Sexual assault at NZ universities
I’ve recently come across this Australian study of sexual harassment and assault on Aussie campuses: https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/sex-discrimination/publications/change-course-national-report-sexual-assault-and-sexual?_ga=2.229810588.1021617999.1590021521-1687158381.1589180855
Though it’s been reported under headlines claiming it shows ‘widespread’ harassment and assault, it’s worth noting two things.
One is that the definition of harassment is very broad, including ‘inappropriate leering or staring, sexually suggestive comments or jokes, and intrusive questions about someone’s private life or physical appearance.’ And in fact, these were the most common forms of ‘harassment’ that were reported.
The second point is that only 1.6% of respondents reported sexual assault in a university environment. Obviously that’s just allegations that haven’t been proven, but even so it contradicts the official narrative that universities are more dangerous in terms of sexual assault than other contexts.
At Vic uni there’s long been a campaign called ‘Thursdays in Black’ to get students and staff to wear dark clothing in mourning for the supposedly high rates of assault. I haven’t seen a NZ study similar to the Aussie one yet (and would like to), but it looks likely the idea that NZ unis have an epidemic of sexual assault is as false as it is in Australia.
Though it’s been reported under headlines claiming it shows ‘widespread’ harassment and assault, it’s worth noting two things.
One is that the definition of harassment is very broad, including ‘inappropriate leering or staring, sexually suggestive comments or jokes, and intrusive questions about someone’s private life or physical appearance.’ And in fact, these were the most common forms of ‘harassment’ that were reported.
The second point is that only 1.6% of respondents reported sexual assault in a university environment. Obviously that’s just allegations that haven’t been proven, but even so it contradicts the official narrative that universities are more dangerous in terms of sexual assault than other contexts.
At Vic uni there’s long been a campaign called ‘Thursdays in Black’ to get students and staff to wear dark clothing in mourning for the supposedly high rates of assault. I haven’t seen a NZ study similar to the Aussie one yet (and would like to), but it looks likely the idea that NZ unis have an epidemic of sexual assault is as false as it is in Australia.
Around the year 2000, Victoria University had “safety angels” who were available to escort women home so they wouldn’t be raped. At the time, their had not been one single rape at the university campus. The safety angels were mostly women as well as some of the creepiest men I have ever seen
Comment by Jed — Mon 1st June 2020 @ 10:10 am
#1 hahahaha !!!!!
Comment by golfa — Mon 1st June 2020 @ 2:15 pm
poor women… abused and threatened everywhere.
Protected species clad in skimpy clothes, make up and wrapped in nakedness and promiscuity.
Maybe we should exclude/excise/castrate men from university campuses.
ban alcohol or drug consumption from men and maybe bring the nuns back in and turn campuses into convents? Make the teaching profession and all female profession?
Comment by JustCurious — Wed 3rd June 2020 @ 11:41 am
There is no clear answer to this problem. Except to explain what likely happen. And then what followed.
1. Friday night banter is mutual at the time.
2. Monday morning survey or worst a complaint will have serious life long consequences for the male victim that can lead to mental health issues and suicide.
I do not know who commissions these surveys. Or who funds them. I always like to follow the money trail and see where it leads. A typical example of this is, A sample survey is taken, Oh there is a problem, we must have more funding to have another or broader survey.
Even the manner and method in which questions are asked can have a different outcome.
i.e.
1. Internet.
2. Phone
3. Face to face.
In business we have documents to refer to should a complaint arise. Perhaps a one touch sound recording on your smart watch as a backstop to protect yourself. Keep the recording forever.
Keep safe and protect yourselves at all times.
Comment by Lukenz — Tue 23rd June 2020 @ 8:05 am
Member following this thread might be interested in this study of sexual behaviour on a NZ university campus. – it helps put some context around claims of symmetry in sexual harassment and sexual assaults.
Brown, J. (2016). ‘We’re like the sex CPR dummies’: Negotiating (hetero)sex in a university residential setting (Thesis, Master of Applied Psychology (MAppPsy)). University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10289/10982
(For access, copy and paste the link into your browser)
Comment by Neville Robertson — Wed 24th June 2020 @ 11:45 am
#5 I bought a copy of KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor Jr’s book called The Campus Rape Frenzy. It’s a fascinating read although the Trump Govt has now tossed the Obama Title IX decree to Universities in The USA.
“In this masterful account, Johnson and Taylor examine in detail how President Obama’s Education Department―promulgating regulations beyond its statutory authority, invoking erroneous data, and fanning the false narrative of a ‘rape culture’ on college campuses―has created a regime of kangaroo justice. Male students accused of sexual misconduct are found guilty, and their lives destroyed, by campus panels operating without any semblance of due process and all too frequently on the basis of grossly inadequate information. Your blood will boil as the authors meticulously examine scores of cases where, in the name of political correctness, male students are sacrificed to the mob, with academic leaders happily serving as the hangmen.”
