Someone is giving the university I love a bad name.
An e-mail purportedly written by a member of Kappa Sigma fraternity at USC has gone viral. The idea is that women are targets, to be judged by their willingness and anatomical ability to satisfy a man sexually, and that men can benefit by exchanging such information on a weekly basis with great specificity so they will know who to target. As the author puts it:
"I want raw data on who (has sex) and who doesn't. (The report) will strengthen brotherhood and help pin-point sorostitiutes more inclined to put-out. From my experience when a female goes Ksig shes typically repeats."
The writer goes on to clarify some terms he'll be using:
"Note: I will refer to females as 'targets.' They aren't actual people like us men. Consequently, giving them a certain name or distinction is pointless." His other terms are so vile I can't even clean them up for publication.
As for what the woman thinks, or whether she is actually consenting, he has this to say:
"Non-consent and rape are two different things. There is a fine line, so make sure not to cross it. ... When utilizing the loop power of 4 Lokos, be careful. A target on one 4 Loko is putting the odds in your favor of getting some pie. A target on two 4 Lokos is going to get sick and pass out. A target on three 4 Lokos leads to instances of litigation and lawsuits. Terms like 'sexual assault' seem to be used in this case."
Seem? You mean, having sex with a woman who is beyond being sick and passed out is not sexual assault?
Now, it's not at all clear whether this e-mail really originated at USC or was "just" distributed by a student here. And it's not at all clear whether it was meant as a "prank" or as the introduction of an actual weekly report. That matters to those of us who find it hard to believe that one of our students could be responsible for such venality.
For your purposes, it hardly makes a difference. Someone wrote this. Thousands have passed it along. And my students tell me that many people find this blatant objectification of women "funny."
Yes, I know there was that woman, the Duke graduate, whose ratings of men's sexual prowess went viral last October. That was also a disgrace. It doesn't matter which was worse; this is not a competition. The fact that women can, at times, come close to the venality of the "Kappa Sig" e-mail only proves that the cancer here is not limited to boys.
What has gone wrong? Part of it, no doubt, is a function of the "hooking up" culture so prevalent today on college campuses. Sex without a relationship. Not even "friends with privileges." I cannot begin to tell you how many of these supposed "hook-ups" — these exercises of "privilege" — turn out, from the perspective of the woman crying in my office, to be horrifying rather than satisfying. The number of college-age women who tell interviewers they have been forced to have sex against their will and without their consent remains heartbreakingly high: one in four, one in five, depending on which study you credit.
The critics of these studies, and there are a few, argue that this is overstated, that maybe it's only one in seven. Only?
On Thursday night, my daughter is directing a production at Harvard of "A Memory, a Monologue, a Rant and a Prayer," monologues collected by Eve Ensler. Sponsored by the Office of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (OSAPR), an office that did not exist in my days there, the ushers for the show will be young men from Harvard Men Against Rape, an organization founded by football players that includes many young men from Harvard's fraternity-like final clubs.
My daughter will be opening the show with a monologue she wrote entitled, "Daughter Of." What happened to me 35 years ago has shaped her life. The pain — and the lessons — of rape do not go away.
I am as proud of my daughter as I am disappointed in Kappa Sig.
To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
Early, I'm 64, and when I was in college, that's about the way the fraternity boys acted. Maybe they were more hush-hush about it--what goes on at Kappa Sig stays at Kappa Sig--but the girls knew the score. There was no 4 Loko, just alcohol--but it worked just as well. And in my parents' generation, there was a saying "Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker."
Congratulations on having been one of the people who didn't act like this. But even in your day, they did. They always have. The exclamation, "O tempora! O mores!" goes back to Cicero. We haven't declined--we just haven't climbed much.
Susan writes: “Yes, I know there was that woman, the Duke graduate, whose ratings of men's sexual prowess went viral last October. That was also a disgrace.”
I see, but not enough of a “disgrace” to trigger an article from you denouncing such behavior (at the time). Even here such female behavior only warrants a line or two in an attempt to give the air of fairness to her article. After all, all guys are pigs, right, and get what they deserve, right? Such behavior is not a real problem until “girls” are the “targets”, right? I find the selective outrage of Liberals to be less than honorable.
Susan further writes: “Now, it's not at all clear whether this e-mail really originated at USC or was "just" distributed by a student here.” . . . Then Susan writes: “I am as proud of my daughter as I am disappointed in Kappa Sig.”
I see; Susan does not know who wrote the e-mail but she is clearly willing to trash talk Kappa Sig anyway. Figures. If fits the Liberal agenda, who cares about facts. Indeed, what is the Liberal Creed (when a non-Liberal is being accused of something): “The Nature of the evidence is irrelevant; it is seriousness of the charge that matters?” Oh yes, that is what qualifies as HONOR and integrity for Liberals.
Does anyone remember the white male Duke Lacrosse Players and the black stripper case of 2007? Liberal Professors and those in charge at Duke, without any real evidence, with very few “facts” and without a trial decided to ruin the lives of three white males on the grounds that the nature of the evidence is irrelevant; it is the seriousness of the charge that matters. Thus, “honorable” Liberals proceeded to trash the lives and reputations of three men just because such men are male and white and the victum was black and the story fit the prejudice/racists beliefs of such Liberals. Indeed, liberal Duke Professors formed the Gang of 88 and put THEIR racism/prejudice, and self-righteousness ignorance, on full display for all to see. I find the elitism and self-righteousness of “Liberals” to be more disappointing/disgusting than anything Kappa Sig could ever dream up.
