all.

    • Bonce

      The rates of men going to Universities in the USA that have been implementing these feminist witch hunts against men, are signficantly down. There is one University on the verge of financial collapse because of recent cases of men being falsely accused of rape by women.
      The British universities that attempt to implement the same insane feminist witch hunts against men will also find that financial reality is not subjective, even though they claim everything else is subjective….
      Of course if you look up the Frankfurt school cultural marxist objectives, destroying the relationship between men and women is on the list….!!!

  • Mike Hunt

    Seems they are trying to solve a non problem and as usual men are the target. God knows how they would deal with office life in the 80s and 90s , the number of times I got snogged in the office by women unexpectedly! I didn’t encourage it and I always keep my hands to myself. That’s the thing it happens both ways— you see a steady stream of cases now of women who have had sex with lads under the age of 16 and paid the legal price. This is a clunky solution and doesn’t teach young people to deal with life and will no doubt increase their sense of victimhood

  • Groan

    I applaud you for bringing this out. The cultural Marxists have long known that the boredom induced by tedious reports and “guidance” means that all sorts of stuff that would make any sensible person gasp can be slid into place as few will take the time to read or ponder. Given it is supposedly a university document it has one glaring error on stating there is no specific offence of Domestic Violence or Domestic Abuse. There is in fact in the Serious Crime Act 2015. Indeed last year Police forces were monitored on the use of this act. In a similar bit of slipping things through the offence is part of an Act mainly concerned with the proceeds of drugs and other crimes. However it does exist and prosecutions have happened. You’d think academics would know.

  • EUman remains

    Sex crime, straight out of 1984. Well done, Belinda, for exposing this tyranny.

  • Partridge

    Do our politicians know about this? Do they care?

    • Dr O

      They did this. There must be money or votes behind it. I suspect it used to be the latter, now it must be the former as well.

    • Groan

      They will laud the virtue signalling “lad culture” is now a dragon to be slain (and one a number of contributors to TCW have shown they’ve bought into too). And will of course not do any reading of what is actually going on.

    • gunnerbear

      Yes and No.

  • Who are “Universities UK (UUK)”? Are they an official body or something set up by feminist students to make a name for themselves. Are they real? Who funds the organisation?

  • JabbaPapa

    “Despite this positive feedback…separate evidence shows [it is] prevalent within wider society. Universities are a microcosm of society and are therefore affected by the same problems”.

    The failure in logic here is stunning.

  • Vincent McGovern

    Nothing new, just a steady increase in toxic gender politics demonising and denigrating all men and boys. Until there is either the means or the will to remove such funding which fuels unlimited miss dry, nothing will improve. But it is changing for the worse, all the time.

  • RobertRetyred

    We could go back to having separate colleges, or even universities, for men, women and ‘others’.

    Or is this a problem for the Humanities and Social ‘Sciences’?

    • Colkitto03

      I think this is a good idea.

      • Mike Hunt

        And then women can complain that they are not allowed into a male dominated environment and not given equal opportunity— it goes around and around

    • Coniston

      That will come with islamification.

  • David

    I graduated from Bristol University in 1972, and as a Grammar School lad with a working class origin I was grateful for the excellent education that was afforded to me. Therefore when I achieved a fair measure of prosperity by my mid-50s I decided to make monthly contributions to assist poor students there. This happy state continued for decade when I became very concerned with the consistently and noticeably left leaning tone, nature and conclusions of many of the articles within the publications they sent me, including within my own Geography and Geology degree subject area.
    Having slightly more spare time than earlier in my life I investigated further and found just how advanced the attack against free speech had become at Bristol. Being horrified I wrote putting my concerns to allow them to offer an explanation.
    But nothing convincing was offered and I promptly stopped my monthly contributions and amended my will. Now they will get nothing from what will be my substantial estate. Whilst my gratitude towards the people who offered me opportunities remains, I refuse to support a politically driven narrowing of thought and debate in a publicly funded institution that purports to believe in the advancement of knowledge.

    • Sargv

      > Whilst my gratitude towards the people who offered me opportunities remains

      Are those people still working for the same school? Chances are, they are not. People changed, and so did the institution.

    • Andy

      You only have to look at the way Sir Roger Scruton was treated for years to see how things have become and are.

