Feminists Looking To Big Government To Act All Big Daddy
Charges of sexual harassment underly a Title IX complaint by Yale students and alumni. In reviewing the charges, Feminist civil libertarian Wendy Kaminer observes in The Atlantic of how feminism -- "if feminism includes independence, liberty, and power for women" -- has been replaced by femininity -- "the assumption that women are incapable of fending for themselves in the marketplace of epithets or ideas, the belief that women are rendered helpless by misogynist speech and the sexist tantrums of their male peers":
The Yale group's confidential Title IX complaint to the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) reportedly includes testimony about sexual assaults, but the hostile-environment charge against the university rests as well on a litany of complaints about offensive exercises of First Amendment freedoms. A December 2010 draft complaint letter, obtained by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), focuses on these "incidents": In 2006, a group of frat boys chant "No means yes, yes means anal" outside the Yale Women's Center. In 2010, a group of fraternity pledges repeat this obnoxious chant outside a first-year women's dorm. In 2008, pledges surround the Women's Center holding signs saying, "We love Yale sluts." In 2009, Yale students publish a report listing the names and addresses of first-year women and estimating the number of beers "it would take to have sex with them."...The only incident of alleged harassment cited in the draft complaint that does not involve pure speech is an act of vandalism. In 2004 and 2005, fraternity brothers stole T-shirts featuring the stories of "rape survivors" from a Take Back the Night project and photographed pledges wearing the T-shirts. But, perversely, this theft to which free speech is irrelevant provokes the only expression of concern for it: "To steal these T-shirts is akin to stealing the voices of the victims," the draft complaint melodramatically asserts -- as if the victims were prevented from repeating and reclaiming their stories. If the T-shirt theft was intended to censor women, its success depended on their willingness to respond by censoring themselves.
What accounts for such feminine timidity, this instinctive unwillingness or inability to talk or taunt back, without seeking the protection of university or government bureaucrats? Talking is apparently beside the point. "I just want to be able to walk back to my dorm at night without hearing all this crazy stuff from these guys," one student complains. I sympathize (I was a young woman once, too), but "hearing crazy stuff" from people in public is part of life in a free society, a society in which you enjoy equal rights to say crazy stuff.
"No means yes, yes means anal"
Charming. My friend who is quite a good kickboxer would be out to tell them just how wrong they were in seconds, unless I could talk her out of it (and I'd have to talk fast, she's stronger than me). And if I couldn't I'd be backing her up.
I agree the answer is not restriction of speech - better for the women involved to come outside in a group and wiggle their pinky fingers at the guys in the universal sign of "tiny dick". Take photos, and post them publicly. Speech is free, but you'd better be willing to take the consequences when others exercise theirs.
Ltw at April 8, 2011 2:00 AM
I suppose the fact that I don't post here under my real name detracts from my point a bit. I suppose all I can say is that I'm consistent (I only ever post under the one handle), they are my initials, and Amy knows my name from my email and my IP if it came down it.
Ltw at April 8, 2011 3:46 AM
If you can dish it out you better be prepared to back it up...
It looks like the campus is getting tired of the feminist victim mentality. Feminism is on the way out...just look at Feministing and the lack of comments they get...it won't be too long before they get smart like Jessica Valenti and go find a man and start a family.
mike2 at April 8, 2011 5:26 AM
And I'd be right behind both of you, ltw! This is idiocy. If you don't speak up for yourself, why should you expect someone else to?
Flynne at April 8, 2011 5:30 AM
All the so called incidents are probably responses to feminazi indoctrination on the campuses(vagina monologues every year). Besides, how is a take back the night project not sexual harrasment of men since it always involves placards reading 'all men are rapists' etc. Feminism wants free expression for itself, but does not want the party which is the victim of its free expression to react with its own free expression.
"I just want to be able to walk back to my dorm at night without hearing all this crazy stuff from these guys," - even guys want to walk back to their dorm without hearing crazy stuff like 'all men are rapists'...sorry babe, you can't have it both ways.
Redrajesh at April 8, 2011 5:44 AM
"No means yes, yes means anal"
Am I wrong for having snickered at this?
I R A Darth Aggie at April 8, 2011 6:05 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/08/no_more_big_dad.html#comment-2014270">comment from I R A Darth Aggie"No means yes, yes means anal" Am I wrong for having snickered at this?
I did, too!
Amy Alkon at April 8, 2011 6:33 AM
I chuckled a bit. The anal fascination is often amusing. Of course, I had just given an informal talk in one of the dorms on our campus earlier this week on porn and sex with males and females in the group.
Catherine at April 8, 2011 6:46 AM
Love the tough-talking women so ready to respond with violence to mere words. If you'd actually been there, you'd have been cowering in the little girls' room.
LOLing at April 8, 2011 6:52 AM
Agree with Kaminer's points.
I have to say, I went to a big-ol-party school, and the fraternities there never did anything like this. (Of course, we didn't have a "women's center....")
This leads me to the conclusion that Yale frat boys are such dorks that they probably never get laid and have quite a bit of pent-up hostility toward women.
ahw at April 8, 2011 7:10 AM
LOLing, ltw is a guy. I am not, but neither is his friend he was talking about. And there was no talk of violence, just that she (and he) would be out there "to tell them just how wrong they were", and I said I'd be there with them. Read much?
Perhaps it's YOU who'd be "cowering in the little girls' room"?
Flynne at April 8, 2011 7:12 AM
I think posting the names and addresses of women crosses a line.
I agree that the thing with the T-shirts is ridiculous, and I'm not a fan of this knee-jerk reaction to censor anything that makes you angry. But I do think it's incumbent upon Yale to handle these matters internally - and they (and many other universities) have shown a real reluctance to deal with these issues.
My university was wonderful - I had a stalker (and not in the funny, haha way women use the term now, which I hate - in the, if I don't check in at night, call the police because I may be in a landfill kind of way) and it really disrupted my life, but I went to the guards, explained the situation, and they (all of them old white guys - oh noes, the Patriarchy!) were great.
Choika at April 8, 2011 7:24 AM
"Charming. My friend who is quite a good kickboxer would be out to tell them just how wrong they were in seconds, unless I could talk her out of it (and I'd have to talk fast, she's stronger than me). And if I couldn't I'd be backing her up."
Who do you think would cry more after you guys got your asses kicked?
Bill C at April 8, 2011 8:00 AM
And you, Bill C, just like LOLing, totally missed the mark - NO one was looking to kick ass, they were going to TELL these boys that they were wrong, not beat it into them! Doesn't anybody READ??
Flynne at April 8, 2011 8:04 AM
Flynne,
While I agree with you that there was no explicit reference to violence in the original post. There was an implicit reference to some sort of physicality that goes beyond mere words.
Otherwise what would be the point of making mention that his friend is a "good kickboxer"? What would that have to do with a verbal debate?
