A comment at Chateau Heartiste sheds some light on Emma Sulkowicz’s backstory. At least I think it does. It has the ring of truth, not at all the sound of something that might be written by a troll or a fabulist:
I’m part of her (and Paul’s) extended social circle and let me tell you there’s several of us, both men and women, who know she’s full of shit. But we can’t say it publically lest we become the next targets of the liberal lynch mob. This isn’t the first time Emma made up lies about a guy who pumped and dumped her either.
Paul comes from a very liberal family… Amazing what they are prepared to do to their own just to advance their agenda.
If this pseudonymous whistleblower Spinoza is telling the truth, as I suspect, Sulkowicz and her allies have intellectually extorted an entire university student body. We might call them the Homegirl Got Raped Mafia. Nice reputation for not smearing rape victims you got here; shame if something happened to it. Nice reputation for not being a rapist. That kind of thing.
Spinoza writes that Sulkowicz has repeatedly gotten scorned by a lover and cried rape. If this is true, it’s moral turpitude. A reasonable person of goodwill does not do that. A moral person does not do that. Paul Nungesser’s civil suit against her and against Columbia is a godsend, and I agree with those who hope for Nungesser and his attorneys to refuse out-of-court settlement offers and take both cases to trial. The moral hazard enabling Sulkowicz’s horrifically destructive and childish behavior has to be eliminated. There have to be deterrents to other amoral narcissists who would make false claims of violence to retaliate against lovers for dumping them. It would have been acceptable, if still immature, for Sulkowicz to go around campus telling people that Nungesser was a rat bastard who had broken her heart by ceasing to fuck her. False rape claims occupy a much lower moral plane. Universities, for their part, need to be warned that they’ll be deposed to kingdom come if they become complicit in the revenge campaigns of sexually scorned nutcases or psychopaths.
If this sort of behavior isn’t properly chilled, we may well discover that it was the vanguard of the reestablishment of parietal rules. If young men and women are to have unchaperoned social interactions, they need to be able to resolve their own imperfect sexual relationships without setting out to destroy the other party’s life in a spirit of pure vindictive wrath. Sexual liberty (call it license if you wish) allows young people to learn how to interact more fully with each other, since sexual relations are inherently very personal in nature. They may make decisions that they regret. They may get burned. Any of these bad outcomes are possible in nonsexual friendships, too. The adult response to a sexual relationship gone sour is maybe to fume that, well, that fucking sucked balls. It’s the same thing that a reasonable adult would do in response to a failed friendship. The answer isn’t to make false allegations of felony violence.
The current fashion on the anti-rape left is for grown women to act like helpless children in matters of sexuality. At some point, they’ll start being treated accordingly. We’re already getting there. If we have a redux of the parietal rules, they’ll probably be applied to the dudes, too. Title IX will force the matter if the schools don’t pursue equal protection against the adult exercise of adult sexuality of their own volition. It’s worth reminding the sexists that the fellas can get burned by failed romances, too. They can find themselves missing that premarital strange.
The victimhood-trolling deployed by modern Western women (and by some of the most privileged among them at that) in their scorched-earth campaign for dominance is going to backfire on the entire left. People who might otherwise be sympathetic to or even supportive of the left will start noticing that it’s being taken over by careerist women who falsely claim perennial victimhood, no matter how encouraging the statistics of women’s human development in their own societies. I like women on top, too, although not that way. I have limited patience for very highly-paid careerist women in positions of limited social utility advancing themselves through sex-specific networking and training programs while I struggle to gross $4,000 a year doing heavy farm labor. It must not be hard to find American men who are struggling to make a living in other skilled trades, or flat-out unable to make a living, and feel the same way. There must be plenty of working-class women who are equally pissed off by the self-dealing of the Lean In set. Lean In isn’t there for the maid; the maid is there for Lean In.
Americans may not be interested in socioeconomic class, but class is interested in us. The carrying-on at the universities and in the bank offices about equal pay and so forth is wankery, but it’s wankery ultimately paid for by people who, say, tend grapevines. (Cut the jibba-jabba! I need work!) Then again, if the labor theory of value had any serious currency in the United States, Emma Sulkowicz would be living under the Cross-Bronx Expressway until she decided to fold and start applying for cashiering jobs at 7-Eleven, and I’d have stable housing, since I do things like grow our fucking food.
Fruit of the vine and work of human hands: above rubies, but less valued than the Manhattan fruitcake.