  • Sargv

    Feminism is just inverted Sharia. Both try to control the sexuality and behaviour of sexes in the smallest detail. It’s just Sharia is obsessed with women, while feminism is with men.

    That is why they make such a good allies.

    • TJB

      I personally think we’ll end up with a copy of Title IX as they have on US campuses, where the male students are put through a kangaroo court with no real right of reply or defence and condemned on the word of their accuser alone. Evidence be damned.

  • Eric Lauder

    Young men in university simply need to avoid unprofessional contact with fellow female students.
    Optional for more safety, taking the membership of an LGBT association, preferably a male-only one, like an association for gay and bisexual men: in the unlikely (unlikely since he already avoid unprofessional contacts with female students) case of a false accusation the male student can simply answer “are you joking? I’m gay!”.
    This line of action must be learn because it’ll be practically mandatory within most jobs, especially if the man works in a female-dominated field.
    For dating/romance there are dating apps, night clubs, and so on. Universities and workplaces aren’t for dating/romance.

    • Sargv

      The associations will be eventually forced to become inclusive. And men will be witch-hunted to death even if they will outright segregate themselves away from women.

      The problem is a vengeful minority of women that is up to make men, any man, suffer. And you’re just buying into their narrative with “Universities and workplaces aren’t for dating/romance.”, implying that it is the romance that is a problem and not crazy Savonarolas.

      The only way that men in West react is running for their lives. Do you think it’s a viable strategy?

      • Eric Lauder

        Women-only associations will never be forced to become inclusive of men.
        Period.
        That’s why gay-only associations will continue to exist: since women-only associations cannot be forced to become inclusive of men, then gay clubs cannot be directly attacked.
        Naturally they’ll welcome bisexual men and, practically, even heterosexual men.

        The sufference of all men is an impossible goal to reach for them, but the sufference of many (perhaps even most) men is not just only achievable but, sadly, even necessary: this thing is going to end just only when a very relevant portion of men will suffer, and then they’ll backfire – just only an huge number of enraged men can end this thing, and not with polite requests: men aren’t taken seriously when they politely claim to suffer and such approach already proved to not work against the current narrative…
        Until this harsh reaction will happen, the only viable strategy is to be in a position limiting/avoiding personal damages, letting the various flavours (from feminist males to tradcon men) of dumb knights to sacrifice themselves.

        • Sargv

          > Women-only associations will never be forced to become inclusive of men. Period.

          Even women toilets are already inclusive of men – those who adopted the “trans-woman” identity. It’s a two-way street, and women are suffering too. All of us will be fed inclusivity by progs until we finally threw up.

          “Angry men” will not end up anything, as there will be no British “angry men” around in two generations. The main casualty of warfare between men and women (used as a live shield by feminists) is a family – and children. We’ll end up with a fatherless generation of boys. Half of them will be too feminine, never cutting the cord with their mothers; the other will be violent, angry and resentful; none of them will have any idea how to be a man. The link between sexes is weakening – but the connection between fathers and sons has almost broken already.

          The only source of angry men is outside of the West. Eventually, they’ll invite themselves in. Not that there would be anyone to stop them. Nature abhors vacuum.

          • Eric Lauder

            Transwomen aren’t men. You can claim that they aren’t totally women, and I’m not going to debate it, but you can’t claim that transwomen are men because they’re at least halfway and more likely closer to women.
            For the other part of your post: yes, there’s a chance that the western society will collapse in the process. Perhaps something like that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submission_(novel). Perhaps it’ll happen in Sweden, 15-20 years from now. Or perhaps Sweden will be “saved” by the Russians. Perhaps it’ll happen elsewhere: UK, Germany…
            No civilization lasts forever, perhaps the time of the collapse of our civilization is coming, perhaps we will be able to save our culture – who knows?
            What I know, for sure, is that western society can be saved just only by a collective awakening, including both most women and most men, and that asking to individual men to save the western society through their individual choices it’s reality-fled and not going to work.

          • Sargv

            > Transwomen aren’t men.

            But malicious men that fake-adopt the identity of trans-women to prey on women certainly are. That’s the fun part of identities that are not rooted in biology – you can wear them as a cloak.

