She seems nice. In fact, she’s almost too cute by half.

Now, before we get too deep in the argle-bargle weeds of elite academia here, maybe you’re asking yourself (much as I did), “Vurt da furk is ‘sex exceptionalism’?”

Well, lemme tell you – to my untutored legal mind (I’m not a lawyer – I only play one here at HotAir), it seems to be a newer, progressive, neo-feminist concept. Certainly every single advocate I’ve found espousing this so far meets every definition of progressive chic, from wonk profile photo to the exact same boilerplate verbiage – visualize Bud Light Marketing Executive mannerisms, faux intellectual depth, and overweening egos, just different end products. It’s as if there was a vapid, self-centered, and insufferable #wymmin factory operating somewhere, pumping these automatons out. I’d venture a guess they’d be called “elite/Ivy League universities” because every last one of these women seems to have a chi-chi sheepskin – or five – under their belts.

Below is the introductory paragraph of a Stanford Law Review paper titled “Sex Exceptionalism in Criminal Law” by a woman named Aya Gruber. On her personal webpage Prof Gruber describes herself as “Professor of Feminism, Criminal Law & Critical Race Theory.” Make of that what you will, but I think you can get the gist of “sex exceptionalism” from these few sentences – emphasis mine.

Abstract. Sex crimes are the worst crimes. People generally believe that sexual assault is graver than nonsexual assault, uninvited sexual compliments are worse than nonsexual insults, and sex work is different from work. Criminal codes typically create a dedicated category for sex offenses, uniting under its umbrella conduct ranging from violent attacks to consensual commercial transactions. This exceptionalist treatment of sex as categorically different rarely elicits discussion, much less debate. Sex exceptionalism, however, is neither natural nor neutral, and its political history should give us pause…

In other words, these “feminists” seem to be saying, yes, rape/sex crime is just awful, but is it any worse than any other crime? Should there be a separate category – an “exception” – for them? And if one believes it is not, then how can one make an “exception” for sexual crimes which seeks to punish the perpetrator even more harshly for an act which should be considered just another violent crime.

When you look at it from this uber-woke viewpoint, you then begin to understand the tweet from the woke Canadian assistant law professor I opened with. Oh, gosh, yes, she seems to say – sure it was awful stuff, but even more so because now the Israelis and the US can use sex crimes to justify and “whip up support” for their “disproportionate” aggression. That is the greater sin in her eyes.

As you can imagine, this blew up and rightfully so. But it provided such a chilling window (while it lasted, because she, of course, dove into protected tweets shortly thereafter) into the neo-feminist mind.

People have been asking “Where are the women’s groups? Why aren’t they speaking out about this horror? Where are the #MeToos and the #BringOurGirlsBack bunch?”

I hate to tell you – here they are. Here they all are, spawned from the same gnarled and ever so twisted roots, apparently.

One of the most insane video from the US since the war started…

Presidents of the University of Pennsylvania @Penn & @Harvard smilingly say that calling for genocide of Jews isn’t necessarily against their code against harassment & bullying on campus pic.twitter.com/ehDTZ0T7NF

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) December 5, 2023

And they couldn’t give a rip about the women who were brutalized so savagely in Israel, because they see their torture and brutal murders not as victims of a murderous, barbaric, misogynist Islamic death cult, but as instruments for the Israeli and US war machine. And that is far worse in their eyes.

Prof Matthews doesn’t deny the “sexual violence,” she just decries its place in the bigger picture. Her “long focused” research history, you know, has led her to this place.

She also neatly distills the entire continuance of “aggression” against Gaza and its vile subterranean terrorist inhabitants to rape and rape alone – in effect, politely suggesting the Israeli women check their victimization, and take a look at what is being perpetuated in their names. All because of “sexual violence,” as Matthews so clinically puts it.

Well…huh.

But, then again, when one steps back a month or so in Prof Matthews’ timeline – to October 8, in fact – perhaps her sympathies are clearer?

Perhaps.

Perhaps.

But that’s where your elite feminists are.

Wonder no longer.

May I present the Founding Mothers of the?

Sure, Rape is Bad, BUT School of Critical Feminist Theory

Coming soon to a daughter near you.