―William P. Barr, former Attorney General of the United States (1991–1993)
Comment by golfa — Thu 25th June 2020 @ 10:58 am
Members interested in what it takes to make a fair trial in sexual assault cases may want to check out this excellent webinar “Specialist Sexual Violence Court Support Role” by the HELP Foundation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_PRwC3xFq0
Comment by Neville Robertson — Sun 28th June 2020 @ 2:51 pm
#7 The webinar is about supporting the complainant, and the complainant is only one side of a trial. So “making a fair trial” it isn’t.
Comment by Ted — Mon 29th June 2020 @ 10:50 am
Why would support for the complainant make a trial unfair? Unlike the defendant, the complainant doesn’t have a lawyer. I’m pretty sure many male complainants would like support too.
Comment by Neville Robertson — Tue 30th June 2020 @ 2:25 pm
“Why would support for the complainant make a trial unfair?”
Because it is supporting one side only. The webinar had a lot of pictures of balances stacked up on one side only. Well, here’s another one.
“the complainant doesn’t have a lawyer”
No, they’ve just got the State, prosecuting on their behalf.
“I’m pretty sure many male complainants would like support too.”
I agree.
Comment by Ted — Tue 30th June 2020 @ 5:34 pm
I’m not sure whether it is accurate to say that the State is prosecuting on the complainant’s behalf. This suggests that the State is at the service of the complainant.
The reality is that the prosecution is very much driven by the Crown. The complainant’s only value to the Crown is as a witness. Apart from testifying, the complainant has no say in how the prosecution is conducted. They are at the service of the Crown.
Be that as it may, many complainants feel that the court process is retraumatising and abusive. It seems reasonable to provide support.
Comment by Neville Robertson — Fri 3rd July 2020 @ 8:18 pm
The complainant instigates the process, and the State’s prosecution of the defendant may follow. In that case, the choice was with the complainant, but the impact is on the defendant, who had no choice in the matter. Effectively, the complainant invokes the power of the State.
I’m sure that many defendants feel that the court process is retraumatising and abusive too. Especially if they are innocent.
Comment by Ted — Fri 3rd July 2020 @ 11:46 pm
So is is okay that rape victims face such huge challenges in court that very rapes get reported? Does’t that mean that the vast majority of rapists face no consequences for their violence and hence have no motivation to stop?
Comment by Neville Robertson — Sun 5th July 2020 @ 2:06 pm
Is it okay to bias a trial so that the likely outcome fits your prejudices?
Comment by Ted — Sun 5th July 2020 @ 5:17 pm
As an educator both secondary and tertiary, I have come across this culture of playing the victim far too often. There is a complete lack of acknowledgement that many of these behaviours are accepted (and sometimes encouraged) by these individuals providing they are attracted to the person doing it and that they can actually allow this behaviour at the time and decide at a later time that they feel it wasn’t correct.
How are you supposed to fairly monitor or police such actions in a tertiary setting when the rules are not clear cut and subjective?
Comment by Rapopi — Sat 22nd August 2020 @ 11:40 am
Readers may also be interested in this story (about a student who was found guilty of ‘serious sexual transgressions’ at Brandeis University for kissing his sleeping boyfriend): https://reason.com/2016/04/01/judge-sides-with-gay-brandeis-student-gu/
Comment by Jon Quay — Sat 22nd August 2020 @ 1:37 pm
This is all a path to setup kangaroo courts to be judge, jury and executioner of male students at universities. As has happened in the USA.
I recommend watching Bettina Arndt on YouTube to learn more about this.
Comment by Vman — Fri 28th August 2020 @ 4:10 pm
My now ex got a protection order and other orders on a without notice.
I got a lawyer who, I also gave all my financials too so he could be appropriate spending.
In less than 6 months he had accrued a $26 k bill, of which I paid my last money to of 10k, now he’s taking me for the rest through the courts. The bill say’s he was talking to the ex’s lawyer nearly everyday!
I put evidence forward of recordings of my ex, abusive to me and the children and her family coaching the children (4 and 5 years old) to say things like “F the father”.
I put that to the court; but she still has the kids, the property and the court won’t give discovery or division. Probably due to what she is saying, although I have proven by direct fact she is lying on affidavits.
Still the court play this down, like it never happened! it’s been over a year and the lawyers just keep going on about what ever I do is wrong, I keep saying no lawyer wants to help for delayed payment, even when I go to free legal advice, they say it’s a conflict of interest.
Well it’s a setup, and the court is in denial of the recordings, photos and direct evidence.
The BS by the lawyers is beyond most things and I have caught them lying to a judge by direct fact, not hearsay.
It’ so frustrating that this is still going on, I have quoted law, case law and judges decisions. Now the lawyers want an s133 report on the children to hold the process up, 3 judges have ordered a hearing but nothing is happening.