          • Eric Lauder

            “Malicious men that fake-adopt the identity of trans-women to prey on women” is just misandry, radical feminist narrative. Such kind of things happen, but they’re extremely rare, just like pedophiles.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_seating_sex_discrimination_controversy
            “Four airlines, British Airways, Qantas, Air New Zealand and Virgin Australia, have attracted criticism for controversial seating policies which discriminate against adult male passengers on the basis of their sex. The companies refuse(d) to allow unaccompanied children to be seated next to adult males on their flights, leading to criticism that they regard all men as a danger to children.”
            Sure, most pedophiles are men (also because women who have sex with male teens are just “giving them a gift” according current mentality), but the overwhelmingly majority of men aren’t pedophiles. Same for the overwhelmingly majority of transwomen.

          • JabbaPapa

            “Malicious men that fake-adopt the identity of trans-women to prey on women” is just misandry, radical feminist narrative

            Can you please explain that again, in normal English that everyone can understand ?

            Cheers.

          • Eric Lauder

            This affirmation:
            “There are around many malicious men that fake-adopt the identity of trans-women to prey on women”
            This affirmation is just misandry, it’s just radical feminist narrative.
            Radical feminism exploits conservative good faith to further their narrative.
            Such thing of men dressing as women in order to prey on women in women’s bathrooms is even rarer than pedophilia, and by so not allowing transwomen in women’s bathroom is just like not allowing men to sit right next unaccompanied children in aircrafts.
            I’m a man, I’m masculine.
            When my daughter was younger I accompanied her within ladies’ bathroom.
            When there’s a queue in men’s bathroom, or men’s bathroom is out of
            order, or men’s bathroom is dirty, I’m going to use ladies’ bathroom.
            Within a ladies bathroom there are enclosed stalls, I behave as a gentleman and I expect ladies to not have problems about it. I also expect ladies to invite me to use the ladies’ bathroom if they see that there’s a problem within men’s bathroom.
            Transwomen are even less “dangerous” than me: they have much less muscles and their penis doesn’t work, most times, due massive intake of hormones. Stalls are enclosed.
            There’s a difference between being a lady and being a snowflake.
            By attacking fragile creatures like transwomen conservative women shows a lack of empathy and are just playing the game of radfems: radfems are mostly lesbians whose goal is getting into the pants of straight women, and what’s more hypocritical is that the same women usually have no problems when a manly man enter in women’s bathroom “because men’s bathroom is out-of-order”.

          • JabbaPapa

            Well, I disagree, but thanks anyway — that’s clearer at least

    • DespiteBrexit

      I understand where you are coming from, but that is just giving in.

      • Eric Lauder

        My experience is very complete: almost PUA-like (more romantic, no manipulation, though) in my 20s (school for teachers, 85% female students, then a faculty with 70% female enrollment – it was a lot of fun – I did even take a gender studies class, optional, mainly to try to have threesomes with girls), then married for more than 13 years, now being extremely lazy when it comes at having relationships (I already have 4 kids from 3 different women and I don’t want other kids, and I’m not the kind of man who take care of children of other men, so why I should bother about relationships?).
        I just understand that now things have changed and my suggestion is about adapting to the new environment: “survival of the fittest” is a misleading expression, because is, in fact, “survival of the most adaptable”. In my job I’m quite famous for my ability to adapt and my fast response to changes and unexpected things… pretending that it’s still 1997 (or even 1987) isn’t going to be a viable strategy…

    • gunnerbear

      It won’t be long before a young man is accused of rape and uses camera phone footage to prove that is not the case…..

  • Andrew Tettenborn

    One problem is that many universities have too many under-occupied administrators who have to produce nonsense like this, and too few academics.

  • Groan

    Actually TCW is a part of the problem here. Contributors have been all too ready to do the British “carry on” response to anything remotely to do with sex. Laura and others have slipped into the belief in “lad culture” and narrative about all young men being libidinous grunts now. Really demonstrating the ease with which one can conjure up the idea that males are inherently beasts.
    Male University Students cannot win. The socially conservative are all too ready to apply the “damsel in distress” test to such things just as much as the “snowflakes”. In doing so they do the work of the cultural Marxists for them.

