Occidental Professor @LisaWade: Heterosexual Men Are Predators

Posted on | September 5, 2016 | 2 Comments

“Heterosexuality in the U.S. is gendered: women are expected to attract, men are supposed to be attracted. Men want, women want to be wanted. Metaphorically, this is a predator/prey type relationship. . . . Accordingly, women know what it feels like to be prey.”
— Professor Lisa Wade, 2014

No one has ever accused Professor Lisa Wade of being heterosexual. It’s difficult to imagine why anyone would even suspect her of such a thing, since her entire career has been built on anti-male hatred.

Professor Wade was among the faculty at Occidental College (annual tuition $49,278) who claimed the college administration was engaged in a conspiracy to cover up the prevalence of rape on campus. After complaints about a delay in reporting a sexual assault accusation, the college president, Jonathan Veitch, issued a statement in which he wrote: “In the first few hours, days or even weeks, it is not always clear what has happened in incidents like these. Investigators need time to sort through conflicting accounts in order to provide a clear narrative of what took place.” Professor Wade accused President Veitch of “reproducing a bias against sexual assault victims that feminists have been trying to eradicate for decades.” In other words, Occidental’s president is anti-woman and pro-rape — but he’s a man, of course, and Professor Wade believes all men are rapists, which is what she means by condemning heterosexuality as “a predator/prey type relationship.” If you believe Professor Wade and her feminist faculty colleagues like Professor Caroline Heldman, the only reason boys go to Occidental is to rape the girls who go to Occidental.

Becoming notorious as the Rape Capital of America™ might not be the kind of publicity Occidental College wants. When you’re asking parents to fork over $49,278 a year to send their kids to your prestigious elite private liberal arts school, it’s probably not good for recruitment to have professors claiming rape is the most popular sport on campus. Occidental’s crappy Division III football team went 5-4 last year, losing to such obscure opponents as Claremont-Mudd-Scripps and University of La Verne, but when it comes to rape, Occidental is the undisputed national champion, according to Professor Wade and her fellow feminists.

$100,527,120

That number is what you get when you multiply $49,278 (annual tuition at Occidental) by 2,040, the college’s reported enrollment. A college with annual revenue of more than $100 million (and an endowment of more than $400 million) is an inviting target for political racketeers trying to run a shakedown operation: “Nice reputation you got there, Occidental. Sure would be a shame if something bad happened to it.”

 

The feminist faculty helped stir up a climate of fear on campus with a group called Oxy Sexual Assault Coalition, and pretty soon there were more than 50 Title IX complaints against Occidental, with big-money lawyer Gloria Allred holding a press conference to announce a lawsuit. Naturally, the college paid up rather than risk a trial:

Occidental College has quietly reached a monetary settlement with at least 10 current and former students who have alleged that the Eagle Rock liberal arts school repeatedly mishandled sexual assault accusations, according to three sources with knowledge of the agreement.
During confidential settlement talks last week, senior Occidental officials agreed to pay the women an undisclosed sum to avoid a lawsuit.
Under the terms of the pact, they are barred from discussing publicly the college’s handling of their cases and participating in the Occidental Sexual Assault Coalition, a campus advocacy group of students and faculty that over the last year has been battling fiercely with the college administration over its handling of sex assault allegations.

Ah, but once you start paying the Dane-geld, you never get rid of the Dane, and the more college administrators try to satisfy campus feminist demands, the more demanding campus feminists become. One wonders if Occidental College’s president knows what is being taught in the school’s Gender, Women, & Sexuality Studies program. Does he not realize that Professor Wade, for example, is against marriage?

I’m not married because the history of marriage is ugly and anti-woman . . .
I’m not married because I don’t want to support a discriminatory institution that has and continues to bless some relationships, but not others, out of bigotry. . . .
I don’t believe that a state- or church-endorsed heterosexual union between two and only two people is superior to other kinds of relationships.

Unlike Professor Wade, Occidental’s president does support the “anti-woman . . . discriminatory institution.” Jonathan Veitch and his wife have three children from their state-endorsed heterosexual union.

