Pi Kappa Phi To be Temporairily Shut Down Over Hazing (UPDATED)
The University has announced their response to the Pi Kappa Phi hazing incident. For a description of the original incident, there was an SF Chronicle article at the time, which is accureate as far as I know except for claiming it was a bb gun and not a pellet gun that was used. Here are the details from NewsCenter:
A University of California, Berkeley, fraternity chapter involved last spring in a hazing incident in which a student was shot dozens of times with a pellet gun, will be closed for a year and forced to start fresh with new membership, campus officials announced today (Tuesday, July 5).The fraternity will not be allowed to resume operations as a UC Berkeley chapter until August 2006 and only then amid a host of conditions, restrictions and close oversight by the campus administration and the fraternity’s national headquarters…
The settlement agreement addresses an April 8 hazing activity in which a prospective member, or pledge, was shot at least 30 times with an air pellet gun. The pledge was treated at a local hospital for welts and bruises and released. The agreement announced today also addresses a March 4 incident in which the chapter held an unauthorized party involving various alcohol use violations, including the serving of alcohol to minors…
In addition, during the 2006-07 school year, the newly formed chapter would operate under strict conditions and restrictions, including adherence to a ban on alcohol consumption at the chapter house and at chapter-sponsored events.
Other terms of the settlement agreement, which encompasses two years, require that the fraternity members pay a $4,000 fine, perform 750 hours of community service, produce a seminar for the campus’s fraternities and sororities on the dangers of hazing, participate in leadership development programs, complete an online alcohol abuse awareness program, and restructure their chapter’s alumni board.
If any of the terms of the agreement are violated, the campus administration will move to revoke the chapter’s recognition as a campus-recognized fraternity - a move that could cause the chapter house to permanently close.
The article also mentions that individuals are still being investigated for violating the student code of conduct. This seems like a very appropriate response by the University. Dean Kenney is quoted saying that the school adheres to a zero-tolerance policy for hazing, and the Pi Kappa Phi incident required action such as this to send a signal to fraternities that hazing this severe would not be tolerated.
Finally, the Pi Kappa Phi website refers to the weapon as an “air pistol”, while the UC release calls it an “air pellet gun”. I spent part of my break going hunting with a pellet gun, and I’m hoping that those articles were referring to an air soft gun, and not a pellet gun, because if that’s what they were using from within a couple feet of someone, then they got off easy.
We’ll have more to comment on this if the Daily Cal runs an article with any new information or has any reactions from members of the chapter. *Update* I changed the link for the “pellet gun” to a pistol and not a rifle, because that seems to be a more accurate depiction of what might have been used. There is a discussion in comments about the various reporting of what weapon was used, both here at CalStuff and at other sources. I will reiterate that I have heard thirdhand (I heard from someone who heard it from someone in Pi Kappa Phi) that it was an air soft gun.
Andy, you and I have covered this, you know is an air soft gun.
Comment by Lauren Karasek — July 5, 2005 @ 2:57 pm
I’ve heard either second or third-hand that it was an air soft gun, but I have not had anyone in Pi Kapp tell me that it was an air soft gun, and I have not seen a retraction in any newspaper that referred to it as a pellet gun or a bb gun.
My belief is that it was an air soft gun, but that belief is based only on rumors. I played with air soft guns in high school and we would shoot each other from point blank range with the guns on bare skin, and no one ever ended up with welts…
Comment by Andy R. — July 5, 2005 @ 3:03 pm
then why did he end up at emergency room if those leave no welts?
in other news, has anyone gotten a photo of that grass fire?
Comment by .. — July 5, 2005 @ 4:44 pm
Maybe Lauren was there.
Comment by H+M — July 5, 2005 @ 5:04 pm
In other news also, did you see how Dave Zabriskie of Berkeley was leading in the Tour de France before Lance Armstrong passed him and took the yellow jersey? Then he crashed. Apparently he practices riding up Marin - I could probably make it up that street with extreme effort in granny gear
Comment by .. — July 5, 2005 @ 5:12 pm
Andy is shaping the debate while pretending to be impartial. The weapon used is admitted to be an “air pistol.” Andy links to an airsoft pistol and an ‘evil looking, powerful’ pellet rifle in his entry.
Why? Is Andy trying to create other (possibly incorrect) interpretations?
Particularly when on the same site, there is this listing of a BB pistol (http://www.pyramydair.com/cgi-bin/model.pl?model_id=439). Or these listings of pellet pistols (http://www.pyramydair.com/cgi-bin/model.pl?model_id=258, http://www.pyramydair.com/cgi-bin/model.pl?model_id=199).
Hmmm… wonder if this’ll make it past the link filter.
Comment by gomez — July 5, 2005 @ 6:20 pm
Eh, guess not.