  • AJ

    In the real world dealing with comments that have a sexual overtone that make you feel uncomfortable is an important life skill one which men will continue to learn but women at universities may not learn until after they leave. What is distrubing about this is that almost everyone recognises that universities are very safe places, that is why parents are happy for their children to attend. Nobody actually thinks they are hot beds of sexual assault but society as a whole and especially men are so cowed by the misandrist zealots that they can push this sort of bigotted nonsense almost without opposition.

    If universities in the UK go down this route it will be disappointing but I do not think they will be able to avoid legal challenges. If a man has spent a lot of money on tuition with the expectation of gaining a degree and he is then ejected without reasonable cause and process then he will be able to sue.

    • Belinda Brown

      I think there is also a whole set of issues around the way rape is understood and defined – in particular if a drunk young male has sex with a drunk young female he can be done for rape. And if he does get kicked out of a university he is hardly going to want to put himself through some court process to prove his innocence – particularly when according to legal definitions he might not be. Unfortunately just avoiding unprofessional contact with females as someone said below is probably the best advice.

      • It probably is. There is no likely solution to solving what drunk young men and drunk young women get up to. The best possible (if one calls it that) is to regulate where it happens, and even that is problematical. The only even sort of solution is raising kids with respect, for themselves, and for others. Anything else is at best boilerplate, but usually a scheme to make money and/or control other people.

        • Mike Hunt

          Youve only got to watch some of the police programmes to see the state some of the girls get into at night ! Absolutely drunk–I guess the feminist would blame men for that as well !?

          • Part of what I was going on, in fact. I tend to watch ours and the Brit and Aussie ones, from time to time. The young men and women do little credit to our societies, putting it very mildly. In fact, if my son (or daughter) came home in that state, well they better have a job cause they need a new home.

      • Sargv

        > Unfortunately just avoiding unprofessional contact with females as someone said below is probably the best advice.

        Alternatively one can just stay sober. It is possible to have an enjoyable conversation with an attractive person of an opposite sex without sharing a bottle of wine – or five – first. People of other nations manage to do that.

        Ironically, the most surefire way to jump through all the feminists’ hoops when interacting with women is to assume that women are children. Would it be appropriate to behave a certain way in front of a child? If not, then you’d better avoid doing it in front of a woman, or you can get in trouble.

        • Eric Lauder

          “Ironically, the most surefire way to jump through all the feminists’
          hoops when interacting with women is to assume that women are children.”
          Not exactly: it’s to assume that men should have an higher level of personal accountability and responsibility compared to women, during sexual interactions.
          You suppose that men and women have the same level of personal accountability and responsibility during sexual interactions…while this never happened through all human History…
          Every stage of reproduction before pregnancy is male-driven, always have been. It’s just only when a woman become pregnant that it becomes “mainly her responsibility”, until then it’s almost always up to the man.

          Feminism isn’t going to change those basic facts, nor they’re interested to change it, feminists are interested about dealing with those basic facts in a way that (at least apparently) give advantages to women.

          • Sargv

            > men have a higher level of personal accountability and responsibility compared to women, during sexual interactions.

            Men put more labour during the pea-cocking – maybe. But responsibility – which means facing the consequences – is on women. That is why they much more discriminating comparing to men when it comes to mates selection. They have more at stake. And that is why rape is universally accepted to be a hideous crime – an offender overrides female’s filtering mechanics, forcing the consequences of coitus on her.

            I’m not diminishing men – during the history of human kind, men did pretty much everything else besides giving birth (which was a main pastime of women during their whole lives that corresponded with their fertile periods).

            The problem with the current approach to handling inappropriate sexual behaviour is that we try to rely on legal framework instead of customs and models of behaviour (enforced by the mechanics of social shaming and protection of women by other men from their family/tribe: father, brothers, husband). All proprieties of sex interaction are extremely hard to describe in legal language, which leads to vague descriptions and bogus charges on one side; and a feeling of an evil act went unpunished due to not violating the exact letter of the law – on the other.

