The harmful dissemination of stereotypes

Last week, Newby Parton wrote quite the controversial column. He began by discussing our revised sexual assault policy but quickly devolved into perceptions of equating feminism with misandry, which were unsubstantiated and which unfortunately furthers a very harmful and false societal trope and obfuscates the much-needed, meaningful dialogue regarding sexual assault. Let me just state for the record that I’m all for edgy pieces that put forth a controversial view, especially one that sparks debate across campus, as this one did. Many valid viewpoints about feminism exist that are important for our generation to debate —from what it is, to what it should be, to what we can and should do about it —yet Parton’s legitimization of harmful stereotypes is not one of these viewpoints.

Parton claimed that because “a few women have turned the dialogue [on sexual assault] into a battle against men and women,” “we,” presumably referring to his fellow men, are “begin[ning] to think that this is what feminism has become —a bias against males that mistakes all male viewpoints for oppression.” He concluded that misandry is hijacking feminism based on what happened at the Undergraduate Student Government town hall on campus sexual assault. He said that he “voiced a single worry ... that the new ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard will, definitionally, increase the likelihood of false convictions” and then “cries of ‘rape culture’ spewed forth.”

However, I too attended the USG town hall, and the facts just don’t support Parton’s claims or his conclusions. The rights of the accused were a large focus of the meeting, easily commanding over 50 percent of the discussion. After quite a few comments on the rights of the accused had come forth —interestingly enough all by men —a woman suggested a different topic, thereby implying that other issues are also worth discussing. And after a few different comments, others again turned the conversation to the rights of the accused. After allowing quite a bit more discussion on the issue, an administration official in attendance responded that false accusations resulting in disciplinary actions had not really been an issue historically and that she didn’t believe that it would be a problem going forward under the new standard. Moreover, it was clarified that the policy change was a federal mandate. The administrator made it clear that, contrary to the suggestion in Parton’s column, the accused would not be presumed guilty until proven innocent, and “verbal testimony alone” would not “be enough to convict an accused perpetrator.” Rather, the evidence would have to be determined to be more likely than not true for disciplinary action to move forward.

It is unfortunate that Parton felt his concerns regarding the rights of the accused were not welcome, even though the concerns of the rights of the accused were addressed. To be honest though, I am not too concerned about Parton’s hurt feelings.

I am concerned that his column has proliferated two incorrect and harmful views: first, that the new sexual assault policy presumes that the accused are guilty until proven innocent. And second, that women who support the new policy, or even just want to discuss issues beyond the rights of the accused, are misandrists, or even that it is legitimate for others to see them as such. I saw no evidence at the meeting that anyone there hated men. Unless the women at the town hall were asked specifically, there is not even a preponderance of evidence to suggest that one, much less all, of the women there are self-identified feminists, nor that they hate any or all men. They were probably just frustrated that no other topic was getting an opportunity to be heard and disliked Parton’s effort to bring up a retreaded issue.

Moreover, were it true that even one of those women is a self-identified feminist who hates certain men, that still does not justify the conclusion that it appears as though feminists are misandrists. Just as men can loathe individuals for various reasons, women can too without it meaning they hate an entire group simply for their identity. The onus should not be on women who are speaking out on an issue to avoid possibly being labeled as feminist misandrists; it should be on society as a whole not to extrapolate from an individual to an entire gender or other shared identity group. Parton’s labels are perpetuating stereotypes, not proposing a just solution to sexual assaults on our campus or gender inequality overall.

When discussing my thoughts on writing a response to Parton’s column, my mom warned me not to be emotional. I understand where she is coming from. By being emotional about this issue, I realize that some will conclude I am simply an emotional, angry feminist. I actually happen to be a self-identified, angry feminist. Yet, I should have the same right to be as angry and emotional as Rush Limbaugh, Newby Parton and other men are every day —and I should have the right, without others assuming that all women are always angry at all men.

I don’t hate men for simply being male. I just don’t likewhen any person legitimizes stereotypes, perpetuates false tropes or hinders an important discussion on sexual assault on campus (a discussion that men and women at the University and across the United States must continue) rather than fights gross generalizations. But this is just my view; it shouldn’t be taken as representative of an entire gender.