Professor Wade is co-author of a 2014 textbook, Gender: Ideas, Interactions, Institutions, a 400-page elaboration of the postmodern theory that there are no such things as men and women, only the gender binary, which is socially constructed by the heterosexual matrix. Feminists generally believe there is no such thing as “human nature.” According to feminist gender theory, human beings are the only mammals on the planet without any kind of instinct that might be involved in the reproduction of the species. The traits we call “masculinity” and “femininity” are an illusion, according to feminists. The “performance of phallic power” is “the essence of hegemonic masculinity,” as Professor Carol Harrington (Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand) has explained, and “widespread heterosexuality among women is a highly artificial product of the patriarchy,” as Professor Marilyn Frye said, because “most women have to be coerced into heterosexuality.”

You might not be surprised to learn that Professor Wade considers beauty standards to be a manifestation of patriarchal oppression:

The sexualization of girls and the infantilization of adult women are two sides of the same coin. They both tell us that we should find youth, inexperience, and naivete sexy in women, but not in men. This reinforces a power and status difference between men and women, where vulnerability, weakness, and dependency and their opposites are gendered traits: desirable in one sex but not the other. . . .
What does it mean that feminine beauty is conflated with youthfulness, but masculine beauty is not — that we want women to be both cute and sexual? It means that we feel comfortable with women who seem helpless and require taking care of, perhaps we even encourage or demand these traits from women. . . .
It’s about infantilizing adult women . . . as a way to remind women of their prescribed social position relative to men.

There is nothing natural about male admiration of “feminine beauty,” according to Professor Wade. Feminists do not believe any hard-wired animal instincts are involved in men’s preferences. Instead, all human sexual behavior is interpreted as an expression of “power and status” under the regime of patriarchy. This is the only explanation for why men prefer supermodel Kate Upton to feminist Jaclyn Friedman.

Jaclyn Friedman, feminist (left); Kate Upton, supermodel (right).

“A steady diet of exploitative, sexually provocative depictions of women feeds a poisonous trend in women’s and girl’s perceptions of their bodies, one that has recently been recognized by social scientists as self-objectification — viewing one’s body as a sex object to be consumed by the male gaze. . . . Perhaps the most striking outcome of self-objectification is the difficulty women have in imagining identities and sexualities truly our own.”
— Professor Caroline Heldman, 2008

You see that any depiction of women that men actually enjoy looking at is “exploitative,” because women are objectified by “the male gaze,” according to Occidental College Professor Caroline Heldman who, not coincidentally, co-founded the groups Oxy Sexual Assault Coalition, End Rape on Campus (EROC) and Faculty Against Rape (FAR), and is “a visible figure in the campus anti-rape movement.” Feminism’s “rape culture” discourse is a form of anti-male hate propaganda. By demonizing college boys as rapists, feminists like Professor Heldman and Professor Wade teach college girls to hate and fear their male classmates. Likewise, Professor Heldman and Professor Wade portray normal male behavior as pathological. Their students at Occidental are being taught that it is wrong for men to admire beauty, that it is predatory for men to be attracted to women, that marriage is “anti-woman,” and that heterosexuality is inherently harmful to women. If a man even looks at a woman, she is victimized by his “sexually objectifying, predatory, always potentially threatening gaze,” according to Professor Wade:

I study sex on campus, where sexual violence is perpetrated disproportionately by “high-status” men — fraternity men and certain male athletes in particular. These men are more likely than other men to endorse the sexual double standard, believing that they are justified in praising sexually active men, while condemning and even abusing women who are less sexually active.
They are also more likely to promote homophobia, hypermasculinity and male dominance; tolerate violent and sexist jokes; endorse misogynistic attitudes and behaviors; and endorse false beliefs about rape. Accordingly, athletes are responsible for an outsized number of sexual assaults on campus, and women who attend fraternity parties are significantly more likely to be assaulted than those who attend other parties with alcohol and those who don’t go to parties at all.

It is “high status” that makes college boys rapists, according to Professor Wade. Therefore, it might be argued, colleges should deprive males of status — ending athletic programs for men and abolishing fraternities, for example — if they are really serious about preventing rape. Or perhaps Professor Wade means that Occidental College President Jonathan Veitch is also a rapist. Being president of the college is a rather “high-status” position on campus, after all, and you can’t be too careful, especially considering President Veitch’s known history of heterosexuality.

