Meanwhile, In Cork


Screen Shot 2016-07-04 at 12.37.48

University College Cork

Evening Echo reports:

First-year Law students entering UCC this September will undertake a new course on sexual consent and respect.

The students will be the first to take on the pioneering new five-credit module that will be rolled out to all first-year students from next year if it proves to be successful.

Students at UCC to trial sexual respect course (Evening Echo)

66 thoughts on “Meanwhile, In Cork

  1. bisted

    …you can learn sexual consent and respect…who knew…they’ll be curing the gay next…

  2. jambon

    This is a very good thing. Should be a part of all freshers’ inductions in all third-level institutes.

    1. On The Buses

      If you have to teach 18 year olds that they shouldn’t sexual assault people, you are treating the symptom, not the root cause. Are they going to have classes in every other facet of how to be a member of civilised society?

      1. Bob

        They have to be taught it at some point. Starting college is as good a time as any if their parents haven’t bothered before.

        1. Riz

          No one ever “taught” me about sexual consent and respect for the ooposite sex. Maybe I am an outlier but I just understood early on that rape was wrong.

          1. Bob

            Aren’t you just awesome!

            Unfortunately not everyone is the same and rape still occurs.

          2. Lorcan Nagle

            The problem is that there’s a huge gulf between “rape is wrong”, and what actually constitutes sexual harassment and abuse. Take the recent Stanford sexual assault case, where Brock Turner took advantage of a drunk woman who’d passed out, including penetrative sex and taking photos of her breasts. His father wrote a letter saying that this was him being punished for “20 minutes of action”, and he’s complained that his swimming career is ruined. Clearly neither he nor his father see what he did as rape.

            Also in the US, there have been well-documented scenes in the last year of fraternities putting up signs in fresher week saying stuff like “wait till we get a hold of your daughter”, and marching around campus chanting “No means yes. Yes means anal”. Now I’ll admit both those examples are from the US, but the same attitude if alive and well in Ireland, incidents like the Stanford assault happen all the time and either don’t make the news or don’t get reported, because even today most rapes are never reported to the police.

            For many people, college is when they first experiment with sex, and it means that some people will push too far (so to speak), while others will allow things to go further than they want for fear of being labelled as a prude. And there are people who’ll take advantage of both atitudes. It’s not a bad thing to educate young men and women as to how to recognise when they’re going outside their or their potential partner’s comfort zones. Looking back on my own behaviour in my late teens and early 20s, I can think of a good few occasions where at best I made women feel uncomfortable, and possibly worried for their safety at worst, even though like you, I was edcated that “rape is bad”

    1. LW

      I agree. Ideally Cork would hold to Viking values, rape and pillage aplenty. It’s PC gone mad.

  3. Eoin

    A new course of sexual consent and respect? Hmmm. Is there much work in the sexual consent and respect industry? So basically they are teaching young men (and to a lesser extent women) that rape is wrong? Who in their right mind would sign up for that? Who needs to be taught that rape is wrong? Am I missing something here or is this completely insane? I mean, don’t ACTUAL rapists get sent on these kinds of courses?

    1. Bob

      It’s worth 5 credits, so they’ll get lots of people signing up to do it and it’ll hopefully stamp out a lot of the ill-conceived notions some students have about what constitutes consent.

      I’m surprised people seem to have such a problem with the idea.

  4. newsjustin

    A five-credit module? So this is part of their course? So it’s a proper academic course rather than a fresher’s induction event?

      1. Janet, I ate my avatar

        you should check out between edits. . or just what wemon actually like

  5. hansel

    “will be rolled out to all first-year students from next year if it proves to be successful”

    Anyone know what the success criteria could be? Are there a large number of sexual assaults by law students currently? Or is this whole sentence redundant.

    Because, dare I say it, the whole concept of rape class (thou art guilty by default, check your privilege, etc) should either be proven to be worthwhile or scrapped completely.

    1. LW

      “Because, dare I say it, the whole concept of rape class (thou art guilty by default, check your privilege, etc) should either be proven to be worthwhile or scrapped completely.”

      Dare away, but they’ve already said it, you actually quoted it in your comment: “if it proves to be successful”

      1. hansel

        “if it proves to be successful”.

        My point is that their success criteria is that people will check their privilege, and be taught that they shall be “guilty by default”.
        Rather than the ideal, where we’d see lower incidences of sexual assault and rape.

        1. LW

          But what are you basing that on? How would you suggest lower incidence of sexual assault be achieved?