BTW, CalStuff mods, I think you oughta make a bigger comment entry box. How about eight-ten lines of text, and more width (more text columns to run the width of the center column of the CalStuff layout).
If there’s a horizontal scroll bar (when trying to add long URLs), four lines of 55 columns makes for a difficult time proofreading a comment.
Comment by gomez — July 5, 2005 @ 6:24 pm
Lauren was at the Western Regional Greek Conference where she belonged, thanks H+M.
Nonetheless, young Ratto there knows full well that members of Pi Kappa Phi are not going to speak on the issue, that there was so much media coverage that even Panhellenic gave up on requesting retractions for misquotes, and that the closest he’s going to get is a Greek official saying that it was an air soft gun. Please note the Greek official saying it was an air soft gun.
Andy, you know how I feel about responsible reporting and commentary, darling.
Comment by Lauren Karasek — July 5, 2005 @ 8:18 pm
Lauren,
In the post I didn’t say that it wasn’t an air soft gun, I merely called attention to what could be inaccurate notation in the media about the weapon that was used, and expressed my own uncertainty, seeing as how I have no firsthand or secondhand information about what happened.
It’s unclear to me why Pi Kappa Phi would not be interested in getting retractions run in papers that said a pellet gun or bb gun was used, if that is incorrect.
Comment by Andy R. — July 5, 2005 @ 8:54 pm
The max number of links in the comments has just been extended to 5. The comment area has also been expanded with a few extra lines.
Comment by Allen L. — July 5, 2005 @ 9:51 pm
The headline of the KTVU article “UC Berkeley Shuts Down Fraternity Over BB-Gun Hazing” here: http://www.ktvu.com/news/4686100/detail.html
Comment by Andy R. — July 5, 2005 @ 10:02 pm
So Lauren, what exactly are the leaders of the Greeks doing to help prevent people from getting hazed/assaulted with BB guns? Surely they have lobbied with the University to punish the people at fault?
Comment by Anonymous — July 5, 2005 @ 11:36 pm
Andy, Andy, Andy…
I’m so bored of arguing this with you, darling, but I just wanna mention how much cuter this charade would be if you didn’t know that the headline of that article is inaccurate and if you weren’t particularly clear on the fact that only nationals has the authority to demand retractions at this point. Just like it would have to be your nationals if you were in this scenario. I’m not privy to Pi Kappa Phi Nationals’ considerations in this regard–we can talk later about why Panhellenic quit requesting retractions if you like–and I appreciate the up-date on the front page, but you know full well that what you’re implying in your last comment is not fact and that it constitutes irresponsibility in reporting on your part.
Anonymous–First, let’s be clear, no one was assaulted with a BB Gun. Second, IFC/Panhellenic, the University, Greek national organizations, and state law all specifically forbid hazing. Greek leadership in the form of IFC, Panhellenic, and NPHC is in full support of that. In the wake of recent public incidents of hazing, Panhellenic specifically have had forceful discussions with chapter leaders as to what constitutes hazing and what consequences are affiliated with it. IFC and Panhellenic consistently put on educational programming to identify and discourage hazing and are working to change the cultural values associated with hazing through discussion and programming so that we are not fixing the symptom of the problem but the problem itself. Most specifically, I as the Student Vice Chair of the Chancellor’s Taskforce on Greek Life submitted–in conjunction with other members of that taskforce and Panhellenic VPs–a 70+ page report 2 weeks ago, one of the major tenets of which was encouraging a zero-tolerance policy that actually has zero-tolerance for hazing. This decision seems to imply a newly fervent commitment to that ideal. So basically yes, we have lobbied with the University to that end, though we would be remiss to assume the guilt of a chapter before an investigation had been concluded.
Have a good one, y’all. Laur.
Comment by Lauren Karasek — July 6, 2005 @ 12:15 am
Lauren,
I wasn’t posting that article headline to assert that it was true, but to make a point about what is occurring with the reporting of this story, and how newspapers will report something even if it is not true. To reiterate, although I think it was an air soft gun that was used, there is a rather large effort being taken not to correct the matter, which confuses me.
What with the OSL announcement, I figured this would all be done, so I would rather not continue discussing these fine points here on CalStuff…
Comment by Andy R. — July 6, 2005 @ 1:05 am
I was told directly by a Pi Kapp that it was an airsoft gun. Though it really is insignificant, as there are perhaps more important details than the type of pistol. Why did the pledge have so many welts from what would have been a mostly harmless gun? Additionally, what did the pledge perceive the gun to be, while they were preparing to shoot him with the gun, I wonder if the Pi Kapp’s were nice enough to let him konw it was an airsoft gun or perhaps led him to believe that it was something like a BB gun. In that case, mental hazing may have been a bigger story than the physical hazing itself - not that mental hazing is by any means acceptable.