Professor Wade’s next book, to be published in January, is entitled American Hookup: The New Culture of Sex on Campus, and in an article for the Guardian, she previews her attack on the usual suspects:

Hookup culture prevails, even though it serves only a minority of students, because cultures don’t reflect what is, but a specific group’s vision of what should be. The students who are most likely to qualify as enthusiasts are also more likely than other kinds of students to be affluent, able-bodied, white, conventionally attractive, heterosexual and male. . . .
Hookup culture, then, isn’t what the majority of students want, it’s the privileging of the sexual lifestyle most strongly endorsed by those with the most power on campus, the same people we see privileged in every other part of American life. These students, as one Latina observed, “exude dominance”. On the quad, they’re boisterous and engage in loud greetings. They sunbathe and play catch on the green at the first sign of spring. At games, they paint their faces and sing fight songs. They use the campus as their playground. Their bodies — most often slim, athletic and well-dressed — convey an assured calm; they move among their peers with confidence and authority.

So, according to Professor Wade, it is rich, good-looking, heterosexual white males whose “privilege” is expressed in “hookup culture.” Probably there are some of those guys at Occidental College, where their parents pay $49,278 a year so they can “use the campus as their playground.”

It’s wrong for girls to hook up with “slim, athletic and well-dressed” rich boys at an elite private college, according to Professor Wade. Why are “affluent, able-bodied, white, conventionally attractive, heterosexual and male” students even allowed to attend Occidental College? Everybody on the Occidental faculty hates white male heterosexuals, and yet these rich boys keep showing up on campus with their boisterous loud greetings, their “assured calm . . . confidence and authority,” etc. Gosh, why does this sound strangely familiar?

Good grades, good home
gets college student profiled
as rapist, claims lawsuit
Being a valedictorian from a “good family” helped get a California student blamed for an alleged rape by a bizarre, college tribunal that critics claim is part of an overzealous culture of blaming men for hookups that go awry, according to a lawsuit.
A former Occidental College student known only as “John Doe” has sued the Los Angeles school after it found him “responsible” for an alleged Sept. 8, 2013, rape local police could not substantiate ever happened. The student was expelled after the liberal arts school’s investigation, despite offering strong text message evidence that the encounter with another first-year Occidental student was consensual. . . .
The suit, which claims John Doe’s due process rights were violated, charges that a faculty member and anti-rape activist coaxed the alleged victim into making baseless accusations.
“[John Doe] fits the profile of other rapists on campus in that he had a high GPA in high school, was his class valedictorian, was on [a sports] team, and was from a good family,” the suit quotes Occidental Sociology Prof. Danielle Dirks, who co-founded the school’s Sexual Assault Coalition, telling the woman, who was initially reluctant to accuse the man of rape.

If a boy is a valedictorian and an athlete, he’s a rapist, according to feminist professors at Occidental College. Parents definitely should not pay $49,278 a year to send their sons to Occidental College, which pays these professors to encourage girls to accuse their sons of rape:

John Doe’s Title IX complaint, alleging gender discrimination against himself as a male, argues that the female complainant (Jane Doe) was counselled by Professor Danielle Dirks and Movindri Reddy to convince her that she had indeed been raped, despite her initial protestations that her consensual sex ‘didn’t feel like rape.’ . . .
Jane Doe spent many hours with Professor Reddy. According to her testimony: “She said that Professor Reddy put her in touch with Professor Danielle Dirks. On Tuesday night, Jane Doe said, she met with Professor Dirks for three hours, and told her the entire story…. During this period, Jane Doe stated, she went to see Professor Reddy every day to talk about what had happened, and how she was dealing with it.”
Professor Reddy went on to become Jane Doe’s advocate/advisor through the internal Occidental hearing process. . . .
In Professor Dirk’s testimony, in her discussions with Ms. Doe, she repeatedly profiled John Doe as a rapist. . . .
Dirks stated that she believed that Jane Doe was experiencing Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
Dirks stated that Jane Doe appeared to be “in a strong state of denial” about the events, and told her at one point that she was not yet able to call the incident “rape….” Dirks noted that Jane Doe’s reluctance to call what had happened to her “rape” was consistent with other victims of sexual assault whom Dirks has talked to on campus.

Doesn’t it sound like John Doe was the victim of a conspiracy? What actually happened was that John Doe was drunk in his room when Jane Doe, who was also drunk, texted him she wanted to come have sex with him, then showed up and, among other things, performed oral sex him. Unlike so many other cases like it, John Doe v. Occidental is not even a “he-said/she-said” story — there is no dispute about the basic facts, and nothing about these facts can be construed as rape. Both students were freshmen, both were equally drunk, and she was the one who initiated their sexual encounter. Yet on a campus where hatred of males is encouraged by feminist professors who denounce heterosexuality as “a predator/prey type relationship,” facts don’t matter.

 

Comments