A recently published an article called "Mizzou Official Claims Tall Men Asking Out Short Women Could Constitute Sexual Misconduct."
Basically, an official from the University of Missouri said that a "male student who was physically larger than the female student he asked out may have violated the school's Title IX policy because his physical size gave him 'power over her.'"
The not uncommon situation that was in question, happened back in July when a male student asked out their female fitness instructor. Supposedly, she claimed she was busy, and to check in later that month." She later asked him to stop making sexual advances towards her.
A lawsuit eventually came about, between both this man and this woman involved.
Mizzou's Vice Chancellor of student affairs, Cathy Scroggs, was later being questioned on the matter-- more specifically: if "the accusation against John satisfied the school's policy for sexual misconduct regarding one having "power or authority" over another."
She responded, "I think he was perceived as having power over her."
How is this, you may ask? The questioner wondered as well, continuing along this idea of power, asking if it was the man's "size" that contributed to this so-called power.
She responded that it was his "physical size."
So apparently, if you are physically larger in stature, and you are asking someone out on a date, you are a sexual harasser. Immediately.
As if asking someone out isn't stressful enough, you now have to size them up. How many inches difference causes misconduct to jump to harassment?
But, wait. I'm sorry. Haven't we been having a year's ongoing debate that has been proven by the feminists that it's true, in fact, that men are no stronger than women in any shape, form, or capacity?
Women are just as strong. Just as capable. Just as physically able.
Or at least, that 's what's been insisted upon.
So, if now it's been decided by a liberal society that it's objectively true that women are just as strong as men, how could this woman possibly have been dealt a lesser hand in the power department?
Oh right, because every argument like this is one of convenience.
Need women to be strong in order to take down men? They are.
Need women to be weak in order to take down men? They are.
Why aren't the feminists freaking out over a conservative report quoting someone saying that a man's physical statute instills power over women?
Maybe because they're struggling over whether to defend women's physicality or wanting to profit off of sexual misconduct allegations?
Well, if you ask me, it's all just overly sexist, really.