  6. Karen

    I know many people who did Law in UCC and I vividly remember a friend talking about how their lecturers in criminal law would say how hard it is to prove rape had occurred and how they wouldn’t bother suggesting a victim go to the guards because of this. Who knows how many students accepted this as truth, because their lecturers said it. I found this very disheartening to hear having worked with survivors of rape and sexual assault. Maybe the consent course will benefit new law students in the future if they are working in criminal law.

    1. delacaravanio

      That doesn’t sound like something law lecturers would say. Rape, on the whole, has a lower level of conviction than many other assaults, but it has more to do with the fact that it occurs behind closed doors than anything else.

      1. Karen

        Only reporting what my friend told me, maybe she misinterpreted her lecturer, but I’m not sure what the purpose of that would’ve been!

  7. MoyestWithExcitement

    Here’s why things like this are needed;

    “Nearly one in three college men admit they might rape a woman if they knew no one would find out and they wouldn’t face any consequences, according to a new study conducted by researchers at the University of North Dakota.

    **But, when the researchers actually used the word “rape” in their question, those numbers dropped much lower — suggesting that many college men don’t associate the act of forcing a woman to have sex with them with the crime of committing rape.**”

    1. Clampers Outside!

      More poor research being touted as fact. Please stop, please research propaganda before posting. Here’s why…

      “No polling organization would ever be taken seriously if its sample size was 73, and neither should this ‘study’ on college rape”

      “More problems with the ‘1 in 3 men would rape’ study”

      “Rape Culture is a ‘Panic Where Paranoia, Censorship, and False Accusations Flourish’ – discusses problems with the study

      There are more links to more reputable sources, like this more recent study

      Facts are good, propaganda is a pain in the bunghole.

        1. Clampers Outside!

          So, you choose to ignore facts because you don’t like the messenger…. and provide a link as if it were some sort of damaging indictment, when all it does is give a short bio…… So she’s anti-mainstream / third wave / modern feminism. And, what’s wrong with that? She’s an equity feminist, not a gender feminist, in other words she’s for equality for all, not sensationalist nonsense.

          Here, just for you …. * slow clap *

          1. Lorcan Nagle

            And instead of discussing the issue you go straight for insults?

            Also, I love how people try to define Third Wave Feminism as a bad thing. Are you suggesting that women’s rights are a good thing, but trans women are men trying to infiltrate spaces that women have managed to claim for themselves?

          2. Clampers Outside!

            Point out the insult Lorcan. Please point out the insult.

            And please, please, please do explain where you got that notion of that last line about transgender persons. I never even mentioned or alluded to such a thing.

            You’re classic, pet :) I do await your response. Please try to stick with what I’ve said and don’t make stuff up this time, thanks.

          3. Lorcan Nagle

            “Sorry, i should have used * jazz hands * I know how ‘clapping can cause anxiety’ among you third wave feminist types.” isn’t intended as an insult?

            The point I was making about trans women is that one of the biggest differences between second and third wave feminism is trans acceptance (the others being . a stronger focus on reproductive rights, fighting back against gender-based violence and rape, and sex-positivity)

            Ultimately I’m not trying to attack you here, if you don’t like feminism that’s your perogative. I brought up Hoff Summers specifically because she argues from bad faith, misinterprets other people’s work, and does things like attribute negative traits to ideologies that don’t actually include them.

          4. Clampers Outside!

            Please remember Lorcan, feminism does not own the fight for equality, not by any stretch. And to believe that it does, so blindingly as you do, is detrimental to seeing the full and wider picture.

            Remember that feminism is not a consistent ideological movement, it is one of many differing parts, and my issue is with the constant lies and misinformation inherent in the third wave of modern feminism, which seeks to demonise men with nonsense such as….. saying they are inferior when it comes to ’emotional intelligence’; incapable of real bonding; are damaging to marriage (that’s even coded in one US state); are all ‘potential rapists’ (modern feminism’s version of ‘original sin’); men need to be indoctrinated at university level and basically told they are animals.

            There is nothing of ‘equality’ in that approach.

            Here’s a good talk between Naomi Wolf and Karen Straughan, both of whom fight for ‘equality’ and one does so only from a feminist perspective – Naomi, whom I have a lot of respect for. But ‘respect’ does not mean I believe everything she says, that would be unthinking and idiotic. In this you’ll hopefully see it’s very clear that one is for actual ‘equality’ while the other… well, see for yourself…..


          5. Clampers Outside!

            You need to differentiate your ‘feminisms’ Lorcan. To go against one brand of feminism does not mean one is against egalitarianism, something much of modern feminism ignores by spreading ‘mizzinformation’ and hokey stats.

