The Rules According to a Fraternity "Cocksman"
 

This is just jaw-dropping BAD.
Frat Email Explains Women Are "Targets," Not "Actual People"
A long intro to story-one that maybe all some need to read:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carol-..._b_834236.html

The whole story and the e-mail:
http://jezebel.com/#!5779905/usc-fra...le-like-us-men

Kappa Sigma Nationals investigating viral e-mail
A racy e-mail that has spread virally through the Greek community and beyond is currently under investigation by the Kappa Sigma Fraternity nationals.

http://dailytrojan.com/2011/03/08/ka...-viral-e-mail/

Like a commenter said, this is some douchecanoe pretending he's Tucker Max. Undoubtedly all talk, just as my friends and I were in junior high when we pretended to be Valley Girls. The less attention given to this dude, the better - more than likely he's angling for some sort of writing job (this is LA, mensas) and any publicity he gets, bad or good, will just improve his chances.

The real crime here is that he isn't even funny.

33girl: The way I read the stories, this douchecanoe (and I would use stronger terms in private) is rather real.
Perhaps we should just leave it up to USC and Kappa Sigma's National to figure it out.
Real or not, this goes way beyond a Hollywood or Madison Ave writing audition.

And DeltaBetaBaby I agree with you-There is no humor in anything he wrote.

Well-The story is getting wider and weirder:
IFC statement says e-mail did not originate at USC
http://dailytrojan.com/2011/03/10/if...ginate-at-usc/

The POV of a woman blogger on this story:
USC Frat E-mail Shocks and Appalls, But I’m Just Appalled
http://collegecandy.com/2011/03/10/u...just-appalled/

It wasn't that funny. He went for crude over creative.

However, eliminating some of the crudeness, parts of this are not uncommon types of conversation, among men.

James: There are a great many ideas and thoughts that maybe common types of conversation among certain groups.

Does that make any of them correct, proper and decedent?

When I spoke, last night, to a Chapter EA he was sicken and disgusted by what he saw. And planned to have a meeting with the Men of the chapter to make it very clear that this line of thought is not condoned.

Well I hope and pray the originator of the email was not a Kappa Sig. If he was I "pity the fool" as our alums will insist that he be expelled from the fraternity and hound him to the gates of hell.

My suspicion is that the writer is not a Kappa Sig or a member of a fraternity at USC. If he is, he is really stupid as he will be outed for what he is. A true dumbass. We shall soon see as USC says the writer was not a student there.

There's been some speculation of a cover-up.

http://jezebel.com/#!5780823/student...leges-cover+up

This news video says writer was not a KΣ.

http://discussions.ktla.com/20/ktla2...rnity-email/10

I wouldn't believe anything re this incident that I read on Jezebel. They have a very clear agenda. That's proven by the fact that you have to be "approved" to post there, even about something as innocuous as children's books.

I. CANNOT. STAND. JEZEBEL.

At first, it was fun--a cheeky reaction to women's magazines, etc. Now it's just a lot of self-serving harpies who have taken the fun out of feminism.

A. The OP in this thread has a link from Jezebel. This is their follow-up. Hence the link from Jezebel (although they're actually re-posting something from ONTD Feminism - which I can't get to at work anyway).
2. The tiers of commenting is on all GawkerMedia sites (Gizmodo, Gawker, Lifehacker, i09) and is really fucking annoying. It does not prove Jezebel's agenda since the commenters on GawkerMedia sites outside of Jezebel display the most grotesque misogynistic thought processes I've ever had the "pleasure" of reading. Don't disagree with you about Jezebel's agenda, however.
C. There was a reason I used the word "speculation" and not "THIS IS TOTALLY A COVER-UP."

I was permabanned from Jezebel for noting of Obama's daughters that the cute one looks like Michelle and the ugly one looks like him.

What the fuck.

I think it's stuck in the middle, some people want it to be more about fasion, sex, and gossip and some want it to BE a feminist blog. And it's hard to snark about people's looks and then complain about fat shaming in the next post.
I read some of the posts, more to get links to other things.
I like ONTD feminism. That's all I have to add here.

I had to read this three times to understand what you were talking about. I know nothing about GawkerMedia and don't really care. All I know is I couldn't make a comment about Little House on the mofoing Prairie because I wasn't "approved" and I believe having to "audition" to comment is beyond asinine. Maybe the mechanics doesn't prove the agenda, but who gets approved and who doesn't most definitely DOES.

I could be completely wrong on this but the proported eyewitness account sounds like just so much BS. I have met and conversed with Mic Wilson our Executive Director. He is not going to put his neck out on the line and ask others to cover up and lie to squelch an email going viral. We (Kappa Sig) have a pretty good history of shutting down out of control chapters and expelling undesirables. I hope I am not wrong but I call Bulls**t on the Jezebel article. There is just too much that seems out of character in this.