It is odd to me that no one has put any thought to where the roundly disputed report that it was a BB gun came from. It would seem to me that the information would have come directly from the pledge, who may have been misled into believing that he was being/ or going to be shot with a BB gun. If that was the case - that the victim reported it as a BB gun - than it would prove extremely difficult to retract that information. Pi Kapps would have little success in a story vs. story battle and it would seem only the victim would have the ability to set the record straight (if it’s not already straight). Fortunately, it seems Pi Kapp headquarters has appropriately not approached the victim with such a request.
With that in mind, Andy’s stated ambiguity is far more appropriate than reporting rumors as fact simply because it seems to be the consensus conventional wisdom. If anything, Andy’s error is in shying away from the reported facts and inconsistent evidence. As Andy contends, a series of welts grave enough to warrant a hospital visit and then a nurse to call police, is incosistent with a “harmless” airsoft gun - airsoft gun or not, hopefully we can all agree that with welts like that this was not a harmless incident. Andy should check the police report and compare it against official statments - primary documents - and settle with those facts for his reports.
Comment by andrew — July 6, 2005 @ 1:41 am
Guys, lets all look on the bright side here. It could have been a flame thrower, but it wasn’t. Where’s our applause for the restraint of these gentlemen?
Comment by John — July 6, 2005 @ 10:51 am
The welts didn’t warrant the hospital visit, if I recall correctly. He was there for another reason.
That said, reporters and editors can be ignorant, and many won’t know the difference between an airsoft gun and a BB gun.
Comment by B.A.D. — July 6, 2005 @ 12:12 pm
My belief is that it was an air soft gun, but that belief is based only on rumors. I played with air soft guns in high school and we would shoot each other from point blank range with the guns on bare skin, and no one ever ended up with welts…
If you were using the spring-powered airsoft guns that they sell at places like Big 5 Sporting Goods and Wal-Mart, then I wouldn’t be surprised that you had no welts. However, gas and battery-powered airsoft guns are rising in popularity in the US (check out places like
if you want some examples of such things), and those can shoot anywhere from 200 to 400 feet per second, depending on the modifications made by the owner. At point blank range, those will surely break skin. People have ended up with chipped teeth because of those. A lot of airsoft fields in California require players to wear full paintball masks for that reason, and most games establish a minimum distance from which you can fire at another person in order to avoid injuries from close-range shooting.
Comment by Brian — July 6, 2005 @ 12:22 pm
Argh, I suck horribly using the HTML on this site…
Comment by Brian — July 6, 2005 @ 12:22 pm
Yo Andy, Ben’s threatening to “regulate” (I think its because I called him homie g). Wanna give this up and settle it like the rest of our snits: beirut, loser pays for the beer?
John Danger Waste–have I told you lately that I love you? and your comedic genius? even when you’re telling me that I can be an idiot sometimes?
Comment by Lauren Karasek — July 6, 2005 @ 3:07 pm
Lauren,
I’m a gentleman, I’ll pay for the beer. How is Friday night for you?
love,
andy
Comment by Andy R. — July 6, 2005 @ 4:34 pm
Were you using the quicktag buttons? Ironically, they’re suppose to help with the html.
Comment by Allen L. — July 6, 2005 @ 9:13 pm
Lauren, thank you for the love. It means a lot to me that in this sensitive day and age, an era governed by political correctness and an amok media, there are still individuals out there who get the pure joy of a nice flame thrower joke. Carry on.
Comment by John — July 7, 2005 @ 6:30 pm
While you’re at it Lauren, maybe you can please have mandatory workshops for fraternities on respecting women at parties and one for sororities on learning how to avoid sexual assault and rape by acting less promiscuous at fraternity parties. I’m not saying that all Greeks act in this manner, but several do and they make the whole Greek system (which I am a part of) look really bad.
My fraternity knows how to throw parties while making sure our guests don’t rape other guests. We also look down upon girls who are really promiscuous and try to uphold values of respecting women.
Maybe you can possibly help fraternities and sororities practice respect, both to others as well as themselves?
Comment by Anonymous — July 7, 2005 @ 10:42 pm
“My fraternity knows how to throw parties while making sure our guests don’t rape other guests.”
Does anyone else find the fact that such a statement could come up in normal dialogue hilarious?
Comment by B.A.D. — July 8, 2005 @ 2:06 am
Anonymous–
As a member of a fraternity, a majority of your chapter is required to participate in a program every semester known as a substance abuse awareness program (generally either SHAPE or BEARS) and those programs are required to cover sexual assault, particularly but not exclsively in scenarios where alcohol is present. Panhellenic and IFC also saw some great programs at the WRGC that we’re looking to bring to Cal on that topic, so keep an eye out for those.
