Skip to comments.Clark University: Partially responsible for the climate which led to sexual assault?
Posted on 02/24/2012 7:57:16 AM PST by cleghornboy
Is Clark University partially responsible for the climate which led to the sexual assault of a woman on campus?
WHDH is reporting that: "Worcester police are investigating an alleged sexual assault after a Clark University student says she was attacked early Thursday morning. The 20-year-old student says she was walking home at around 3:30 Thursday morning. Investigators say the victim was on Clifton Street when she was approached by three men in a car. According to police, a man in the backseat grabbed the woman, slapped her, stole her purse and sexually assaulted her." See here.
As I noted in a previous post, Clark University, which has become a hotbed of radical homosexual agitprop and Christianophobic propaganda, supports Eve Ensler's The Vagina Monologues, a play which celebrates lesbian rape. In one scene, a twenty-four-year-old woman gets a thirteen-year-old girl drunk and rapes her. This is presented as a good thing. The victim later says, "If it was rape, it was a good rape. I'll never need to rely on a man."
Then I looked at what Women for Faith and Family has to say about The Vagina Monologues at its website. This Catholic organization explains that, "It is extremely difficult to know how one might address such a matter as 'V-Day' in the most productive way - not least because to even name this performance involves our using the very language that the perpetrators intend to desensitize us to. Thus, ironically, we are forced to participate, at some level, in the very degradation and violence against the human person to which we object. I believe this is part of the plan. It considerably compounds the difficulty of criticizing it... That is by no means the only irony - or contradiction - involved in the V-Day movement (of which performance of the V-Monologues is the keystone). As you doubtless know, V-Day projects claim to be fighting abuse of women. But the verbally pornographic 'monologues' are themselves abusive of women - they attack the concept of womanhood itself, and destroy the integrity of the human person. Thus it actually contributes to violence against women, while claiming to be fighting it".
1. Reducing women essentially to one body part is hardly pro-woman. It distorts sexuality, objectifies women and, ironically, promotes attitudes towards women and sexuality precisely like those that lead to sexual violence against women.
2. This performance does not even represent real 'voices of women', as it claims in order to give it a ring of authenticity. The author, Eve Ensler, says she based her contemptible creation on her personal interviews with 200 women - indeed, the V-Monologues are usually represented as the authentic voices of women 'telling their own stories' (e.g., Father Timothy Clancy, SJ's editorial enclosed).
But Ensler herself acknowledges that she freely interpreted her 'data'.
3. The stated goal of V-Day is to stop all violence against women, and the income from the plays allegedly is given to agencies that help stop 'violence' (the "V" in "V-Day" also stands for violence) against women. But this, too, is a sham. Ensler employs a full time staff of ten to manage her "V-Day" movement; and donations are often given to dubious (or worse) groups (a set-up similar to Catholics for a Free Choice).
a. Planned Parenthood groups have produced the play (e.g. Planned Parenthood, Eureka, California: the web-site notice is enclosed).
b. In at least one instance a battered women's shelter that had been selected to receive a donation from the V- Monologues refused to accept it after learning what the performance was about. (Reported in Texas A&M's News Source - Feb. 12, 2002: 'V-Day stirs controversy'.)
c. The liberation of Afghan women is one of Ensler's causes. However, as we have seen recently, the 'aid' to Afghan women has included provision of abortion services. While we were not able to establish that Ensler's 'V-Day' has actually given any aid at all to Afghan women, it is clear that not all 'aid' is beneficial.
4. The V-Monologues promote particular sexual pathologies: lesbianism and pedophilia. One 'voice' - that of a 13-year-old girl - vividly describes how she was seduced by a 24-year-old woman. She says, 'if it was a rape, it was a good rape'. This section reportedly led to objections even by feminists sympathetic to the production, leading one reporter to wonder whether this scene might be expurgated from the version being performed on more than 543 college campuses this year. Whether or not the producers do self-censor this scene (as may be likely especially in the context of recent pedophila scandals), it is entirely consistent with the rest of the production.
Vagina Monologues is destructive, pornographic, deforming agit-prop deliberately and cynically aimed at young women - in particular at young Catholic women - a form of victimization that it is perilous to ignore. It contradicts at the deepest level the truth of creation; it is profoundly anti-Catholic, anti-God; and a contemptible assault on the very nature of the human person".
One has to wonder if officials at Clark University are really concerned about violence against women. Women for Faith and Family is right in saying that The Vagina Monologues is destructive, pornographic agitprop which objectifies women and "promotes attitudes towards women and sexuality precisely like those that lead to sexual violence against women."
Is Clark University at least partially responsible for the climate which led to the sexual assault of a young woman on its campus?
It is my contention that Clark University has encouraged Christianophobia (see here) while attempting to demonize moral opposition toward homosexuality. See here.
Our sad time.
My daughter and I visited Clark when she was looking for a college. It was cheap and offered a good scholarship.
It was a left wing hell hole. At the end of the tour, I asked the student guide if a conservative would feel comfortable there. He said sure..we have one or two.
Wooster is a pit.
The blame is entirely on the bad guys and the rapist. The college and the community can try to have secure areas, but no place is 100% safe, especially if you think the police and others will be there when you need protection. The young woman victim is not to blame as well, but walking alone at 3 AM is not a prudent decision.
You put it perfectly.