I have seeked help from friends and family who are just as frustrated, LFC can’t lie enough to get the mother what she want’s, so this is where the family court are today. abusing the dad’s and when I don’t do as LFC wants, well that just puts me in even hotter water.
I guess it’s come to perjury to get what they want! grrrr.. my 2 cents. Family court sukz.
K
Comment by K — Sat 29th August 2020 @ 11:56 am
woops wrong venting platform and forum ! this my life at the moment I guess.
Comment by k — Sat 29th August 2020 @ 12:15 pm
@19 Dear K
Four weeks ago I asked does someone here know how easy or difficult is to ask for the Court hearing transcript . The only reply I got came from mama and I am grateful for that. What to say ? So, I will not comment on that .
In my case the ” victim” admitted she used to hit me plus so many of my serious allegations left unrebutted in any way , shape or manner which makes them stand as true , the 3 Affidavits from direct witnesses saying she wasn’t even there when claimed loitering my were rejected by the Judge because deponents were not present . Of course the deponents were not present because the Applicant didn’t ask them to be Petersen fro cross examination , and i will stop there because I am re-traumatizing myself .
Now comes another humiliation . I am not allowed to mention any of that in my Application . I can only mention how bad I was and how angelic she is , again will stop there for the reason .
Unfortunately , this social malaise is increasingly present in most of the western countries .
1. Ask your self why extreme groups including the FC judges and an army of insiders and related professionals not only have been burgeoning , but also becoming more and more powerful. Dig deeper under the surface . Hope that will help you to understand why you can’t even get a basic justice ,
Once you understand that , hopefully You can just accept your destiny and get out of there asap.
I am ashamed of writing this but it will get even worse and it will never get better .
Cheers
Comment by tony — Tue 1st September 2020 @ 7:56 pm
#5 “https://hdl.handle.net/10289/10982”
I stopped reading when your name appeared. You had made no mention of your involvement.
#9 “I’m pretty sure many male complainants would like support too.”
That might depend on their own view of the process. I, for one, will not participate in a rigged game no matter my position in that game.
Decades after being sexually abused as a child I had the opportunity to pursue legal remedy. I demurred after discussion with a sexual assault prosecutor largely because the act hadn’t been illegal at the time.
Comment by Greg Allan — Sat 5th September 2020 @ 7:23 pm
#5 the study.
“I also intended to investigate whether high school sexuality education classes discussed topics relevant to students’ potential sexual experiences. The topics included; violence, rape, consent, regret, and
pleasure, in the context of sexuality and sexual behaviour.”
The problem with these research papers is that they are focused on harm.
While in the study, occasionally comments exist showing positive things, the focus is on bad things.
It also has a focus on the females perspective.
It presents the drunk, condomless male as scared.
But the female drunk as a sexual abuse victim, needing protecting.
Legally both are the same. Consequences can be far worse for males.
It concludes male orgasm as privilege.
But notes females have agency over it, for themselves.
It presents culture, as science. Exposing resultants.
But biology, is absent.
It repeatedly notices “patriarchy” genetic behaviours. (Just the best word for my thinking)
It repeatedly notices “ matriarchal” genetic behaviours.
IE judgement of behaviours.
But attributes them to culture.
Describing males having privilege.
It ignores genetics.
Promiscuity is genetic.
1/4 will be polygamous.
1/4 will try not to be polygamous but will be. (Culture creates perspective, try to be monogamous, but will be polygamous)
1/4 will try not to be polygamous and will not.
1/4 will be monogamous.
1/2 of humans will cheat on there partner.
1/2 will not.
In effect it’s disease defence, and genetic diversity, in the same gene.
Proof, Mendal, and research that endlessly shows it.
Recently heard a study on online, non contact dating.
24% confessed to absolute loyalty to the imaginary partner.
What a surprise.
Culture presents sex negatively.
Emotions include.
Anticipation.
Enjoyment.
Compassion.
Loneliness.
Friendship.
Fun.
Intimacy.
Reward.
Understanding.
Healing.
It is not just the bad things
looked at in the study.
Culture demanding to stop harm, lessons the opportunity of the good things.
But breeds contempt. The human wants good things.
Depression develops and forces the human to fix the depression.
No becomes yes.
A culture demanding the good things, lessons the opportunity of the bad things.
Yes, becomes yes, and no becomes no.
You can bet everything you have that the subconscious desire is for women to have absolute agency.
Men are to be slaves to it. Gynocentric in culture.
MeToo resultant.
Men will have no agency in initiating sex.
Men will trend to using women as objects for pleasure.
A resultant, not a cause.
Wrong path, humans.
You cannot demand respect.
It must be earned.
Or you have nothing.
Just contempt.
Comment by DJ Ward — Fri 18th December 2020 @ 10:56 pm