I mean, unless someone were planning on fighting the other people that bit of information is irrelevant. I'm quite sure that this individual has a multitude of qualities, so why mention that one specifically?
If someone were going to enter into a verbal conflict wouldn't it make more sense to highlight there amazing debate skills?
Reality at April 8, 2011 8:22 AM
I suspect that these incidents say more about the standing of the Yale Women's Center than the treatment of women at Yale generally.
nora at April 8, 2011 8:31 AM
To the trolls:
You can get further with a kind word and a 2x4 than you can with just a 2x4. I'm guessing that a woman who is a "good kickboxer" is likely to be both ripped and assertive.
You're just compensating for the time that little Suzie pantsed you in front of your friends, and all they did was laugh and laugh.
brian at April 8, 2011 8:32 AM
"I mean, unless someone were planning on fighting the other people that bit of information is irrelevant. I'm quite sure that this individual has a multitude of qualities, so why mention that one specifically?"
Exactly right, because in real life when you get in someone's face there is a real chance of a fight breaking out. Also, in real life tuff girls get their heads handed to them because all the training in the world won't make up for 50 lbs. of muscle.
Bill C at April 8, 2011 8:34 AM
And all the muscle in the world won't make up for a knee-lift to the groin.
Look at the tough guy - he can beat up a girl.
brian at April 8, 2011 8:37 AM
Your thoughts on Title IX would be most interesting. That would make a great article.
JD at April 8, 2011 8:40 AM
Also, in real life tuff girls get their heads handed to them because all the training in the world won't make up for 50 lbs. of muscle.
Hasn't happened to me yet. And I've dealt with a lot of asshats in my life. But then again, for me, fighting is a last resort. I will always try reason before rousting. Doesn't always work. But I like knowing I'm able to put up, as well as shut up, when I recognize a lost cause.
Flynne at April 8, 2011 8:42 AM
Brian Says:
"You can get further with a kind word and a 2x4 than you can with just a 2x4."
And exactly why would that be the case unless there was an implied threat of physical force?
This ultimately goes back to the point that several people were trying to make about the use of force in an otherwise verbal conflict.
If one wants to advance their cause with implied force it sounds rather childish and stupid to then claim "all I said was that I wanted to talk... the 2x4 is just here because I collect lumber".
In a society that values free speech, implied force is an absolutely unacceptable way to engage others in conversation.
Reality at April 8, 2011 8:44 AM
Spanks for the back up, brian. Love ya lots!
Flynne at April 8, 2011 8:46 AM
In a society that values free speech, implied force is an absolutely unacceptable way to engage others in conversation.
And these boys at Yale were implying...what, exactly? That they can call women what they want and taunt them with no repercussions whatsoever? That "oh we were just kidding"? There was some pretty real hostility on their part, and the girls were genuinely afraid of them, and they're supposed to lie down and roll over? One threat begets another, and while I agree that's not the way to deal with a situation, I'd rather be thought of as someone who can protect and standup for herself than someone who can't, because I won't always have back-up. If someone wants to discuss the matter civily, I'm all for it, but that was decidedly not the case here. Besides, your right to free speech ends where my privacy begins, and you don't get to make vulgar remarks about my private sex life in a public place. Thanks anyway.
Flynne at April 8, 2011 8:55 AM
Bullshit. Tell it to the unions.
Implied force exists in every mammalian interaction. Those who get the most respect are the ones who could obviously use force and yet refrain.
@Flynne - Any time.
brian at April 8, 2011 9:05 AM
The basic problem with having women's centers any longer is that they intentionally provoke these sorts of incidents. You can't have an organization on campus, putting out the sorts of incendiary messages that they do, and not expect a hostile reaction from young men on campus.
tittering at April 8, 2011 9:06 AM
"Besides, your right to free speech ends where my privacy begins..."
Quite the little tyrant, aren't you?
I have seen this probably a hundred times. A girl gets worked up about something and brow beats a man into defending her honor. We ain't falling for it any more. Chivalry is dead.
"And these boys at Yale were implying...what, exactly? That they can call women what they want and taunt them with no repercussions whatsoever?"
Yes, they should have that right. Free speech can be ugly that is why it needs protection. (BTW, no means yes, yes means anal is f***ing hilarious.) These guys were mocking the feminist credo, "no means no," because it is ridiculous. Everyone knows women often say no and then can have their minds changed. If every man gave up at the first sign of resistance then we wouldn't exist as a species.
Bill C at April 8, 2011 9:09 AM
He started it. She did it first. I'm telling mommy.
I'm glad our future elites are such ill mannered, whiny wimps. My scorn should be earned, not bestowed without merit.
MarkD at April 8, 2011 9:12 AM
I'm not a tyrant, I just want to be left alone. If you're bullying me, you're not leaving me alone, and I will defend myself accordingly. And I have NEVER brow-beaten ANYONE to defend my honor! Jump to conclusions much?
No, they shouldn't have the right to cast apsersions of such a nasty nature on women they don't even know, without some kind of retribution, even if it is just taunting back. They can dish it out but they shouldn't have to take it? What kind of a man are you Bill C? I suspect you're much less of a man than you're trying to come across as here.
If every man gave up at the first sign of resistance then we wouldn't exist as a species.
Well I guess that answers my question. Still living life as a knuckle-dragger, eh? You never heard of moving on the the next one? Talk about an asshat.
Flynne at April 8, 2011 9:15 AM
Chivalry is not dead. Just seldom rewarded.
Dave B at April 8, 2011 9:21 AM
Besides, your right to free speech ends where my privacy begins, and you don't get to make vulgar remarks about my private sex life in a public place.
You're wrong on both points, legally speaking.
And these boys at Yale were implying...what, exactly? That they can call women what they want and taunt them with no repercussions whatsoever?
They weren't taunting women, they were taunting the women's center. Also you seem to be operating under the assumption that their behavior was unprovoked. But I've worked on campuses and seen what women's centers do. They're like campus sponsored hate groups. So it's quite likely that these men were simply responding to what the women's center has done to them. That's why they were mocking them.
If there were a men's center at Yale devoted to harassing women, you can be sure that Yale's female population would do something about it.
shiva at April 8, 2011 9:22 AM
"No, they shouldn't have the right to cast apsersions of such a nasty nature on women they don't even know, without some kind of retribution, even if it is just taunting back."
Free speech should be countered with more free speech. If you go to the authorities or resort to violence to silence those with whom you disagree then you are a tyrant.
"What kind of a man are you Bill C? I suspect you're much less of a man than you're trying to come across as here."
I am a man who believes in equal rights. So why are you calling my manhood into question because I don't believe in what? Silencing others who offend you? What kind of woman is such a hypocrite that she would demand special privileges? Oh yeah, a feminist.
"Still living life as a knuckle-dragger, eh? You never heard of moving on the the next one?"