However, I’m terribly disturbed by something that you said (beside what B.A.D. pointed out). A woman is never ever asking to be raped. I don’t care how promiscuous you perceive her to be acting. It doesn’t matter how she’s dressed, how she’s dancing, or how many people she’s slept with, she still has a right to her own body. And you should also really think about what you mean when you say “promiscuous” because generally its used to deny womyn the right to have sex in ways that are acceptable for men, like casually. The notion of the “good” and virginal woman is nothing more than a patriaichal tool of oppression. Not having that attitude is a major part of respecting womyn, as you claim to do.
Comment by Lauren Karasek — July 8, 2005 @ 12:46 pm
We can discuss political issues about women later. The fact is that some men at fraternity parties act like sexual predators, induced by the same sort of oppressive music played at those parties (hmm… lil’john, 50 cent) that objectifies women. If you are a leader of the Greek community, you should be concerned about this. I’m not saying that it’s the women’s fault for acting promiscuously, but the more they act promiscuously, the mroe likely they are to become victims. If I go into a Jewish community wearing a swastika, I am likely to get beat up. Yes, I have freedom of speech and me getting beaten up is completely wrong, I just know that if I behave certain ways in certain situations, there are consequences, fair or not.
This attitude that women can prance around wearing whatever article of clothing and not expect to be treated differently is ludicrous. Yes, I do blame men for rape and sexual assault if they are the perpetrators. I think they should go to jail because I have friends who have been victims of rape and sexual assault, especially with alcohol. But to support women walking into situations where she will more likely than not get attacked is ignoring the problem.
Also, I never supported men having casual sex at parties either. I am not sexist and I don’t think there should be double standards for men doing promiscuous things as with women doing promiscuous things. I also think it’s offensive to put down women who are virgins. Many women choose to be virgins for various reasons (no method of protection is 100% effective, STD’s). I am a male virgin and in your post you like to imply that all men go around having sex casually which really isn’t the case. There are many poitns of view on sex and promiscuity and mine is just as valid as yours. I consider myself a staunch opponent of sexual assault and rape and I wish for everyone, not just the men but certainly including the men, to take responsibility for this horrible occurrence.
Comment by Anonymous — July 8, 2005 @ 3:23 pm
Wow
Comment by Kevin! — July 8, 2005 @ 3:58 pm
Ah, this discussion never ceases to amuse.
Comment by Beetle — July 8, 2005 @ 5:09 pm
Anonymous–several things. The Greek leadership does take sexual assault very seriously, that’s why we put on the programs that we do. However, never expect us to tell womyn how to dress, act, or whether or not to have sex–its not our place. More importantly, that simply reifies the attitude that womyn can bring rape on themselves, and that continuing attitude is one of the major things that makes rapes in this country go unreported and/or difficult to prosecute. I refuse to uphold a policy that contributes to a social attitude that places the responsibility on the victim, pure and simple. To say that that is ignoring the problem is simply reifying the greater societal problem, that many times womyn are viewed as sexual vehicles for male fulfillment, be it how they dress or in sexual scenarios themselves. This is a problem with the prevalent patriarchal mindset, not with the womyn and their choice to dress as they please. Not only will I not support such a program with my position, but you would be hard pressed to find a sexual assault prevention program that will incorporate such suggestions for the very reasons I’ve just mentioned.
Next, please note that I never called you sexist, nor implied that you were not a virgin, nor implied that you force womyn to be virgins. What I did say is that the use of the term “promiscuous” has classically been used to deny womyn the right to have sex in ways that men are allowed to without the fear of social repercussions. You said yourself that you and your brothers judge “promiscuous” womyn and I would encourage you to rethink that because, as you pointed out, everyone has the right to (or not to) have sex as they choose. Additionally, note that I was in no way disrespectful towards virgins. I pointed out that you and your brothers’ characterization of what you perceive to be “promiscuous” womyn as “bad” or “less than” feeds into a classically recognized patriarchal image of the “good woman” (often discussed in feminist lit) a major component of which is that she is virginal (there are several others including submissive, quiet, etc.) Certainly a woman or man has a right to be a virgin for whatever myriad of reasons they base that decision on. But the important correlary is that both men and womyn have the right not to be virgins without the intervention of societal guilt.
Sexual politics are complex and we obviously have very different views, and its chill that we agree to disagree. While I agree this is hardly the forum to debate this topic in, the culminating points are as follows: 1) never expect to see sexual assault programming that places the responsibility on the victim in the Greek Community 2) Please challenge yourself on what you mean when you say that a woman is promiscuous and whether that means you respect all womyn or just some and what the implications of that are. No need to share you conclusions with the class, just consider it. 3) While it was really fun learning about your sexual history, it would be cool if you read posts more thoroughly so as to distinguish between either a personal accusation of sexism or of a negative comment towards an entire group of people (which I rarely if ever make) and a simple discussion of the historical implications of certain speech acts.