            Regarding your claim of being insulting for suggesting jazz hands / a slow clap… eh, no. I was illustrating one point of the nonsense of third wave feminism by way of an example…
            here are some examples of that nonsense…
            Some tweets from that conference….
            From that tweet – “Some delegates are requesting that we move to jazz hands rather than clapping, as it’s triggering anxiety. Please be mindful! #nuswomen15”
            And another….
            From that tweet “@nuswomcam please can we ask people to stop clapping but do feminist jazz hands? it’s triggering some peoples’ anxiety. thank you!”

            This nonsense stems from the idea of ‘triggers’ and ‘trauma’ and how people should be protected from trauma. Well, my experience of trauma and researching trauma has taught me that such practices are counter productive to overcoming trauma. That’s not an opinion, that’s backed up by science, here are a few articles on that…

            Now, who did I insult again? Oh yeah, no one, I just raised a silly point on third wave feminism’s nonsense rhetoric. And it is just that, rhetoric for the vast majority of it.

            Equality first, and always.

          6. Clampers Outside!

            Welcome to my opinion? I had my opinion without any need of your granting me a welcome to it.
            It is you who tries to shut down opinion with nonsense Lorcan.

            Now this is opinion… “she argues from bad faith, misinterprets other people’s work, and does things like attribute negative traits to ideologies that don’t actually include them.” I’d love to see the evidence of this.

            Thanks :)

          7. LW

            You didn’t mean any insult first by slow clap, and then by the jazz hands comment? I know text can be divorced from intended tone, but that’s very hard to swallow.

            Is the quality of your own propaganda substantially better Clampers? You make a good point about when you say that feminism is not a consistent ideological movement, but you disregard that same point by introducing, then complaining about, third wave feminism on a thread about a sexual education course in a Cork university.

            The program is based on one from the UK, details can be found here:

            Instead of complaining about every thing you’ve seen on the internet that you dislike, could you specifically give some issues that you see with the introduction of this course in UCC?

          8. Lorcan Nagle

            The rationalwiki page I linked to has examples of everything I said about Hoff Summers.

          9. Clampers Outside!

            The rationalwiki says absolutely nothing, zilch, nada about her arguing “from bad faith, misinterprets other people’s work, and does things like attribute negative traits to ideologies that don’t actually include them.”

            No, it says nothing of the sort, only you said that.

            Please try again, thanks.

          10. Lorcan Nagle

            Last line of the first paragraph of the section tiled “Views on contemporary feminism”

            “She persistently misrepresents scholarly debate, ignores evidence that contradicts her assertions, and directs intense scrutiny at studies she opposes while giving a free critical ride to research she supports.[26]”

            The quotation below that paragraph

            “As evidence of this supposed classroom prejudice against boys, Sommers told the audience that schools are replacing boys’ favorite game, “tag,” with a more female-friendly alternative called “circle of friends.” Sommers has been winding people up with this story for more than a decade: It shows up in The War Against Boys; in her 2005 book One Nation Under Therapy; in an interview that year on The Daily Show; and in a Q&A last week with NRO. So what schools, exactly, have outlawed tag? When Jon Stewart asked her, Sommers awkwardly backtracked: “Well, this is recommended in a book called Quit It, which is an anti-bullying curriculum.” In other words: “circle of friends” might be a real thing somewhere; it might not. Tag is not under threat. And neither, contrary to Sommers’s claims, are American men.[27]”

            Also, the second quotation in the “on the AAUW” section, and the one in the “on abortion” section.

            But at this point, the discussion is reductive and utterly unproductive. As I’ve said before, you’re welcome to your opinion on feminism. I’m not going to argue against it because I know I’m not going to change your mind.

          11. Clampers Outside!

            Finally, we are getting somewhere.
            I am aware of that criticism of her book with regard to the “tag” games. And I like many who criticise it, will tell also tell you that their is a point to what she is saying, she’s just going about it badly. I’ve never said she is perfect :) No one is. I can accept that specific point of that example not being at all robust.
            But you will find plenty of studies out there that show boys learn differently than girls which is the basic tenet of her argument. And as a result, they perform poorer under schooling designed for girls… just look at university entry stats in the western world for any proof. So, we can agree on the ‘tag’ example as being a poor arguement.