I have moved on, I got married. But back when I was single I discovered that knuckle-draggers get laid. Despite your protests, women love men who won't take their BS.
"Talk about an asshat."
Let me translate that for everyone. I have tried to shame him by questioning his manhood and I am obviously losing this argument so I am reaching deep in my bag of tricks and am going to call him a loser.
Bill C at April 8, 2011 9:28 AM
They weren't taunting women, they were taunting the women's center.
And what did the women's center ever do to them, besides just being there?
Also you seem to be operating under the assumption that their behavior was unprovoked.
I'm curious, just HOW did the women's center provoke their behavior? By just existing?
Wow. Perhaps ALL women's centers should be banned?
So it's quite likely that these men were simply responding to what the women's center has done to them. That's why they were mocking them.
Yes, I'm sure that the women's center directly targeted those boys and "did" something to them. THAT explains it!
If there were a men's center at Yale devoted to harassing women, you can be sure that Yale's female population would do something about it.
Oh horseshit. The women's center isn't "devoted to harassing" men! What a crock! And besides, what have any women done to any member of oh, say, the Skull and Bones? NOT A DAMN THING.
You're full of shit, shiva.
Flynne at April 8, 2011 9:33 AM
Flynne,
Not to put too fine a point on it, but your position is not so very different than those who think it is okay to threaten decapitation upon those who draw cartoons they do not like.
Speech is properly combated with speech, NEVER with threats or implied use of physical violence.
Reality at April 8, 2011 9:35 AM
Duh, how silly of me. Of course the references to kickboxing and strength had no implications of violence at all. It was meant to convey how articulate and reasonable you and your friends are.
What could I have been thinking?
LOLing at April 8, 2011 9:35 AM
Despite your protests, women love men who won't take their BS.
Maybe you don't KNOW any women who won't take your BS.
I have tried to shame him by questioning his manhood and I am obviously losing this argument so I am reaching deep in my bag of tricks and am going to call him a loser.
Not by half, honey.
Look, I'm not trying to "silence others who offend [me]", I don't really give a shit. All I want is for people to be decent to each other. Until that happens, I'll give back what I get. If you're nasty to me, you'll get nasty back. If you're nice, you'll get nice. It's really very simple.
Flynne at April 8, 2011 9:40 AM
"If there were a men's center at Yale devoted to harassing women, you can be sure that Yale's female population would do something about it. "
I have had two friends who were falsely accused of rape in college. In one case the friendly neighborhood feminists convinced the girl that her drinking meant that she could not have given consent. That guy is very liberal and this incident hurt him deeply. Although he seems a little more reticent about believing feminist agitprop.
Bill C at April 8, 2011 9:42 AM
Brian Says:
"Implied force exists in every mammalian interaction. Those who get the most respect are the ones who could obviously use force and yet refrain."
So what you are trying to say is that the strength of an argument or a position is related to the physical strength of the person making that argument?
That is one of the most stupid things I have ever heard.
You might as well say that if someone here threatens to beat you up then you will back down from your position and agree with them.
The validity of an argument rests upon its inherent merit, not on how how strong or violent the person making the claim is.
Now I agree with you that it is possible to bully others into backing down and remaining silent... but is that really the society that you want to fight for?
I guarantee one day someone bigger and more violent than you will want to shut you up, are you prepared to accept that as reasonable behavior?
Free speech isn't just for those who agree with your point of view, it is also for those who say things you find offensive.
Reality at April 8, 2011 9:48 AM
That truly sucks, Bill C and I'm sorry to hear about it. There are women out there who go out of their way to discredit men, but I am not one of them. I think women who falsely accuse men of rape should be punished. Too often they get away with it, and the women who would never even think of doing such a thing get vilified for it anyway. It's very sad.
Flynne at April 8, 2011 9:50 AM
OK Flynne, it's apparent that you don't really know what you're talking about.
A campus women's center isn't a clinic, or a rec center. It's an ideological organization sponsored by the school. They're advocacy groups, and they certainly make no attempt to represent all women. The one on my campus is run by hardcore lesbians and openly hostile to straight women.
So maybe you should calm down and try to understand what people are arguing about before you go off on them.
shiva at April 8, 2011 9:55 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/08/no_more_big_dad.html#comment-2014502">comment from Dave BChivalry is not dead. Just seldom rewarded.
Always rewarded -- and appreciated -- by me.
Amy Alkon at April 8, 2011 10:01 AM
Shiva, the women's center here at Yale does NOT go out of its way to harass or malign men. Maybe the one where YOU go to school does, and I'm sorry about that. The center here is not run by hardcore lesbians either, so perhaps you could tone it down a little, too? I was perfectly calm, by the way. I have no stake in what's been going on here, because I work in a different department. But I think you're over-projecting a tad.
Flynne at April 8, 2011 10:01 AM
So Flynne if this isn't about the women's center, why did the fratboys go to the women's center?
shive at April 8, 2011 10:09 AM
"And all the muscle in the world won't make up for a knee-lift to the groin."
This idea that an untrained (or even trained, to be honest) adult female is going to simply "kick nuts" and thereby disable an attacking grown man is a fantasy too frequently peddled. Please stop.
Women, please don't think you are going to someday deal with a male attacker by simply "kicking his nuts". You likely will not succeed in hitting your target. You will likely not slow him down much, even if you do hit his groin. It all happens fast, and you will have lost by the time you realize you are fighting.
Adrenaline has some seriously scary effects on grown men, including the ability to ignore what would otherwise be debilitating pain. A groin strike is not debilitating.
Personally, I have continued fighting for multiple rounds after having multiple ribs broken. Concussions, cracked eye orbitals, broken hands and feet were similarly ignored when they happened. I have been kicked in the groin too during fights, by fighters with a decade of fighting experience. Not that big a deal, to be honest, at least compared to other injuries.
Getting the wind knocked out of you is worse, in my experience, but adrenalized men generally keep going in such circumstances. And that is in the relatively friendly environs of a competitive match. Put safety and freedom on the line, and men will ignore a lot worse pain to achieve their ends.
I am not unique, from what I have seen in decades of training. Watching others, I have frequently seen fighters take a full-on kick right to the testicles delivered by other trained fighters, and then barely react.
"Also, in real life tuff girls get their heads handed to them because all the training in the world won't make up for 50 lbs. of muscle."
Yes. I have helped train many fighters, including women. From those years, my conclusion has been the same: relatively few women possess the spirit to really fight for their safety. Of those that do, most still lack the physical capacity to fight men for real. And those are the women who seriously undertake the task of learning how to fight.
Everyone can remember the "ho ho ho, did you SEE that?" moments from the bar where some gal went all shrieky on some guy, and he did not hit back. Yeah, well, a fight isn't like that. Don't think it is.
When asked for self-defense tips, I tell people, both men and women, "Carry pepper spray, and wear comfortable shoes, so you can run after spraying." Most black belts I meet are incapable of really fighting a capable person intent on hurting them. A person who doesn't even do that much training? No hope.