          • Eric Lauder

            “Vagues descriptions and bogus charges” = men should refuse to play the game while they’re to sexually interact with women in an environment that have such kind of rules = avoiding unprofessional contacts with fellow female students.
            That basically don’t even exclude a relationship that slowly develop through time, it just exclude sex as a careless funny activity in professional settings like universities and workplaces. Heterosexual interactions are a serious thing, they’re the responsibility of men, they’re full of other implications, and as so they should be treated.
            If young men wants to have sexual fun, then there are many alternatives, and the market is going to provide even more since feminists are creating a whole new demand. Conservatives shouldn’t be afraid of that: relationships aren’t going to disappear, it’s just meaningless careless sexual activity meant as pure fun that is going to be replaced by artificial means. This is EXACTLY what did happen in the past when – before marriage – our grandfathers went to the brothels: the future will probably be an upgraded version of the past, with young men having sex with artificial means before beginning a serious relationship.

          • Sargv

            While I agree with what you are saying, it is not what happens in practice. We punish young people for reckless sexual behaviour – yet at the same time, we enable this behaviour through extreme sexualisation of our culture and daily lives. Furthermore, when it comes to punishment we are VERY inconsistent, as it mostly depends on a personal reaction, not on specific actions: what will be just fine with one person, will cause problems with the other.

            Reckless sex is everywhere – but you risk jail time by following the suit, and it will be mostly random, as there are no obvious borders applicable to all cases, so it’s up to perception and interpretation (all too often – back-interpretation) of the other person.

            Given that sex is a huge dopamine trigger and a strong natural desire, we’re creating people who are either extremely high in neuroticism, or extremely poor in impulse control.

          • Eric Lauder

            “We punish young people for reckless sexual behaviour – yet at the same time, we enable this behaviour through extreme sexualisation of our culture and daily lives. Furthermore, when it comes to punishment we are VERY inconsistent, as it mostly depends on a personal reaction, not on specific actions: what will be just fine with one person, will cause problems with the other.
            Reckless sex is everywhere – but you risk jail time by following the suit, and it will be mostly random, as there are no obvious borders applicable to all cases, so it’s up to
            perception and interpretation (all too often – back-interpretation) of the other person.”

            Sexualisation help to sell, there’s no way to truly stop sexualisation in a free market economy since companies using sex to sell things are going to sell twice or even thrice compared to companies that don’t use sex to sell.

            Hence why I wrote about artificial sex and serious relationships for men: because the solution isn’t dreaming about stopping a thing that help companies to sell more things.
            Also, let’s face it: most young women aren’t biologically equipped to deal with the hypersexuality of young men of similar age – from the report:
            “In a more recent EVAW poll, 85% of women aged 18–24 said they had experienced unwanted sexual attention”
            Even sexual “attention” is a problem when they aren’t in the mood…this, alone, truly shows a gap that is impossible to fill and we should really stop to pretend that it does not exist.
            Hence why the message to young men should be that young women aren’t for fun, that sex can happen but it must be at the right time and the right place (I’m not talking about waiting for years or marrying a virgin, but waiting for some weeks) and that if they need to release their impulses there are other, and more appropriate, outlets. It’s also a good lesson if they wish to marry, because as every man who is (or have been) married knows, the idea that while living with a woman you can have sex on demand (or even most times you want it) is pure utopia.

      • AJ

        I do not think there is a problem with how rape is defined except perhaps that in the UK only men can rape. The problem is the stereotypical assumptions about women as victims and men as aggressors coupled to a bizarre view of women as being child like, and lacking responsibility for their own actions. This view is common amongst feminists which leads to the reinterpretation of situations which are later regretted by women as being non-consensual. The odd thing is that to me it is the antithesis of feminism in disempowering and infantalising women but it does allwo victimhood to be claimed under almost any circumstances.
        Drunk sex is the classic example of this. Frequently the reason for getting drunk, paticularily amongst the young, is to lower inhibitions and have sex and despite the fact that it is usually mutual drunkeness women can and do claim to be vicitms and men are always the aggressor.

  • John P Hughes

    It is yet to be shown that any of this ‘guidance’ would stand up if used to try to expel or suspend a student enrolled at a British University. Any one who was at the receiving end who took the university to a civil court, to seek a writ requiring their re-admission, would be able to test its legality. The student might well get legal aid, and the NUS would be in difficulty if it refused to aid a student who was a member in providing legal advice. (A key service provided by ‘proper’ Trade Unions to their members is access to legal assistance.)