            Now, as I said… finally we are getting somewhere. I see now that you do see the problem with her ‘research’ and you are happy to point out poor research when it is mentioned.
            So, might I ask, why do you support the poor research that puts forth the ‘1 in 3’ argument when that too has been clearly rubbished? Why do you think that poor research is acceptable, but not Ms Hoffs? I’m quite baffled by that. But it’s not something I’m surprised by anymore when dealing with blinkered defenders of third wave feminism, I do hope you can enlighten me on that one, on your double standard. I can accept poor research is not acceptable, but it’s very rare for third wave feminists to do so…. baffling.

            As for the other two points:
            The second quote on AAUW: It’s an opinion from AAUW of a book which criticises the AAUW. Did you think it was going to be positive? It’s an opinion by that group, nothing more. So, she has an opinion and they have an opinion. That’s all it says.

            On Abortion – That quote says “Her primary concern with abortion is what she perceives to be an all-encompassing “agenda” promoting abortion even when the woman herself, due to religious or personal values, disagrees.”
            That’s pro-choice for the woman involved. Nothing wrong with that. isn’t that what we want in Ireland, every woman to have a choice, even if we disagree with that choice. You do know that she is pro-choice. I find you quoting this as a negative mark for her as very, very odd.

          12. Clampers Outside!

            @LW… just to get back to you…

            “Is the quality of your own propaganda substantially better Clampers?” I’m not selling propaganda, I’m poking holes in it.

            “you disregard that same point by introducing, then complaining about, third wave feminism on a thread about a sexual education course in a Cork university.” – I disagree completely.
            Is it a “Sexual education course”? that’s way too simple to describe it. For me, the “guide” for the course in your link is a starting point. It’s called a guide in your link. So, it does remain to be seen what the course entails exactly. These courses do vary widely in the US where they originated, so to assume it is a simple straight up Sex Ed course would be foolish. These courses are not run by egalitarians, they are run by third wave feminists who preach nonsense about “toxic masculinity” but deny “female toxicity”. That’s not balance or egalitarian. It’s one sided agenda driven. Or, in other words, it is not about ‘equality’.

            Further to that, these courses often lead to ‘safe spaces’. The creation of ‘safe spaces’ is not healthy for women or men, and works counter to trauma recovery. You can find numerous links on how this is so, but feminism and it’s ‘agenda’ driven focus, as opposed to an ‘egalitarian’ drive and focus, ignores that. A decent piece on safe spaces here…

            I guess until we see the actual module content, we cannot fully critique this course, but only comment on how these courses have been used or how they’ve evolved in the US, and to a lesser extent the UK.

          13. LW

            “I guess until we see the actual module content, we cannot fully critique this course” – That, unfortunately, doesn’t seem to have stopped you at all.

            You’re selling, or at least offering, the propaganda of the American Enterprise Institute no?

            It is a sexual education course, it’s educating on sexual coercion.
            “These courses are not run by egalitarians, they are run by third wave feminists who preach nonsense about “toxic masculinity” but deny “female toxicity”. That’s not balance or egalitarian. It’s one sided agenda driven. Or, in other words, it is not about ‘equality’.” Clampers you’ve veered off into a rant about feminism here again, which has nothing to do with this. And then you start banging on about safe spaces. What kind of balance do you want here? Rape victims say rape is bad, but for balance here we have a rapist arguing how it’s fun?

            The program and report on it are available at that link. Is there anything specific to this course, or to the idea of education around sexual consent, that you have a problem with? Not feminism of whatever wave, or women who don’t want equality, just the course seeking to educate participants around sexual consent

          14. Clampers Outside!

            The American Institute is just one of many who have shown the problems with the research this conversation began with.

            No. These courses and ‘safe spaces’ do go hand in hand. And to bring it local, there’s been a recent call for safe spaces to be created in UCD, even suggesting that UCD was not a safe space for any feminist –

            My veer into a rant, as you put it, is relevant. You only have to look at what’s happening in the US universities to see that connection between these courses what is actually taught in them, which includes ‘toxic masculinity’ and all men are ‘potential rapists’. Check out Janice Fiamengo’s youtube post on campus politics and gender to see where this has got to in the US – btw she’s a pro-equality and freedom of speech campaigner, she’s also an anti-feminist. I hope that doesn’t mean you are going to just ignore her views.

            I take exception to this… “What kind of balance do you want here? Rape victims say rape is bad, but for balance here we have a rapist arguing how it’s fun?”
            You said that. You are the one dragging the conversation into hysterical nonsense. I said nothing of the sort nor expected this conversation to head into such a direction. Thank you.