Spartee at April 8, 2011 10:28 AM
Chivalry is not dead. Just seldom rewarded.
Posted by: Dave B at April 8, 2011 9:21 AM
--------------
Nah, its just mostly dead. Miracle Max(ine?) is needed to revive it though and not many care to bother.
Sio at April 8, 2011 10:43 AM
So Flynne if this isn't about the women's center, why did the fratboys go to the women's center?
Because that's where they would find, oh I dunno, women???
Spartee, while I agree with everything you just posted, I have found that when I stand my ground, I usually don't have to do more than that. The one time I did kick a guy in the groin, he went down like a sack o' taters. Probably because he was drunker than I was, but he went down and didn't get up for a while. I didn't stay around to see exactly when he did get up, though.
Flynne at April 8, 2011 10:54 AM
"All I want is for people to be decent to each other. Until that happens, I'll give back what I get."
Great. Just as long as you don't run to someone and try to get them to silence those that aren't decent to you.
Bill C at April 8, 2011 11:11 AM
All these years I should have been pegging the guys who groaned, "Yes, baby, yes!" Hindsight. :(
Insufficient Poison at April 8, 2011 11:22 AM
Do Yale girls have no self-esteem to have these things bother them? Do they lack any creativity to come up with similar signs? Can't they just ignore them? I really don't get it.
@Sio I agree with Amy. Chivalry is not dead. I actually come across tons of men who open doors for me and treat me like a lady. Just the ones who lack chivalry tend to stand out more. It made me smile the other day when a man was disappointed that I made it to the door before him and he couldn't open the door for me.
BTW, is there a Yale Men's Center?
NikkiG at April 8, 2011 11:28 AM
Am I really the only one that finds the behavior of the guys absolutely reprehensible? Seriously? Some of what was printed well passes the line from "disgusting behavior" to actually dangerous. Specifically targeting the first-years along with posting their names and addresses in a way that invites getting them drunk in order to sex them up is absolutely horrible. Same with that chant you people seem to find so adorable.
Free speech also is limited when a private entity is involved. In this case, Yale. The police weren't involved, the school was. They may not go to prison for the incidents (and they probably shouldn't), but I kind of hope they get kicked out of the college for it. Trying to squeeze an education out of a modern-day college is difficult enough without this kind of harassment going on.
P.S. If a woman responds to this kind of thing with violence and nuts-kicking, you can bet that the guys will call the cops on her.
Sarah at April 8, 2011 11:32 AM
When I was in college, we referred to sex as justice. As in, "Did you get any justice last night?"
ken in sc at April 8, 2011 11:57 AM
It seems that a simple solution to this would've been to videotape the little douchebags openly harrassing the women and contact the national chapter of their fraternity with it. Or send it to their mommies.
-Or- Think like a fratboy: Take a dump on a piece of aluminum foil, pack pea gravel around it, ball it up, and shoot it over the fence of their house during a yard party. (That's what my husband and his "brothers" were known for doing when their house was located across the street from the SAEs at UT. And they almost had their chapter disbanded by the national council of the frat- or whatever the governing party is called- for that and other activities that reflected poorly on the organization.)
ahw at April 8, 2011 12:03 PM
Thank you to Flynne for defending me, and explaining to the general readership that I am in fact male. To be fair, my friend does have a bit of a hair trigger. Sometimes I intervene only because I want to defuse the situation. I know what you're saying Spartee, but believe me, this girl can look after herself. I wouldn't want to take her on.
While violence is a last resort - sometimes the threat of violence is well justified. Most recently when the same friend was accused of being a hooker by a guy with 6 friends backing him up. She went for him, I pushed her back and stuck my finger in his chest saying he was out of line and to shut the fuck up or there would be trouble. He backed down, I hustled her round the corner and said "never put me in that position again, I've got nothing to back up that threat!" Truth be told, I wanted to deck the guy myself. But he hadn't done enough to warrant that, so - no nuts kicking.
Ltw at April 8, 2011 12:07 PM
Great. Just as long as you don't run to someone and try to get them to silence those that aren't decent to you.
No, I stand up for myself. If someone wants to join me, that's fine, but I can do just as well on my own.
Some of what was printed well passes the line from "disgusting behavior" to actually dangerous. Specifically targeting the first-years along with posting their names and addresses in a way that invites getting them drunk in order to sex them up is absolutely horrible. Same with that chant you people seem to find so adorable.
Thank you, Sarah. I agree with you, and I also feel that NO ONE, MAN OR WOMAN, should have to deal with such nastiness on a daily basis. EVER.
Free speech also is limited when a private entity is involved. In this case, Yale. The police weren't involved, the school was. They may not go to prison for the incidents (and they probably shouldn't), but I kind of hope they get kicked out of the college for it. Trying to squeeze an education out of a modern-day college is difficult enough without this kind of harassment going on.
Exactly. What is it that the rest of you AREN'T getting about this?
P.S. If a woman responds to this kind of thing with violence and nuts-kicking, you can bet that the guys will call the cops on her.
Damn straight.
BTW, is there a Yale Men's Center?
I don't believe there is a "Men's Center" per se, but there are a LOT of "just men's" clubs, organizatoins and fraternities on and off campus.
Flynne at April 8, 2011 12:08 PM
Sarah said "Specifically targeting the first-years along with posting their names and addresses in a way that invites getting them drunk in order to sex them up is absolutely horrible."
Don't get drunk around a bunch of frat boys if you are scared of getting taken advantage of. Be accountable for your actions. Problem solved.
mike at April 8, 2011 12:09 PM
If I was walking home alone and a bunch of guys were chanting that, you bet I'd take it as a threat.
NicoleK at April 8, 2011 12:09 PM
Threats aren't protected speech. And I don't think you can say, "Oh but I was just joking".
Say I'm going to the Lesbian Granola-making class at the center. Eventually I want to go home. And a bunch of guys are chanting about raping women. I would not feel safe leaving that building, especially alone, even with a group. I would be very, very frightened.
Sorry if you think I'm a weak little cream puff. The sad fact of the matter is, compared to most guys, I am considerably weaker. Even when I was going to the gym several days a week I was weaker than guys who never went to the gym.
So fuck yeah, a large group of guys coming up to a building I'm in chanting about rape would scare me considerably.
NicoleK at April 8, 2011 12:15 PM
Yeah, for the girls maybe. But the rest of us still have to deal with the douchebags when they get out into the Real World.
And to be perfectly honest, I'm getting sick of calling douchebags out on it.
brian at April 8, 2011 12:18 PM
I agree the answer is not restriction of speech - better for the women involved to come outside in a group and wiggle their pinky fingers at the guys in the universal sign of "tiny dick".
LOLing, Bill C - reread this part before you get worked up about me promoting violence as a solution.