For more fun facts on rape myths, check that link (which I put in here because I haven’t told Taylor Allbright how much I love her today). With that, let’s give this up because I know Beetle isn’t actually amused.
Comment by Lauren Karasek — July 8, 2005 @ 7:34 pm
Untrue! I’m greatly amused! Sadly, at the end of one of those rants, I’m always struck with the thought that I was advised to lock my doors, an wonder if that was poor advice to give.
The discussion itself is what is so amusing. On the one hand, you’ve got folks like Anonymous (and myself) who have to try to say that individuals should take their safety in their own hands without suggesting that those who are victims deserved it. On the other, you’ve got folks like Lauren, who find the idea that some responsibility should be placed on the victims so abhorrent they respond with lists of, in my opinion, quite humorous “rape myths” that don’t address the issues at all. (Oh, so promiscuity doesn’t mean ‘rape me’? Wow! Shocking! That shattered, like, four of my myths!)
The challenge, of course, is that the advice which is quite obvious to most people (e.g. “don’t get drunk off your ass at a party full of people you don’t trust, because if you do, something bad might happen”) cannot be officially stated because, since rape has such an impact, the idea that someone contributed to her own rape through stupidity or carelessness can easily discourage a victim from coming forward. Further, for reasons which remain unclear to me, calling a victim irresponsible is interpreted as something which seeks to diminish the blame that needs to be ladled generously on the perpetrator, as if there’s only a finite amount to go around.
Also in the ‘inexplicably finite’ category is the idea that if we take any time instructing people on how to be safe, we’ll lose the ability to adequately instruct other people on how to not be assholes. Sadly, this approach can only succeed if, in the end, we finally convince all men to not be assholes, and while I salute you in your ability to set high goals, I have come to accept that assholishness is something we all have to learn to deal with and adapt to.
Comment by Beetle — July 8, 2005 @ 8:34 pm
Anonymous—
It is clear that you staunchly believe that sexual assault is wrong, and you mention popular culture’s persistent objectification and degradation of women and its role in maintaining sexist oppression. I agree with you wholeheartedly on both of these counts, and I am glad that you took the opportunity to mention them.
But I found most of your writing deeply disturbing, and I’m afraid I’m going to ignore your request to “discuss political issues about women later”. As a woman and as a rape victim, I refuse to stand silent in the face of your offensive remarks. Because you seem like a well-meaning person, I am going to tell you what is so horrific about your words.
You note that much popular music is oppressive to women. Yet you then proceed to oppress women by asserting that you can dictate how women should dress, who women should have sex with and how they should behave. You do not seem to realize your own point: women are NOT objects, you DO NOT own them, you cannot order their actions. Lauren did not “put down women who are virgins”; instead you have chosen to put down all women by asserting your authority over them and forcing your ideas of “good sexual conduct” on them. You also fail to realize that your orders are only a few out of hundreds of conflicting demands the patriarchy places on women on a daily basis: we are told to give sex freely to earn men’s favor, yet we must also be “virtuously” virginal if we wish to earn men’s respect. The truth is that society condemns women no matter how they act, and the blaming of sexual assault victims is but one symptom of this sexist oppression.
You also insult the dignity of men, particularly fraternity men, by implying that scantily clad women, 50 cent’s music, alcohol or other aspects of fraternity parties somehow transform some of them into “sexual predators”. A number of my closest friends, including my partner, are fraternity members and I resent the insinuation that a miniskirt will transform any of them into sex-crazed rapists. Your words also excuse the perpetrators of sexual assault by blaming their actions on victims, popular culture, beer, etc. while you say that a woman’s decision to dress or act “promiscuously” is attributable only to a lack of respect for herself. You use an immoral double standard, a classic tool of sexism, to blame the acts of rapists on society and the acts of victims on their own shortcomings.
Your comparison of a sexual woman at a fraternity party to a swastika-clad man at a Jewish event is extremely offensive. The Nazi swastika is a symbol of racist and sexist oppression, of the systemic slaughtering of Jews, blacks, homosexuals and other populations, and of the “Kinde, Keuche, Kirche” doctrine and forced breeding programs that imprisoned Aryan women. A low cut shirt is not a symbol of the oppression of fraternity men or of anyone for that matter. Your analogy links rape victims to mass murderers. Let me help you come up with a more appropriate analogy…how about having breasts is to a fraternity party as being black is to a white neighborhood…or having sex is to men as wearing a yarmulke is to Neo-Nazi skinheads…or a rape victim is to a rapist as a crime victim is a criminal…
Rape is not about sex, contrary to your implication that a sexual woman is asking for rape. Rape is about power; rapists seek to dominate their victims and assert their will over hers. In cases of domestic violence/partner abuse, abusers often order their victims to dress conservatively in order to assert their power. Dressing this way, of course, does not protect the victim from rape or beatings. Your demands that women behave a certain way are an oppressive and abusive use of your male privilege. When you claim to oppose sexual assault, you are being a hypocrite, for your comments serve to protect and aide rapists.