To paraphrase Twain: They charged very little for their education. And it was worth every penny.”
Clark has beocme a hotbed of homosexual agitprop and anti-Catholicism. Deborah Dwork, the Director of Clark University’s Strassler Center for Holocaust & Genocide Studies, has slandered Pope Pius XII.
I have two posts addressing her calumny at La Salette Journey.
I appreciate your view RicocheT. But I submit that when a university allows women to be objectified and degraded (and that’s what The Vagina Monologues does), this also contributes to the problem.
When women are portrayed as sexual objects on campus, can we really be surprised when sexual violence occurs?
The rate for rape in Worcester has plunged in the last decade from high double digits per 100,000 down to just a little over 10 per 100,000.
Even if those statistics are true, one cannot ignore the fact that this sexual assault occurred just 9 days after Clark University had The Vagina Monologues on campus.
Eve Ensler’s production degrades women. And that is never a good thing.
“For Worcester, we found that the violent crime rate is one of the highest in the nation, across communities of all sizes (both large and small). Violent offenses tracked included forcible rape, murder and non-negligent manslaughter, armed robbery, and aggravated assault, including assault with a deadly weapon. According to NeighborhoodScout’s analysis of FBI reported crime data, your chance of becoming a victim of one of these crimes in Worcester is one in 103.”
Your link says the rate of rape for Worcester is less than half the rate for the US.
the article states, “we found that the violent crime rate is one of the highest in the nation, across communities of all sizes (both large and small). Violent offenses tracked included forcible rape..”
Included forcible rape.
Of course it was tracked, as were other violent crimes. The numbers they tracked showed the rate of rape in Worcester to be less than half the rate for the US. Those are the figures in the source you cited.
Wrong. The article says, “we found that the violent crime rate is one of the highest in the nation, across communities of all sizes (both large and small). Violent offenses tracked included forcible rape..”
First it says that the violent crime rate “is one of the highest in the nation.” Then it says that “violent offenses tracked included forcible rape.”
You need a class in remedial English.
You need a class in remedial math.
No...you suffer from cognitive dissonance.
For Worcester, we found that the violent crime rate is one of the highest in the nation, across communities of all sizes (both large and small). Violent offenses tracked included forcible rape, murder and non-negligent manslaughter, armed robbery, and aggravated assault, including assault with a deadly weapon. According to NeighborhoodScouts analysis of FBI reported crime data, your chance of becoming a victim of one of these crimes in Worcester is one in 103.
1. Have I accurately quoted the rape stats given by your source... yes or no?
2. Is 0.13 less than half of 0.27... yes or no?
No. In their analysis of the statistics, the authors state clearly that: “For Worcester, we found that the violent crime rate is one of the highest in the nation, across communities of all sizes (both large and small). Violent offenses tracked included forcible rape, murder and non-negligent manslaughter, armed robbery, and aggravated assault, including assault with a deadly weapon. According to NeighborhoodScouts analysis of FBI reported crime data, your chance of becoming a victim of one of these crimes in Worcester is one in 103.
The violent crime rate, including rape, is one of the HIGHEST in the nation.
And here’s part of the problem:
Clarification of 2011 Crime Statistics Report on Rapes
Worcester, MA (February 15, 2012) - The forcible rape statistics recently release by Worcester Police Department has resulted in some requests for additional information. It is important to have a clear understanding that the statistical data represents only reported incidents and meet a strict definition of forcible rape. Forcible rape is defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Uniform Crime Report (UCR) as the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will. Attempts or assaults to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included in this definition of rape; however statutory rape (without force) and other sex offenses are excluded.
In 2011, detectives investigated approximately 280 sexual assault cases in which 41 fell within the definition of forcible rape as defined in the UCR. The remainder of the cases did not meet the strict definition. These cases did involve other criminal sexual assaults to include, but not limited to, Assault with Intent to Rape, Open and Gross Lewd Behavior, and Rape by Drugging. These serious violations of the Massachusetts General Laws were fully investigated and cases were prosecuted.
The initial reporting of forcible rape to the FBI was delayed because of a backlog of cases. The Worcester Police Department had a large number of cases last year that required a supervisory review before submitting the data to the FBI. The department needed to insure, through thorough evaluations that these cases fit the UCR definition of forcible rape. Therefore, there was a slight delay in the initial submission of statistical data to the FBI and the data was incomplete at the time required for UCR publication.
The forcible rape statistics recently released to the public for the calendar year 2011 are accurate and complete. Furthermore, the Worcester Police investigative report conforms to FBI classifications of forcible rape as defined in the UCR.
It is anticipated that the reported number of forcible rapes as defined by the UCR will increase when the FBI changes the UCR definition of rape. The new definition will count men as victims for the first time and drop the requirement that victims must have physically resist their attackers.
Source: City of Worcester
So in 2011, there were not just 23 rapes (or a rate of 0.13 per 1,000), but rather 41 reported (some are not reported) rapes which is almost double the figure of 23.
And these are only the rapes which “fell within the definition of forcible rape as defined in the UCR.”
As the report acknowledges (to those who take the time to actually read it), “The remainder of the cases did not meet the strict definition...It is anticipated that the reported number of forcible rapes as defined by the UCR will increase when the FBI changes the UCR definition of rape.”
41 rapes is a greater figure than 23 rapes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.