Humiliation is much better.
Ltw at April 8, 2011 12:19 PM
Am I really the only one that finds the behavior of the guys absolutely reprehensible? Seriously?
No, you're not the only one.
I don't think of myself as an alarmist or a feminazi, but men chanting "No means Yes!" is frightening to me.
Insufficient Poison at April 8, 2011 12:30 PM
Thank you to Flynne for defending me, and explaining to the general readership that I am in fact male.
My pleasure. You can't tell the players without a scorecard, or, in some cases, a little back up.
o.O
Flynne at April 8, 2011 12:48 PM
Flynne, have you ever heard the thing about how people live up to what's expected of them? I've done some reading about the indoctrination that male freshmen are subject to at Yale. It appears that they are treated as neanderthal, barely-suppressed rapists from the moment they set foot on campus. (And some of them have already been subject to twelve years of that in primary school.) It should not be a surprise that some of them think, "well, if I'm going to do the time regardless, why not do the crime?"
Have you ever seen one of those Take Back the Night things? I have. In the one I saw, the Women's Center obtained photos of hundreds of identifiable random male students and hung them all on clotheslines with the word "RAPIST" printed across their faces. They also had squadrons of women who roamed about the outdoor spaces of the campus, hectoring any male students they came across. Some of the male students wanted to stage a counter-protest but they were denied permission by the school, and told that any who tried would be expelled. This was a state school, mind you.
Yes, I believe all the Women's Centers should be banned. At this point, they are nothing but highly privileged special-interest groups, and their presence is absolutely poison to the schools. If I'm not badly mistaken, Yale's student body is about 65% female and the ratio is rising rapidly. Pretty soon, I guess it won't be a problem any more, since there will be no male students.
Cousin Dave at April 8, 2011 12:54 PM
I'm sorry, the universal small dick sign is not the equivalent of guys chanting about raping people.
The equivalent would be more like the women threatening to cut their dicks off or something.
NicoleK at April 8, 2011 1:06 PM
But this kinda of running to the government as parent isn't just limited to the feminists. It's happening more and more over the STUPIDEST shit. Look how many frivolous lawsuits there are, claiming "emotional distress" damages for "offending" people.
And they're indoctrinated young. Anymore, in schools children are told that no one has the right to ever hurt their little feelings. And if they're told otherwise, they're supposed to tell an adult so that the perpetrator can be reprimanded properly.
So when they become adults, and something upsets them, they run to the nearest authority figure to dole out the punishment.
As for this incident specifically, nothing strikes me as being particularly threatening besides the publishing of names and addresses. That would scare me pretty bad if it happened to me now, let alone when I was an 18 year old freshman.
cornerdemon at April 8, 2011 1:17 PM
People keep mentioning the printing of addresses - two things
One doesnt the school have a student directory with the same info?
Two, if not how did they get everyones address?
lujlp at April 8, 2011 1:39 PM
"They may not go to prison for the incidents (and they probably shouldn't..."
Wow, that's big of you. Offending feminists probably shouldn't be a crime!
"Most recently when the same friend was accused of being a hooker by a guy with 6 friends backing him up. She went for him, I pushed her back and stuck my finger in his chest saying he was out of line and to shut the fuck up or there would be trouble. He backed down..."
and you woke up.
Bill C at April 8, 2011 1:45 PM
"They also had squadrons of women who roamed about the outdoor spaces of the campus, hectoring any male students they came across. Some of the male students wanted to stage a counter-protest but they were denied permission by the school, and told that any who tried would be expelled."
This is the reason there is a men's rights movement. Feminists went to far in their hatred and men are pushing back. If they don't like our humor, fine. Frankly, I don't know how we can lose with the legal action against Yale. Either way more men get to see the ugliness and discrimination of feminism.
"Yes, I believe all the Women's Centers should be banned. At this point, they are nothing but highly privileged special-interest groups, and their presence is absolutely poison to the schools."
I was part of the fight to keep women's studies out of Kenyon college in the late 80s. We succeeded because we educated the students and alumni. That is the key. Getting conservative alums to threaten the administration with pulling their funding.
Bill C at April 8, 2011 1:55 PM
"No means Yes!" is frightening to me.
who cares.
Maybe black men are frightening to you also. Does that mean that we should go around penalizing black men to make you more comfortable?
We've spent several decades now bending over backwards whenever a woman claims to feel intimidated or uncomfortable. What's become apparent is that this effort has provoked women to become even more sensitive and subjective regarding what they find intimidating. Rather than helping, it's resulted in hypersensitivity and created an environment where women apparently feel as though they're constantly threatened. I think that we need a little tough love, because the current approach is just making everyone miserable.
JJ at April 8, 2011 2:17 PM
I would not be scared of a group of frat boys yelling a rape chant, but I think it's completely appropriate for them to face consequences. To me it's less about protecting current female students and more about protecting the futures of these idiot boys.
They are being little douche-bags, but if it ends now they can probably recover and mature into decent responsible people. They haven't thought about what "no means yes" actually conveys; they just think it's funny the way farting and drawing a penis on your drunk friend's face is funny. The man-friendly thing to do is nip it in the bud and hold them to a higher standard (proving you have faith that they are better than this) of behavior.
Sam at April 8, 2011 2:31 PM
Put another way:
People who are chuckling - do you think rape is funny?
I don't. I am an equal-opportunity buzzkill too: I also don't think jokes or light-hearted references to prison rape is funny, I don't commercial portrayals of men as stupid or incompetent or too immature for commitments are funny either. I have a sense of humor and wouldn't sacrifice it for political correctness but some things are not acceptable, and jokes about them should not be taken lightly - rape is one of them.
Sam at April 8, 2011 2:41 PM
I was responding to Sarah's question upthread, which was: Does anyone else find this behavior reprehensible? The italics make it pretty clear that it's a question/response pair.
I do not think the frat boys should be penalized, because I don't believe this chant meets the definition of a threat. Their intent was most likely to be politically incorrect.
In terms of what is /frightening/, I'm not even entertaining a comparison between "being black" and a organizing a chant that is the equivalent of "women can't say no to sex."
Insufficient Poison at April 8, 2011 4:30 PM
and you woke up.
Oh very funny Bill C. Nonetheless it happened. I rarely resort to intimidation or threats because, as I said, I've got nothing to back it up, despite being a reasonable sized guy. But this wasn't a situation where calm reasoning was going to stop a brewing fight. I did what I had to do to shut it down and I got us out of there as fast as possible. I was scared shitless outnumbered 7 to 2. But showing it would have been the worst thing I could do. Which is exactly what the women complaining about this are doing.
We've spent several decades now bending over backwards whenever a woman claims to feel intimidated or uncomfortable. What's become apparent is that this effort has provoked women to become even more sensitive and subjective regarding what they find intimidating.