Comment by Taylor A. — July 8, 2005 @ 9:42 pm
One more thing…
***
“If you are a leader of the Greek community, you should be concerned about this.”
***
Lauren Karasek, in fact, is deeply concerned about sexual assault in the Greek community and throughout campus. She is one of the most active feminists at Cal, and I admire her work to protect UC Berkeley’s women. Her work on the Task Force on Greek Life is just one example of her deep commitment to women’s rights. Your suggestion that she is not concerned about “sexual predators” on campus is ridiculous and unfounded.
Comment by Taylor A. — July 8, 2005 @ 9:44 pm
I want to clarify the practical elements of this argument from the idealized elements. Ideally, the victim is not to blame. Practically, they are. If I walk through a “rough” part of Richmond at night wearing an iPod, platinum jewelry, expensive clothes, and am clearly unarmed or unalbe to defend myself, I may get robbed. Now, ideally I did nothing wrong. There is nothing morally or legally wrong with what I did. On the other hand, it was very stupid in a practical sense. Getting stupid drunk in a large group of people you don’t know (regardless of how hot you may think the other people are) is risky behavior. No one is guilty of being violated physically, but they can still be guilty of risky behavior. Now, which is going to prevent more party goers from becoming victems: A) blaming/punishing rapists or B) giving Party Safety seminars to incoming freshmen. If you really are concerned with the safety of young women instead of justying promiscuity, then you will agree that option B) makes more practical sense (even though the blame belongs to the rapists).
Comment by Anonymous — July 8, 2005 @ 11:21 pm
Anonymous and Beetle —
You claim to want to stop woman from acting promiscuous by maybe the way she dresses, or dances, or stares at someone. What I don’t understand (put aside patriarchy, women owning their own bodies, etc) is if a person believes that a woman is acting like she “wants some” and lets just say, takes her to their room during a party, the second that woman says NO that’s it. The game is over. The mystery is off. She’s not interested. She is no longer promiscuous, because she clearly said NO! How could that not be clear? I think this is a very important point that has not been mentioned. It should be VERY clear to rapists that they are doing the wrong thing. If a woman says no, no matter what point of the interaction it is, she means it. A second grade lesson, no means no.
Also, if someone needs to “assist” the girl, meaning take off a girl’s clothes for her, because she is blacked out/can’t do it herself, that is rape, no questions asks, no doubt in anyone’s mind. She is not aware of what is going on, and she is being taken advantage of.
Promiscuity, dress, attitude, where a woman is located should not be the issue. A woman should not have to hide her body, her sexuality, or change her life for men. However, the bottom line is No means No and if she can’t do it herself, she’s blacked out and YOU ARE raping her. Those messages should be clear, and whether or not she was acting promiscuous should no longer be an issue.
Please also take into consideration that 6 year old girls and 80 year old women are raped. This is not about lust and promiscuity, but rather about power and domination.
And, your advice to women to “not get drunk off their ass at a party full of people you don’t trust, because if you do, something bad might happen” might make sense, but it does not take into account that many people, MANY MEN, forget how much they have had to drink, or sometimes have drinks made for them that are stronger then what they’ve asked for.
And you ask to not support women walking into situations where she will be attacked—I just want you to consider what that would do to the attendance of women at your fraternity parties.
I am a member of the Greek community too, and I completely disagree that promiscuous women are the ones giving the Greek System a bad name.
Comment by BHolland — July 8, 2005 @ 11:24 pm
Er, I should really distance myself from Anonymous. I’m not in any frat, and I don’t care if women dress slutty or not.
Nor, for that matter, do I think that “no doesn’t mean no,” and I’m at a loss as to why you thought someone said that, BHolland. 6-year-olds and 80-year-olds are interesting, but since we’re talking about frats, I don’t see why they’re relevant.
Yes, the message that “rape is bad” should be clear. Of course, the kinds of people who engage in that behavior are not the kinds of people who will be disuaded by authority saying “rape is bad.” They’re dissuded by peer pressure and the like. That’s why it’s so hilarious to see all this effort into convincing people what rape is. People know. It’s just a matter of whether they care or not. If you really want to affect men and their attitudes, your “information” should be more tuned towards the men who already recognize the problem and teaching them how to pressure their friends into having the target attitude.
