The Rolling stone travesty
Last month, Rolling Stone published an article by Sabrina Rubin Erdely alleging the brutal gang rape of a woman named Jackie during a party at a University of Virginia fraternity house. The story provided details of the alleged rape, and accused the university of failing to respond to the accusation. It went on to accuse the school of a history of indifference to sexual assault of women.
The story, received worldwide coverage and inspired UVA president Theresa Sullivan to promise a full investigation into both the allegation and the school’s general handling of sexual misconduct allegations. However, under the scrutiny brought by increased coverage, Jackie’s story and then Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s claims of having fact checked began to fall appart, and eventually crumbled, dealing heavy damage to Rolling Stone’s credibility in the process.
According to an investigation done by the Washington Post, several details of Jackie’s narrative are demonstrably false.
There was no “date function or formal event” on the night she claims the assault occurred.
The student she claims led her to the room where the crime is alleged to have occurred, identified in the original story as “Drew,” is not a brother in the fraternity in question and may not exist at all.
None of the fraternity’s members worked in the fall of 2012 at the pool where she claims to have encountered “Drew” after the alleged assault.
Jackie’s friends’ have described disturbing effort at falsification by Jackie to convince them of his existence.
They have also directly contradicted her claims about being discouraged from going to police, a claim that was used to infer that the university has a culture of indifference to rape.
Also contradicted were Erdley’s claims about their willingness to talk about the allegations.
In addition, they’ve stated that significant details of Jackie’s story have changed over time, including the number of alleged perpetrators.
The Rolling Stone has had to publish a retraction and admit to serious failure in fact-checking and accountability. That failure is directly attributed to their hesitation to question a rape accuser’s story. According to the retraction,
“… we have come to the conclusion that we were mistaken in honoring Jackie’s request to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. In trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault, we made a judgment…”
The original lie which incited protests and widespread debate, which has been used by feminists as a social battering ram to try to force the public to adopt a believe-the-accuser mentality, which led to changes in campus policy regarding fraternities as well as attacks against the named fraternity and eventually, its suspension, was published not because Jackie is a genius whose clever ruse misled an otherwise meticulously careful journalist, but because it fit in with the writer’s existing political outlook. Ideology reduced this legendary publication to the status of weaponized damsel amplifier, making it one more example of why ethics in journalism is so important.
Students actually less likely to be victimized
A recent U.S. Department of justice study states that the widely repeated 1 in 5 rape statistic, is actually closer to 0.03 in 5. The study goes on to state that non-students are actually 25% more likely to be victims of sexual assault than their college student counterparts.
Information from the Bureau of Justice Statistics actually shows a decline in sexual assault cases across the board since 1997. However the study says that 80% of these assaults go with unreported, with the majority feeling that it either was a personal matter, or that they feared reprisal.
This is in stark contrast to the claims made by feminist groups, claiming that invasive questioning or the fear of not being believed was the thing most likely to prevent assaults from being reported.
Lena Dunham’s memoirs ruin a man’s reputation
In her book, “Not that kind of girl” Lena Dunham describes being raped by a well-known campus republican named Barry while she attended Oberlin college back in 2005. She describes the man in great detail, mentioning things like a flamboyant mustache, that he worked at a library, and hosted a campus radio show.
All of this would be well and good, if no one had attempted to identify the attacker. Online sleuths seeking to find the man who raped Lena Dunham, misidentified the attacker as a man news sources are code naming Barry One.
People found this man on social media, his family, where he worked, etc. He contacted Dunham’s representatives months ago with his concerns over the misidentification, and was ignored until he began crowdfunding to take the actress to court over the matter.
The publisher of the memoir, random house, has since made a public statement, saying that the name “Barry” was merely a psuedonym and shall be changed to another name, in newer copies of the book. They have also offered to pay all of Barry One’s legal fees.
The place where it gets really weird is that even in the book, the scenario she describes isn’t as much rape, as it is rough regretful sex.
“Barry. Number four. We fucked. 69’d. It was terribly aggressive. Only once. No one came.”
“When I was young, I read an article about a ten-year-old girl who was raped by a stranger on a dark road… And I never forgot this story, but I didn’t remember until many days after Barry fucked me. Fucked me so hard that the next morning I had to sit in a hot bath to soothe myself. Then I remembered.”
A Breitbart reporter brought Dunhams allegations under further scrutiny by trying to find any man attending Oberlin college at the time, who would have matched Lena Dunham’s description. They couldn’t find one.
If this is true, this calls into question as to whether Lena Dunham’s republican rapist ever existed at all, and if Barry One’s exoneration has arrived far too late.
Feminists calling to ban GTA5 in Canada
After a petition successfully had the game pulled from Target stores in Australia, Canadian feminist have gathered on a Change.org petition to ask for a country wide ban of the game. The women responsible, state that they feel the game promotes violence against women.
“The images contained in GTA V normalize violence against women, the oppression of women and the objectification and commercialization of women’s bodies. GTA V normalizes extreme levels of violence towards marginalized populations, along with providing a ‘reward’ for these heinous acts. The scenes in this game are degrading, insensitive, and inappropriate. This degree of violence should not be condoned or practiced.”
“Playing a game littered with abject violence in third-person has enough of an effect on the brains of children and young adults. To include graphic sex acts that can be experienced from first-person perspective is unnecessary. This game provides sufficient exposure to negatively affect the cognitive and emotional experience of the player, essentially desensitizing them from the reality of these actions.”
Basically their arguments amount to nothing. Games like GTA5 are not for children, and even the company that creates the Grand Theft Auto franchise, has never come close to suggesting that children and young adults be the consumers of these games.
This isn’t the first time that some group or another, has come together to ban some form of media found to be too violent or offensive for consumption. In retrospect those groups appear just as ridiculous as the women trying to ban GTA5.
What these people don’t seem to understand is that banning a piece of media is practically an advertisement for that said work. People will consume that media because it is forbidden, and pursue it more aggressively than they would have otherwise.
Simply put, we can expect sales for GTA5 to go up in the next months with this rising controversy, and all thanks to the work of feminist kill joys bent on being moral crusaders.