Agreed JJ. When I was at university I was quietly reading in an armchair outside one of the communal rooms, and got confronted by 3 very aggressive women. Turns out they were holding a self defense class (I had no idea, the curtains were drawn for fuck's sake) and had got the idea that my presence was threatening. They ordered me to get out. Being younger than now I left, after a little bit of argument. These days I'd still be sitting there, saying "call someone from the student union, who cares".
Ltw at April 8, 2011 4:48 PM
As a rightous dude, I cannot believe any male is defending these scumbags. No woman deserves to hear such crap.
ronc at April 8, 2011 5:34 PM
'"I just want to be able to walk back to my dorm at night without hearing all this crazy stuff from these guys,"'
Translation: "I just want to be able to control other people and bend their behavior to my desires at will, as if they were slaves, because it makes me feel some anxiety that others are free to sometimes do things I might not like." So do we all, but there's this quaint little concept in the US called 'liberty'.
"Am I really the only one that finds the behavior of the guys absolutely reprehensible?"
I do too, and it's within your rights to express that you find their behavior reprehensible, but it's not within your rights to attempt to violate the freedom that others have to be jerks.
Lobster at April 8, 2011 6:15 PM
"We've spent several decades now bending over backwards whenever a woman claims to feel intimidated or uncomfortable. What's become apparent is that this effort has provoked women to become even more sensitive and subjective regarding what they find intimidating. Rather than helping, it's resulted in hypersensitivity and created an environment where women apparently feel as though they're constantly threatened"
I sort of agree but don't see it quite the same way. Because the power structures of society bend over backwards for female claims of discomfort, exaggerating discomfort in order to wield those power structures for your own purposes of control, domination and abuse, is in fact not an example of someone who is genuinely feeling 'threatened' and has been 'victimized' or felt 'oversensitive', but rather, is in fact quite the opposite: It is an example of someone who is doing the threatenING, precisely by harnessing and wielding those power structures against the relatively weaker victims of those misdirected power structures. If a woman plays the victim in order to manipulate society's structures of authority in a harmful action against you, she is the one holding the power, you are the victim being harmed, and the authority structures are the 'tool of abuse'. (This is psychologically similar to what's called "abuse by proxy".)
Lobster at April 8, 2011 6:24 PM
I find it interesting that most of these incidents were aimed at the women's center. If these guys were trying to harass women, why were they chanting at a building?
a couple of points..
There a good chance that none of this actually happened, or if it did happen, went down as it's being described. It's highly unlikely that the Yale administration, no matter how callous and misogynistic they might be, would tolerate a rape list circulating on campus.
These are the claims at the basis of the suit that Naomi Emery attached herself to several years ago to support her claim that she was sexually assaulted by Harold Bloom, and that there's a decades old conspiracy by the Yale administration to cover up systematic rape and harassment of women.
Even other feminists called her out on her claims, and especially regarding Bloom. But the suit has continued.
Frankly if this handful of incidents, over seven years, among 12,000 students x 7 years, is all that they can produce - it's obvious that there's not a serious problem at Yale. It's not reasonable to expect the University to establish martial law on campus. Nor is it reasonable to expect that every man on earth should be accountable for the words 'no means yes, yes means anal' shouted by some frat boy at the Yale Womyns Center seven years ago.
norm at April 8, 2011 6:31 PM
"NO one was looking to kick ass, they were going to TELL these boys that they were wrong"
'Tell'? They're laying a 'hostile environment' charge against the university. Compelling the university through force of legal action to restrict 1st amendment rights seems a little stronger than a finger-wag to me. And how do you suppose the results of legal action are enforceable if not by violent means, does the justice system ask you 'pretty please'?
Lobster at April 8, 2011 6:33 PM
I don't know how to feel about this. I am all for free speech, but I would be awfully scared if I had to walk past a big group of frat boys chanting about rape... "What accounts for such feminine timidity, this instinctive unwillingness or inability to talk or taunt back, without seeking the protection of university or government bureaucrats?" Well, I would be awfully damned scared is all. I am not a complainer or a feminist or a fan of "womyn" but I would be walking fast and holding my keys between my index and middle finger and hoping for the best and freaking out if I had to walk home in the dark with people chanting that chant.
Kathryn at April 8, 2011 8:42 PM
I find it interesting that the frat boys were doing it in front of the women's center and not a dorm or sorority.
It seems to me something is missing from the story.
I was networking with a friend from my undergrad years. I was comparing my grad years -- I noticed a lot of couples on campus - you didn't see that at my undergrad. We noted that we knew of only 4 couples from college. Then remembering back... the school environment was really anti-male. Heck, I remember the women's group almost got the school to pass out example legal contracts for relations...just yes was not enough. The school's lawyer put a stop to that... The school might have lawyer responsibility then and also it might be considered prostitution (contract for sex without something that makes it exempt).
The Former Banker at April 8, 2011 10:43 PM
"Am I really the only one that finds the behavior of the guys absolutely reprehensible?"
No Sarah, you're not. I like the idea someone had of video taping the chanting and sending it to their parents. If I learned that my son was involved in such a disgusting display, he'd face some severe consequences.
I'm a little shocked that so many people are acting like such chants are no big deal. There is free speech, and then there are terroristic threats. Maybe the chants don't quite rise to the terroristic threat level, I'm no lawyer and don't know. But it certainly rises to the level of world class douche-baggery.
whistleDick at April 8, 2011 11:37 PM
I find it interesting that the frat boys were doing it in front of the women's center and not a dorm or sorority.
It seems to me something is missing from the story.
I'd bet that there was something going on at the women's center that provoked them. The only reason that you'd pick a fight with a university women's center is if you were trying to make a point.
It's my impression that campuses are better than they were in the 90's. The feminists fucked up an entire generation of women who'd gone to school back then. They're still fucked up about men now in their 30's.
sal at April 8, 2011 11:40 PM
There is free speech, and then there are terroristic threats.
Am I missing something - what was the threat?
ploop at April 8, 2011 11:43 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/08/no_more_big_dad.html#comment-2016740">comment from ploopFree speech rights are there to protect the offensive dickheads of the world, not the people who say "My, Martha, what lovely flowers." As long as somebody isn't making a threat on someone's life, inciting violence (and not just joking about it) or yelling fire in a crowded theater that is not on fire (help me if I left any out), they can say highly offensive things and be protected under our Constitution. And I absolutely love and prize that about our country. There are many attempt to sand down our rights now -- at the TSA and elsewhere -- in the name of safety, niceness and feminism, among other things, and all of them frighten me terribly.
Amy Alkon at April 9, 2011 12:14 AM
"No means yes" is a threat. It's saying that if you say no, they are going to fuck you anyways. Which is rape. They are threatening rape. Its inciting violence. "You're an ugly bitch" is offensive speech. Threatening to rape goes beyond that.