Comment by Beetle — July 9, 2005 @ 12:09 am
Now wait a second… I feel that rape is a terrible thing and so is sexual assault. Like I said, I should know because SEVERAL of my friends have been raped and sexually assaulted.
Honestly, I feel like the most important thing right now is to protect women against sexual assault. We can sit there and lay the blame where it’s due, but the most important thing, which you are completely ignroing is PREVENTING rape and sexual assault. Sitting here and discussing societal oppression (which I obviously believe exists) against women is one thing . Taking preventative steps is another.
If you people think that proposing a solution to end sexual assault and rape is a bad idea, say it. All we’re doing right now by saying a woman who does not want to be sexually assaulted or raped has the right to wear whatever she pleases while under the influence of alcohol should not be raped. ABSOLUTELY TRUE! However, I think both Taylor and Lauren are mischaracterizing my argument. Because many men WILL sexually assault and rape women if they are under the influence (and Taylor, not all members of fraternities act in this way), women shold take precautions before entering a scene where she is prone to be attacked based on the patriarchal society we live in. Contemplating making the world a better place to live in is a great thing, something we college students tend to do. However, a real fighter looks at the present situation and tries to combat it.
I don’t really see any real solution you guys are offering besides recognizing that we live in a patriarchal society. I believe you 100%. However, I am posing this challenge to both of the women posting at the time… What is the next real step as leaders of Cal and the Greek community that we take in order to prevent sexual assaults. Do we contemplate the world we would like to live in? Yes, to an extent. Do we also try and fix what we have right now? Yes, indeed. So tell me what should we do? My solution is not only harsh punishments for rapists, education for men, but also education for women,. If you are women’s rights activists, please prevent women from being raped.
My friend who was raped does not need to be lectured on how the world is a patriarchal society. My friend needs to know how to prevent herself from being raped in the future. And I’m damn right as a friend and an ally to help my friend take steps to prevent herself from being sexually assaulted. The outcome? She stays away from environments where she is likely to be sexually assaulted. And you know what? After being raped twice, she is no longer being raped. Please offer cogent solutions.
Once again I agree with you both wholeheartedly that we live in a patriarchal society. I advise my friend who was raped to change her behavior NOT to hold her down and prevent her from expressing herself. I don’t want her raped again.
I trust you both will make good decisions. I voted for you, Taylor, somewhere high on the ballot and I know that if you were elected you would have served as a fine senator. It’s just that women need your help right now and the current methods of prevention aren’t working. Someone needs to do something drastic, whether or not it is politically correct.
Comment by Anonymous — July 9, 2005 @ 1:49 am
Way to sell out your sex, dude.
Comment by Beetle — July 9, 2005 @ 12:08 pm
Unlike racial groups who complain (including white people) and want preferential treatment, I actually think women are oppressed in society.
Comment by Anonymous — July 9, 2005 @ 1:23 pm
How oppressed? Like, “point-out-in-every-sentence” oppressed? The apologetic acrobatics you have to go through to try to argue this is what makes these discussions so funny.
Comment by Beetle — July 9, 2005 @ 2:23 pm
Anonymous—
I appreciate your last post, it seems that you and I agree on a number of issues and our hearts are in similar places. I agree that it is important to take practical measures to protect women on all fronts, including educating women on ways to protect themselves immediately.
However, I find your comment “We look down upon girls who are really promiscuous” offensive. You imply that dressing in a certain way or acting in a certain way is indicative of a lack of respect for oneself. Now, it is true that there are women (and men) who do not have much self-respect, but one’s clothing or sexual behavior are not indicative of the level of personal virtue one has. Plenty of people find empowerment in flaunting their sexuality, and many enjoy casual sex, practice it safely and honor the wishes of themselves and their partners. Many other people prefer virginity or abstention for various reasons, including decreasing risk of STIs or pregnancy or simply personal desire. The important factor isn’t how you dress or how often you have sex; what’s important is that you have the freedom to decide for yourself what makes you comfortable and happy at that particular moment.
I disagree with your assertion that “acting less promiscuous at fraternity parties” will help women “avoid sexual assault and rape”. There are a number of factors which are linked to rape in studies, including being female (men are raped, yes, but women are much more likely victims), presence of date rape drugs (rohypnol, GHB), presence of alcohol, being in a residence (dorm, fraternity, apartment, house), being a college student, being white (people of all ethnicities and backgrounds are raped, but white college students have a higher risk than other groups), being unmarried (though plenty of married people are raped) and being out between the hours of 6pm and 6am. Please note that the factors listed are NOT causes of rape, but are factors that are correlated with rape. In addition, very few of these factors are realistically preventable by the victim. Finally, there is no link between clothing or previous sexual conduct and rape. Dressing a certain way or living a particular sexual lifestyle will NOT eliminate or increase one’s risk for sexual assault.