But what I find more interesting than the above described (and well known) Liberal elitism and racism is Susan Estrich's defense of President Bill Clinton.
Did not Susan state: “Rape me, and I will become the world's expert in rape law. I will work to change the law, to change the teaching of the law.”
But, according to Slate, “When Clinton had his difficulties with Paula Jones, Juanita Broderick, Kathleen Willey, Monica Lewinksy, et al., Estrich rallied to his defense. She said in Slate and elsewhere that she was sure that he would not have done it. Why? For one thing, "Bill Clinton was my friend." For another thing, "He didn't have to." This type of reasoning would never have made it past the Estrich of Real Rape, the Estrich who passionately supported Anita Hill, the Estrich who coined the phrase "the nuts and sluts defense."
Indeed, about the only lasting legacy that President Clinton gave us was the phrase: “Getting a Lewinksy”. And this is the man Susan defends. Interesting.
I wonder if past behaivor of Susan herself has contributed to this e-mail she deplores?
Comment: #3
Posted by: SusansMirror
Wed Mar 23, 2011 7:55 AM
I'm not a raving right-winger, in fact I'm a socially moderate Democrat (believe it or not), but I find it nauseating when social liberals write such whiny articles.
It's the social liberals who have been claiming for decades that we shouldn't judge, that everyone should have freedom.
But, when it's women on the receiving end they change their tune, completely blind to the hypocrisy.
To be clear, I find the e-mail insulting and repugnant. But I find a lot of things about modern American values repugnant and have no compunction making value judgements.
No man (or woman) is an island. What can seem matters of personal freedom can be destructive when generalized across society as a whole.
Comment: #4
Posted by: John Wills
Wed Mar 23, 2011 9:18 AM
Calling women "targets" is pretty creepy - I've come across that jargon on several "speed seduction" sites, where guys seem to be angry that they're not getting any, but they feel entitled to get it whenever they want it - without having to ask. I don't know if these guys are lazy or actually victimized by our commodity-driven society. It would be nice if they had a better way to gratify their egos, but not everyone's such a genius or a star athlete. So what's an "average f*****g chump" to do?
These same guys will probably respond with tales of gold-digging (which are likely true) because, yes, women can be equally shallow. Not all of them, but then again not all men are pigs. The question for all readers here, is, are you a shallow pig or aren't you? It's up to you and you alone. No one ever said it was easy to be a real human being.
It's been 25 years since I was a college student at a school that didn't allow fraternities or sororities, easy for me to say now that all girls should avoid frat parties, or stay sober if they do go - and NEVER let anyone else open your drink for you. Fat chance. It's possible that the risk (of being raped instead of courted, or of being sued instead of getting laid) is appealing to both sexes. And I remember a friend who got raped because she was very unwise in her choices for personal safety - she didn't "deserve" it of course, but nonetheless it was her own choices that led her into a situation where she was at the mercy of a man who used violence. I always trusted my gut and that worked well for me, but what about girls whose early warning systems aren't so good? What are parents teaching their kids these days for life skills if they don't know how to use good judgment?
Comment: #5
Posted by: Red Ree
Wed Mar 23, 2011 9:19 AM
I'm not a raving right-winger, in fact I'm a socially moderate Democrat (believe it or not), but I find it nauseating when social liberals write such whiny articles.
It's the social liberals who have been claiming for decades that we shouldn't judge, that everyone should have freedom.
But, when it's women on the receiving end they change their tune, completely blind to the hypocrisy.
To be clear, I find the e-mail insulting and repugnant. But I find a lot of things about modern American values repugnant and have no compunction making value judgements.
No man (or woman) is an island. What can seem matters of personal freedom can be destructive when generalized across society as a whole.
Comment: #6
Posted by: John Wills
Wed Mar 23, 2011 9:21 AM
Early-nonsense that this didn't happen in your day. It wasn't *reported* perhaps, but don't kid yourself that your generation didn't objectify, rape, suppress, oppress, discriminate, etc against women. No, I don't know what generation you are, but there isn't a society *in history* out there that has treated women as sexual, moral, and intellectual equals.
Re: Walkie
We have always known that man is the 'hunter' because of his strong sexual drive. Your last statement is indeed correct; however, I believe the female gender has become more openly sexual and immoral in our current time. Thanks to NOW, etc. Times have indeed changed.
Comment: #8
Posted by: Early
Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:19 AM
Early--I agree that man has been the hunter (sexually and literally) due to greater physical strength, and I think men's supposed higher sex drive is largely due to the fact that is sex involves significantly less risk for them. Men can walk away from sex every time. Women cannot. I believe that plays a huge factor in how often women vs men engage in sex for pleasure's sake. I'd be curious to see how women would behave sexually in a world where birth control was free and effective for all, and women had the choice if and when to be mothers with no condemnation from society. Methinks it would be very different indeed.
I'm staying away from the use of immoral as I think it's relative and largely a societal construct when applies to sexuality.