If I were in the building with a bunch of fratboys outside chanting "No means yes" how do I know they're just kidding and not actually going to gang rape me? I think I would probably stay in the building. Sorry if you think I'm a marshmallow, but I wouldn't take my chances against a large group of men chanting "No means yes".
And they were chanting at the women IN the building, morons, not the building itself. It's like when you demonstrate in front of City Hall, you're not singing to the bricks.
What if they were in front of the Black Student Union holding ropes chanting, "Bear strange fruit, trees!" Or in front of the Jewish student union wearing gas masks shouting, "You know what we do to people who control the media".
Chanting about rape is a threat. I wouldn't leave the building. In fact, if someone DID leave the building and got raped, many people would say, "Well what did she expect".
NicoleK at April 9, 2011 1:32 AM
Feminism: proof that women's suffrage was a bad idea.
Misogynist: a man or woman who has worked with enough average women to develop a realistic view towards them.
(the most misogynistic stuff I've ever heard first hand has come from women who actually accomplish things. Go figure.)
Robert at April 9, 2011 3:54 AM
Wow, frat boys being asses, whodathunkit?
Sure they were jerks, but reacting like a COWARD, (I.e. They scare me so someone must silence them) is not an improvement.
And frankly, I did snicker at that chant.
Chicks need to loosen up and stop sucking the fun and humor out of life. There are better things to suck on. ;)
Robert at April 9, 2011 4:02 AM
"Well, I would be awfully damned scared is all."
You don't have a right to 'never feel scared'. It is impossible to create a safe, cosy, cushy, protective world without massive violations of human liberty, the creation of a domestic-sheep-based society 'en masse'. Part of becoming an adult is learning how to take care of yourself as an adult .. if you feel scared, if you're walking past a bunch of scary people, arm yourself, get a gun, learn to use it, get pepper spray, whatever - that is part of "being an adult". It is a scary world, if you want big-daddy-government to protect you from the big bad scary world, you're really just asking to be a child, and remain in a child-like state, FOREVER. Now you might want that, but I don't, so don't force your choice on others. You are going to end up in situations where there is a potential threat at times in your life, whether it's because you took a wrong turn into the ghetto or some bad guys decided your home is the next one they're going to invade. You have to learn to deal with it.
Lobster at April 9, 2011 6:34 AM
'"No means yes" is a threat. It's saying that if you say no, they are going to fuck you anyways. Which is rape. They are threatening rape.'
Do you really think that when a real rapist actually wants to rape someone, he stands in a public area, where everyone can see and hear and identify him, and chants openly that he is going to rape someone? Now I'm not a rapist nor am I in law enforcement so I'm just guessing here, but I would think that most real rapists would keep quiet about their intentions, would hide in the shadows, and would make attempts to keep their identity secret.
Lobster at April 9, 2011 6:39 AM
'Or in front of the Jewish student union wearing gas masks shouting, "You know what we do to people who control the media".'
Lol .. sorry, I am actually Jewish, and we if had to call for big daddy government to come make us feel safe every time someone threatened *Jews*, we'd long since be living in the cushy domestic-sheep-based society you seem to want. If Jews had a dime for every time we heard someone threaten us, we'd be very wealthy indeed ... and unlike frat boy jokes, in our case, there are massive historical precedents that those threats could be very real, and one day will be. So what? Liberty is liberty, the world being a scary place doesn't give me or anyone else the moral right to oppress others. In fact oppression has the opposite effect that you think it would have.
Lobster at April 9, 2011 6:43 AM
"I was responding to Sarah's question upthread, which was: Does anyone else find this behavior reprehensible? The italics make it pretty clear that it's a question/response pair."
Well, it depends on your definition of "reprehensible". Yes, it was insulting and sophomoric. Reprehensible? Well, not so much in comparison to, say, invading someone's house and killing everyone there including an infant because they are of a different religion. But yes, their behavior was improper.
"I do not think the frat boys should be penalized, because I don't believe this chant meets the definition of a threat. Their intent was most likely to be politically incorrect. "
Back in the old days, the problem would have been handled like this: The dean of students would round the guys up and tell them, "You guys acted like assholes. For your trouble, over the next week you can spend your evenings picking up all the litter on campus. After that, we're going to set up a campus debate between you and the women's center supporters. So get your debate team together and start sharpening your arguments." Today, the university will never permit that debate to happen.
Cousin Dave at April 9, 2011 7:03 AM
See, Robert is an asshole who is using his free speech to be offensive. He's not actually threatening anyone.
And Lobster, if people are threatening violence against you you are well within your rights to report them. And there are plenty of Jewish people (and other groups of course) who do make big fusses about obnoxious hate speech that is not anywhere near an imminent threat. If you choose not to report actual threats, well, that's up to you, but that seems a bit risky to me.
And actually, I DO have the right not to be threatened with violence. A bunch of fratboys chanting about rape at a bunch of women sounds like a pretty imminent threat to me. I don't think they should be able to "just kidding" their way out of it.
NicoleK at April 9, 2011 7:35 AM
"No means yes" is a threat.
That totally depends on context and you know it. I get that you find it offensive, but you're deliberately twisting the context and meaning to justify calling it a threat. Or maybe you're really that paranoid.
jimmy at April 9, 2011 9:09 AM
No, the mere use of the word rape does not constitute a threat.
And frankly anyone who took that chant seriously, as anything more than crude (arguably juvenile) humor, is way to wrapped up in their own paranoid delusions about male behavior or social interactions.
Q. why is rape impossible?
A. Because a woman can run faster with her skirt up than a man can with his pants down.
There, a rape joke, and look...no increase in danger, no additional rapes, and your world did not come crashing down.
Did I, by telling such a joke, traumatize some poor soul out of functioning in society? If so, they are to delicate for the world already.
The ONLY society worth living in is one where our deepest beliefs can be openly mocked, trampled upon, and ridiculed by anyone, for any reason, anywhere outside of our own homes.
Robert at April 9, 2011 1:08 PM
"And Lobster, if people are threatening violence against you you are well within your rights to report them. And there are plenty of Jewish people (and other groups of course) who do make big fusses about obnoxious hate speech that is not anywhere near an imminent threat. If you choose not to report actual threats, well, that's up to you, but that seems a bit risky to me."
That's just the point. If I had to start reporting all anti-Semitic hate speech I find, I would be up all morning and all night non-stop for the next hundred years. But the fact is that actual anti-Semitic attacks in the US are extremely rare, fact is I probably have more to fear from lightning. Most of the threats are hot air and we all know it. I don't have the right to implement vast large-scale oppression of other people on the basis of a bunch of 'hot air'.
"And actually, I DO have the right not to be threatened with violence. A bunch of fratboys chanting about rape at a bunch of women sounds like a pretty imminent threat to me."
Oh please - college boys chanting a joke is not a 'threat' and you know it. Rapists just don't generally publicly declare to the world 'hey everyone I'm going to rape someone'. You're twisting the context in order to manufacture a basis to try call for oppression and control of others, and sorry but that's wrong, no matter how you spin it.