I fully support sexual assault prevention programs that educate people in risk groups (college women) on how to increase their safety through safe alcohol consumption, staying with friends, clear communication, etc. But I do NOT believe that acting “promiscuous” either causes rape or is a sign of low self-respect. The implication that it does serves to blame the victim by calling her immoral and therefore somewhat deserving or responsible for the assault. This is exactly why rape is so severely underreported (only about 5% of college rapes are reported to law enforcement). People who are mugged on the streets of Richmond are not ashamed to report the crime, no matter how foolhardy their behavior may have been. Yet, because of cultural opinions like the ones mentioned in your comments, women are afraid of being branded “promiscuous” and “looked down on”; thus the majority of victims remain silent. You’re right, women do need our help right now, including the support of a community that will not attack them and their reputation when they report a crime. They also need accurate information, not cultural myths, on how to protect themselves and their friends from sexual assault.
Comment by Taylor A. — July 9, 2005 @ 4:14 pm
By the way, I heard people hate long comments….
Um, sorry.
Comment by Taylor A. — July 9, 2005 @ 4:15 pm
Or at least put a damn space between your paragraphs so it’s digestable… just a helpful hint from me. Not like I’m getting involved in this one. A potent combination of defensiveness, sexism, and incompatible rhetoric. You all have fun.
Comment by Ben N. — July 9, 2005 @ 6:05 pm
Beetle–
I don’t see what you mean when you say that Anonymous is “selling out” his sex or going through “apologetic acrobatics”. Acknowledging that groups of people are disadvantaged and oppressed is not apologetic, it’s observant. Admitting that you are a member of a group that is unjustly privileged is not “selling out”.
I wish more people would recognize the preferential treatment they receive as white people, as men, as people without disabilities, as straight people, as U.S. citizens, as part of the middle or upper classes, etc. It would make equality a much more attainable goal.
The only negative thing I can see that Anonymous said about men is that some are rapists, which is true (according to statistics, an uncomfortably high number of men are probably rapists). If you were referring to another point in his comments, let me know.
Comment by Taylor A. — July 9, 2005 @ 6:34 pm
Actually, Ben, I’ve been trying to put spaces between my paragraphs, but I haven’t had much luck.
Taylor, it isn’t about observing. It’s about repeating. Constantly. To the point of absurdity. “Must… sound… enlightened… must… repeat… every… sentence…”
The question of whether it’s true, or, more importantly, whether it’s wrong, avoidable, relevant to equality, etc. is a different one that I’m not going to get into, because there is nowhere to go on it.
Comment by Beetle — July 9, 2005 @ 7:11 pm
Yeah, Ben, I tried to put spaces and indents…neither have worked.
Plus I’m hurt…you mean you don’t want to get into an argument with me on sexism, with lots of defensiveness and incompatible rhetoric? What kind of conversations are we supposed to have then?
Comment by Taylor A. — July 9, 2005 @ 8:11 pm
Ah, let me clarify one thing. I really didn’t mean to put down the part where I said we look down upon women who dress promiscuously. I really meant to say we look down on the situation because it always ends up in someone getting hurt.
Forgive me for that? I really didn’t mean to say I looked down on women. I really look down more on the situation than the people who are in it. That really did sound bad looking back.
However, I really do want to help women who are sexually assaulted and raped… and men as well. It’s something that happens that we rarely talk about.
As far as “white privilege”, I think the term is misleading. Some people think that only white people can be racist because they have the power to be racist. By definition it means that since only whites have power, they are also the only ones that can be anti-racist. By denying minorities the power to be racist and anti-racist, (because by definition they are simply non-racist), it leaves them powerless and at the mercy of white people. I think that relying on white people to make change in society is ludicrous. Every minority group can be racist and anti-racist.
I will argue that not all white men have privilege. This is a myth that derives from the California coast, where white people are on average more affluent than people of color. If you go inland where the states are poorer, there are a lot of disenfranchised white people who are obviously not privileged. They are poorer than the average person of color living on the coast.
Comment by Anonymous — July 10, 2005 @ 12:04 am
By the way I am not white, and I recognize that white people who don’t live in California, or rather the coasts (California has its share of very poor white people… Modoc county, etc.), have it much much harder than me, a person of color.
Comment by Anonymous — July 10, 2005 @ 12:07 am
*cough* apologetic acrobatics *cough*
If only Americans could be so easily categorized, with a giant, one-dimensional ladder of privilege. But it looks like you’re straying from the fun topic of male-female relations to the dull topic of race relations, so I guess I’ll check out.
Comment by Beetle — July 10, 2005 @ 1:52 am