    Suspension on the basis of an allegation about something would in most cases surely be struck down by a court and a University would be therefore wary of even attempting it.

    • TJB

      See the two posts above about ‘kangaroo courts’. By the time the wronged male student has gone through the process he’s already been tarred and feathered, sexual assault accusations – with or without merit – both stick for a very very long time.

      • John P Hughes

        The extracts from text of the document quoted in this article attempt to use ‘breach of discipline’ as a ground for punishing a student as a way of getting round the fact that the ‘offence’ will not be a criminal one:
        “It is unreasonable and dangerous for all involved to ask a university to make any findings about an alleged criminal offence. To do so would undoubtedly open universities up to legal challenge…. Institutions have neither the standing nor the expertise to make such findings about criminal offences…..

        The writers of the Guidance
        “…strongly recommend that any such cases are dealt with as a potential breach of discipline and not as a criminal offence, and as such, no criminal offences should be referred to when seeking to define unacceptable behaviour in the Code.”

        One waits to see what happens when a student applies to a civil court for a writ overturning the expulsion or suspension on the grounds of, perhaps, lack of application of the rules of natural justice in the way he was treated. A good lawyer might obtain an injunction overturning expulsion or suspension of a student client within a few days pending a full hearing. At that point the University might decide to abandon its attempt at punishment.

        Lawyers are quick to spot a new market for their services and this looks like one in the making. The universities which try to introduce such penalties could find themselves under judicial review quite fast.

        • TJB

          My point is though that any student who has been kicked out of university, especially in today’s instant twitter reportage, for sexual offences will be tarred and feathered regardless of outcome. By the time a civil suit happens the innocent student will be smeared beyond redemption. “He was kicked out of university for sex offences dontcha know”

          We see all too often reporters posting bullsh!t slanderous posts which garner tens of thousands of likes and retweets…. the subsequent retractions and apologies garner tens or a few hundred. There is no recovery of reputation for those wronged.

          • Yep, we’ve seen it happen, the Duke Lacrosse Team, and many others. The story leads for days on page 1 above the fold, the retraction is on E35 in fine print.

          • TJB

            I’m not a great one for punishment beatings and firings of journalists but I do thing think that any corrections of stories should be in exactly the same place as the original. So if it was a page one headline the correction should also be a page one headline…. but it should start with WE APOLOGISE. WE LIED …

        • gunnerbear

          “Lawyers are quick to spot a new market for their services and this looks like one in the making. The universities which try to introduce such penalties could find themselves under judicial review quite fast.” Yup…there is nothing faster on the planet than a lawyer chasing a fee…..

    • Simon Platt

      Even if you’re right, the process would be the punishment.

    • martianonlooker

      “A key service provided by ‘proper’ Trade Unions “. Having spoken to quite a few union members who were also under that impression, I am of the belief that unions are interested only in their own income. White males are now fairly despised by feminized unions and legal help is, seemingly, withheld.

  • Rick Bradford

    It is remarkable that those with an agenda can be so blinded that lack of evidence is reinterpreted as evidence. The Bystander programme is really chilling. If successful it will set up a network of informants to enforce behaviours which a small number of zealots deem Correct. And the machinations to address serious allegations under the balance of evidence rule opens the door to reproduce the experience in the USA under Title 9 and the infamous Dear Colleague letter. There are now over 100 law suits against American universities for unfair dismissal of male students. This is the UK in a few years time.

    • TJB

      Didn’t see your post while I was writing mine but fully agree.

    • Lytton333

      More profits for the lawyers then. And who is behind this plan? Lawyers.

  • TJB

    Just wait until they get a UK equivalent of the USA’s pernicious and utterly evil Title IX. Then the regular courts will no longer be required. It’ll simply be a kangaroo court destroying young men’s lives on nothing more than a complaint, the evidence be damned.

    Don’t believe me, simply google Title IX and the wrongful treatment of male students.

    • Title IX made a fair amount of sense. It was designed to let women participate in interscholastic sports (mostly) on a level playing field. Things like using college football money to support women’s volleyball. Not a bad thing at all. In recent years though, it really has gotten stretched beyond recognizance.