            “Is there anything specific to this course, or to the idea of education around sexual consent, that you have a problem with? Not feminism of whatever wave, or women who don’t want equality, just the course seeking to educate participants around sexual consent” – If a course is seeking to educate about consent I have no problem with that. If the teaching of said course involves the teaching that all men are ‘potential rapists’ I do have a problem with that. That’s not balance. That’s certainly not equality. That’s dogma, an ideology.

            I know, or at least I’m getting the impression, you think I’m jumping the gun, or placing experiences from another country on what is only just beginning here, and that here, it could be something for good. I hope it is something for good. But it’s more than that.

            My point is, it is very clear what these courses have done when implemented elsewhere and that universities should be clear not to create ideologically based environments within the university that are contrived for purposes other than that intended, ie sex ed; not demonisation of young men entering uni.

            So… do i have a problem with “just the course seeking to educate participants around sexual consent” – not at all.

          15. LW

            We both have our views on what’s hysterical nonsense, in my view plotting a course from the introduction of a course on sexual consent to a rant on the evils of non-egalitarian feminists and safe spaces qualifies handsomely. You say you have no problem with a course seeking to educate participants on sexual consent, which isn’t really borne out by your complaining about said course being offered.

            You’re definitely jumping the gun, and your rant is not relevant. This was brought in by the student welfare officer who had girls coming in to her telling her about being raped. It seems a response to a problem identified, a pro-active approach taking the view that prevention is better than the alternative.

            And the American Enterprise Institute are the same crowd that were trying to pay scientists to post holes in global warming, so I would be inclined to take their propaganda with a pinch of salt

          16. Clampers Outside!

            Look, it’s not a rant when she herself cites the bad US research and Stanford as the reasons.

            And… “The module is being rolled out in the wake of high-profile incidents of sexual assault in college campuses in the US such as the Brock Turner rape case at Stanford University.”

            You do know what “in the wake of means”.

            Now, the nasty stuff… as in the ‘misinformation’
            You say that she said women were raped. Because that’s what the Evening Echo said… (link at top start of article) on July 4th 2016
            “When I was being trained up for this job last year I don’t think I ever fully believed I would have students telling me they had been raped.”

            That same quote in The Irish Times on June 30th 2016 has two extra words…. “I spent three months last summer trying to prepare myself for the day someone would walk into my [Students’ Union Welfare] office and tell me they had been raped or sexually assaulted”

            Might I add, that there are no ‘rape’ reports to be found for UCC in the period of her “first five months” when these were reported, or any part of the UCC college year.

            And you say that I am the one going off on a rant…. give over.

            Rape is a hideous heinous crime, we both agree with that. Fudging information on ‘rape’ is a despicable crime. If this is to be done at all, it HAS to be done properly, openly and honestly…. with facts, not emotion, just like all other crimes.

          17. LW

            Your tirade on third wave feminism, safe spaces etc defies any categorisation other than rant.

            In the echo she says the first student told her they were raped during fresher’s week. What are you saying here, that that didn’t happen?

          18. LW

            Are you by any chance conflating two different quotes and then claiming one disproves the other or something?

          19. LW

            And where did you get this thing about no ” ‘rape’ reports” – did you check PULSE? And why rape in quotation marks?

          20. Clampers Outside!

            I don’t accept one person’s word on such matters, I want facts, simples.

            BTW, to bring us back to where we started, the researchers THEMSELVES who devised and drew up the two studies that have been misused to make the claim that ‘1 in 5’ stat have themselves said that to make such claims from the research is “inappropriate” ie – wrong.
            Have a look at this….

          21. Clampers Outside!

            Here’s a few things…

            1. Washington Post retraction / correction of their earlier story believing in the ‘1 in 5’ nonsense
            2. It’s by the Brookings Institute, which should satisfy your distrust of AEI due to their…”As a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, Brookings describes itself as independent and non-partisan. A 2005 academic study by UCLA concluded it was centrist in that it was referenced as an authority almost equally by both conservative and liberal politicians in congressional records from 1993 to 2002.[15] The New York Times has referred to the organization as liberal, liberal-centrist, centrist, and conservative.”… in a nut shell ‘balanced’.
            3. The study is ripped apart for it’s complete hyperbolic approach to statistics and research, as all advocacy research usually is….

            This nonsense has to stop.

            Equality for all on all levels.

          22. LW

            What the hell are you banging on about clampers? Neither I nor this started with the 1 in 5 thing. I asked you where you got your raiméis about no rape reports in UCC? And you don’t believe someone came to her to tell her she was raped because she alone says it?

Comments are closed.