I don't think most posters here realize that they're not trying to give a finger-wag to the specific frat-boys here, in fact they aren't even TRYING to go after them (which shows that not even THEY think these are real threats); they're trying to force the university to institute draconian anti-1st-amendment measures across the campus.
Lobster at April 9, 2011 2:42 PM
"Did I, by telling such a joke, traumatize some poor soul out of functioning in society? If so, they are to delicate for the world already"
Claims of traumatization in order to invoke the mobilization of power structures to your side and against someone else, is ultimately a wielding of power against another victim rather than an example of victimization. These faux victims are anything but delicate, they know exactly how to manipulate society's structures of authority against others for their personal power trips.
Lobster at April 9, 2011 2:47 PM
"Did I, by telling such a joke, traumatize some poor soul out of functioning in society?"
In this context, no. But imagine getting together with a few dozen of your friends and chanting that joke outside a building that had nothing but women in it.
By the way, I agree with the posters that argue that first amendment rights are more important than a feeling of security. However, can we ALL agree that these guys were being complete douche bags?
whistleDick at April 9, 2011 4:01 PM
Lobster, I realize that I don't have the right to never feel scared. I guess I just meant that I understand the "timidity" of wanting to make a complaint rather than personally stand up to people making threats - because I would be way too scared to do anything else. Not saying that I think anyone should be filing some crazy hostile environment charge against the uni, but not sure it is such a good idea to "taunt back" either.
Also, just to be clear, realizing that scary things will happen in your life, doesn't mean it is okay to do the scary things. Home invasion, as you point out, may happen to me someday but I hope you don't think that this is fine, and I should either deal with it myself or just take it, because I shouldn't be complaining to the authorities if I can't handle it myself.
As some posters pointed out, perhaps the chant wasn't that threatening. I guess if it was broad daylight and they were kind of laughing and high-fiving, etc. I probably wouldn't feel threatened. I was picturing it differently - more serious and angry I guess.
I like Cousin Dave's description of what would have happened in the past. That seems reasonable - too bad they can't do that today.
Kathryn at April 9, 2011 6:36 PM
Kathryn, try saying the frat boys statement aloud a few times. Try different volumes and tone of voice. It is almost impossible to say it in a threatening manner.
And while I am sure we can all agree the boysvwere douches...how is that relevant? Approval over words, or deeds which cause no physical harm, is unnecessary. I don't care for it, but it steals no freedom, it picks no pocket, it breaks no leg. Ergo, get over it girls.
Robert at April 9, 2011 7:15 PM
What do you think the genesis of gun control laws and breed-specific legislation are?
Bullshit. "I'm going to rip your clothes off and fuck you and you can't do a thing about it" is a threat.
"No means yes" is a mockery of the feminist chant of "no means no" because as we all know "No means no, maybe means no, and yes means no. Unless it doesn't."
brian at April 9, 2011 7:42 PM
I used to consider myself a feminist way back in my early 20's when I didn't know any better. Thank goodness for sites like Amy's. I started to do the research and discovered a lot of the lies that feminists have been telling women in my generation for decades. I've since turned my back on it with disgust and try at every chance I get to correct myths that feminists have promoted.
It's interesting to read this article as I just spent a couple days over on The Good Men Project on two articles written by feminists criticizing the PUA community for dispensing "misogynistic" advice. It's yet another example of feminists taking parts of a community for men and creating false hysteria over it in order to control and police men. It's downright frightening and insidious.
If anyone is interested:
http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/ethical-pickup-artistry/
(Sorry for any potential threadjacking, Amy.)
Teddy at April 9, 2011 8:06 PM
While I agree with probably all of the commenters here that the conduct of the male students was stupid, irresponsible and likely hurtful, I don't believe that the legal process should be used to combat it.
We wouldn't need the First Amendment if the only speech we allowed was the speech that we agreed with, or was within the bounds of decency. The First Amendment exists to protect the speech on the margins, namely the unpopular and inflammatory.
Just recently, the Supreme Court affirmed this view in Snyder v. Phelps, and if the speech of the Westboro "Church" is protected, I fail to see how the possibly harmful antics of drunk frat boys fall outside that protection.
That is not to say that I think that the frat boys shouldn't be ridiculed, shamed and generally shunned for their actions; such retaliation is simply more speech.
As for the idea that the chanting was a threat-a threat needs to be specific, and such a general definition would chill much of hyperbolic rhetoric that seems to be very popular these days. Nor is it an incitement to commit a crime, "fighting words" or any other exception to free speech.
JC at April 9, 2011 9:30 PM
That is not to say that I think that the frat boys shouldn't be ridiculed, shamed and generally shunned for their actions; such retaliation is simply more speech.
Pretty much my point JC.
I can see how people could feel threatened. Let's face it, a bunch of drunk young idiots is threatening by definition, whatever they're saying.
But what happened to the empowered, self-confident women? Or was that all bullshit? I think the guys are dickheads, but I don't have much sympathy for the women involved. You wanted equality - here it is. Or would you like me to hold the door for you in a patronising way?
I do hold doors open for men and women alike mind you, just as a common courtesy.
Ltq at April 10, 2011 7:32 AM
There a good chance that none of this actually happened, or if it did happen, went down as it's being described. It's highly unlikely that the Yale administration, no matter how callous and misogynistic they might be, would tolerate a rape list circulating on campus.
I don't know about the names and addresses, but here's video of the chanting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmlVQKbIhrg
"No means yes" is a threat. It's saying that if you say no, they are going to fuck you anyways. Which is rape. They are threatening rape. Its inciting violence. "You're an ugly bitch" is offensive speech. Threatening to rape goes beyond that.
Exactly. I don't know why it took so long for anyone to point that out. Even if it started as just taunting, group dynamics can push it over the line into the real thing, if a woman were to accidentally walk close enough to get surrounded
What? No way a woman would get that close to that kind of thing going on? First of all, either it's a threat, and REASONABLE women would stay away, or it's just assheadedness and women have no reason to be afraid to approach them. Second, what if she's walking with her iPod going turned all the way up, and not paying attention to where she is going? Yes, she shouldn't be doing that at night, but it happens.
No, sorry, I hear aggression in those voices on that tape. If a woman walked into the middle of those guys, it's a toss-up whether she would make it away unscathed.
WayneB at April 11, 2011 10:12 AM
Sorry wayne but you're actually demonstrating the point of the commenters who are arguing that context and intent are necessary to make that statement a threat. Because the only way that you can establish it as such is to introduce all sorts of suppositions and you own subjective biases.
Is ymn nma obnoxious - yes. Is it going to induce a group of young men to transform in to a rape gang - probably not.
squeeeeeky at April 11, 2011 12:33 PM
Leave a comment