      • TJB

        Always the problem with well intentioned but poorly drafted legislation. There are many laws that fit into the category of ‘meant well’ but turned out to be utterly awful in practice. Usually rushed through on a wave of emotion following some traumatic event or a populist wave.

        • Yep, unusual thing on this one; it was passed in the 60s and was fine until the last 6 or so years. Activist and activist judges found a loophole by distorting it and made a mess.

  • Tom B

    I do wonder if they have ever seen the behaviour of the girls on a night out in Oxford , they behave worse than the so called ‘ lads ‘ drunken hedonistic laddets .

    • Belinda Brown

      I do believe that there is some concession in the report on ‘Lad Culture’ that women engage in it as welll. In which case it almost starts transcending gender politics and is an elite group of women telling everybody else how to behave – I guess an extension of the colonial tradition.

      • Tom B

        Exactly all of us can behave like idiots but they are treating women as infants . BTW nice to meet you at the Red pill screening BHam

    • Vera

      But they tend not to be the political feminists I would think. Having far too much fun.

      • Tom B

        After a drunken night out and regretful sex they soon become feminists

        • JabbaPapa

          The very reason why feminists promote these self-destructive activities to women.

  • Flaketime

    1st wave feminism was allegedly the suffragettes, however thanks to revisionism the nastier side of it has been expunged.

    2nd wave feminism summed up as I am woman hear me roar, I am strong I am invincible

    3rd wave feminism summed up as I am woman hear me whine I am weak I am vulnerable

    Not really much of a positive progression is it?

  • Dominic Stockford

    And any man wanting to go to university had better not say on social media, even within a closed group of friends, that he thinks same sex marriage and/or abortion are wrong – if he does he’ll be summarily thrown out. The courts may get him back in, but in the meantime his degree course has been utterly wrecked.

    • Eric Lauder

      Wrong.
      There’s an huge difference between the two.
      Abortion is about killing the unborn, unless there are huge problems a woman having abortion is pure trash and also a moron unable to use contraception.
      Just scream “murder!” in the radfem face and she’s going to retreat:
      feminists are cowards and they put a lot of value about the image of
      women being angels – when you accuse them of murder they’re going to be VERY uncomfortable and to retreat.
      Same sex marriage is a thing between consenting adults: there’s no such thing as a manly man who have problems with such kind of things: why should he bother? When you oppose same sex marriage then feminists smell your weakness, and they attack you. Most times men who attack same-sex marriage are doing it just to show that they aren’t gay: I have yet to see a man who have self-confidence worried about two men (or two women) getting married – gossiping and complaining about others’
      sexual/private life is a woman’s thing.

      • JabbaPapa

        To oppose same sex “marriage” is neither to deny the existence of homosexual couples, nor to deny that in this ever more complicated legalised reality that we live in, some form of legal recognition of such couples was a necessity — as to your proposal that “there’s no such thing as a manly man who have problems with such kind of things“, it’s just straightforwardly preposterous.

        Politically, religiously, and morally, children deserve to be brought up in an environment where it is clear what the norms are, and what the exceptions may be, because such an environment will be healthier for them.

        Identity politics, gender theory, pro-gay sex education, anti-Christian propaganda, indoctrination, and religious intolerance, and all other sorts of bizarre “liberal” innovations and impositions do not constitute such a healthy environment.

        • Eric Lauder

          Lesbians are going to have children regardless they marry or not, and you know. Gays cannot have children regardless they marry or not, and you know.
          If you want to play a fair game, then oppose adoption by same-sex couple, for similar reasons why old heterosexual couples shouldn’t be allowed to adopt, and I’m onboard.

          • JabbaPapa

            Attacking everything in a random, unmotivated, way

            What, as you have just done, you mean ?

            Typical lefty tactic — when one’s indoctrination is opposed, rant about some irrelevant fantasy “oppressed” “people” instead !!

          • Eric Lauder

            My position is about harshly opposing abortion and moderately opposing adoption by same-sex couples.
            Still, you think that my position is “typical lefty tactic”: clearly, you have not even an hint about what is “left”/”lefty”, and that’s why I wrote “attacking everything in a random, unmotivated, way”.

          • JabbaPapa

            You wrote : “If you want to play a fair game, then oppose adoption by same-sex couples, for similar reasons why old heterosexual couples shouldn’t be allowed to adopt, and you have a good point” — which is a strawman.

            My point was about the public environment children grow up in, not the birds and the bees nor cabbages and storks.

            And let’s all pretend that calling me “weak and … a fool” has nothing to do with “attacking everything in a random, unmotivated, way”.

      • Stuart Beaker

        If abortion is murder of the unborn, then same-sex marriage is undoubtedly murder of the English language, and along with it, an assault on logic. In past days, it would have been a shoe-in for `one of those even-handed philosophical-linguistic debates the young are (or were) so fond of. Now, not even arguable, apparently. There are now so many house-gods and idols that must be propitiated, there is scarcely room for a poor, honest student to occupy their own room, it seems.

        • Eric Lauder

          The attack against same-sex marriage is a rear-guard battle, whose only
          purpose is to feel good. Who focuses on this thing knows very well that
          the real problem is the crisis of the traditional marriage and knows
          that he can not do anything against this real problem, so, to feel
          better, he attacks the same-sex marriage.
          The crisis of traditional marriage started well before the same-sex marriage was proposed, and none is trying to address the real problem. Even if same-sex marriage would be totally banned there would still be: hedonistic individualism (people less willing to make sacrifices to keep the family united), educational gender gap (less available husbands for women), unfair divorce laws (making men afraid to marry), economical unstability (families have an huge problem to survive with economical unstability).
          Go for it, keep focusing on trivial things, score your point, then when traditional families will keep sinking you could rant “I did my best, I opposed marriage for 5% population, why it didn’t work to keep together the other 95%?”.
          In fact, reforms tackling educational gender gap (promoting homeschooling and single-sex schools), tackling this problem http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relationships/fighting-ex-wife-every-person-shafted-britains-divorce-courts/ and reducing economical unstability (making harder for companies to outsource abroad, and also to fire people without a good reason) could do MIRACLES for the traditional families. But who cares? It’s too much work, probably, also too complicated, better to rant about same-sex marriage, it’s cheaper, easier.

          • JabbaPapa

            The attack against same-sex marriage is a rear-guard battle, whose only purpose is to feel good

            In fact, it is intrinsically bound up in the fight for the defense of religious freedom in the face of a so-called “secularist” political ideology keen on destroying it.

            And it is part of the effort to at least try and get some luke-warm Christians to understand that there are ethics and morals and ideals belonging to Christianity that cannot be reconciled with “liberal” “secularism” without losing that Christianity as such. This, yes, is a rear-guard action, but it’s for them, and it has little to do with any purpose to “feel good” about the ongoing disaster of de-christianisation rampant among “liberal” churchgoers who seem to care more about trendy PC political fads than they do about either Christ or their souls.

            The crisis of traditional marriage started

            … with the promotion of contraception and abortion by an unlikely coalition of population control ideologues, Marxists, eugenicists, fascists, racists seeking a means to curb the black population specifically, libertines, atheists, anti-Christians, and other such.

            Though it has to be added that EVERY utopian project devised since the 1500s has the destruction of the family as a central means to purpose, of which the various attacks against the family that you have detailed are illustrative.

            Youngsters are less easily politically indoctrinated when they belong to the sorts of loving, stable families that constitute a strong line of resistance against those types of ideological propaganda.

  • martianonlooker

    Look at http://www.gender.cam.ac.uk. Read the annual report, especially the profiles listed. Then bear in mind that this is but one British university.
    Janice Fiamengo does a nice article on her youtube site of the costs to Canada of the wimmins study brigade.

    • Eric Lauder

      I want to puke. MacKinnon is pure misandry, she claims that heterosexual sex is always rape.

  • Aaron D Highside

    The Bystander Intervention Initiative link no longer works. Someone at .gov.uk must have realised how dopey it was!

  • Vera

    If I was working in HR of a large company I would be quite anxious to avoid employing any trouble making, slight seeking harridans to avoid any possible law suits.

  • Liverpool Patti

    They won’t be happy with any report that goes against their perception of female victimisation. Their stock in trade is ignoring the reality as they see it. And, BTW, what exactly are these overly sensitive women’s definition of “harassment”. I have heard some females accuse men of so called “harassment” if they say “good morning!” and complement them on their appearance!