What do you mean by this? Do you know the alleged writer personally or are you saying it's "out of character" for a member of your organization?

I'd be the first to admit that there are some shitheads in my org, too.

I took him to mean it would seem out of character for Kappa Sig HQ to be engaging in a cover-up rather than taking action.

Oh right that makes sense. Sorry it struck me as a "A Kappa Sig would never write this!" and I'm like "buh?"

Makes sense now though.

I agree with you MysticCat.

I would be willing to take it even farther and say that it would be out of character for just about any National Office/HQ to engage in some sort of a cover-up.

However, in a general sense, it is not out of the realm of possibilities that people or officials bellow the National office level to behave differently.

Like to add something else here. Most of the people I have spoken to about this agree on the following:
It is important to find out just what happened here.
But at this point, the larger picture is not about who, what, where, how and why of this e-mail.

What may be more important is how it now paints Greeks once again in a rather poor light.

I certainly would not and do not wish any of my younger women relatives, now in college, to be looked at, thought of or used in the ways mentioned in e-mail.

I would not want any of my Brothers involved in anything like the actives mentioned in e-mail.

Yet now, no matter which GLO one is in, others will think about letter and you.

It is rather upsetting, at the very least, that it is relatively easy to find bad things about Greek life.

And rather hard to find news about positive aspects of it.

And if this whole issue is phony, it just added into the above.

I'm less concerned with how it paints Greeks in a negative light than how it speaks to a culture where someone, somewhere thought this would be an acceptable way to describe women. While it may or may not be phony and an attempt to paint Greeks in a negative light - what is it that makes it even plausible that a fraternity man would have written this?

agzg-You have a very good and, unfortunately, a very valid point.

I really have no problem finding in plausible, or even likely, that it was written by a male college student, whether in a fraternity or not. I've spent enough time in majority male environments to hear things like this email spoken out loud. Sometimes, people are just disgusting. (And if they were that disgusting before joining a Greek org, then they'll probably stay that way.)

I'm not even shocked by this. Also, considering how bad it COULD have been, I'm not even that offended.

^^This. Thanks MC. To the rescue again and I appreciate it! :)

Mic Wilson has a long history of NOT putting his neck out for the undergrads and the various chapters. It is normally the DGM's and Area Manager's who do the initial investigatory research when these type RM issues arise. One of them maybe would cover it up if they are truly stupid but not the Executive Director. I seriously doubt he has ever been in a meeting with the writer at Jezebel. It just doesn't seem in character with the way things are handled in our organization. However, I will hold out the caveat that I could be completely wrong.

[QUOTE=33girl;2037767 I know nothing about GawkerMedia and don't really care. ... Maybe the mechanics doesn't prove the agenda, but who gets approved and who doesn't most definitely DOES.[/QUOTE]

Not really, because the approval process isn't really a Jezebel process - once you're approved for one (which includes Deadspin, Kotaku, Lifehacker, Gizmodo, etc.) you can post to all of them, and Jezebel itself may not even control it. So using that as example of agenda is not the strongest, compared to just looking at what its writers/editors instead choose to post.

I get what she's saying to some degree - since the starred commenters approve pink posts and promote greyed posts their bias shows in terms of what they approve or promote.

And you're not approved for all of them when you're approved for one anymore - you have to be approved at each individual site (the only one I can think of that you don't would be Gawker and GawkerTV). Also, if you're starred on one it doesn't necessarily mean that you're starred on all.

Of course, this is just getting into GawkerMedia's mechanics. I used a Jezebel post because the OP used a Jezebel post. Follow-ups are fun.

Ah, my bad, I did not realize that had changed - it used to be the exact opposite: any one allowed posting to all, and that was fairly recently (SEE: Deadspin weekend-edited by Jezebel turns into massive tard party when Jezebel posters jump into sports dorks head-first).

The correction is much appreciated.

Does anyone else see any similarities between this email/letter and the "thesis" that the young lady wrote about her sexual encounters while at Duke University? Not in the content, per se, but more so in the baser nature of the writings/rankings and the explicit sexual content. Wonder whatever happened to her?

No matter who wrote it, I'm surprised there are so many women who are shocked that there are plenty of guys who think and talk this way. Most of them are just careful enough not to put it in an email.

Exactly.

They still put it on t-shirts and sweatshirts though, saw one in the super market where my whole gender was termed as someone to be paid for sex. It was from a chapter I thought had better judgment than that, can't say that it didn't make me think a bit less of their current membership. The person sporting it is a current member living in house, so it wasn't a former member, alumnus, or non member wearing a cast off.

I figure if the membership as a whole decides to put it on clothing and wear it, it lets everyone know how they think and feel and we can interact (or not) accordingly.

I'm not shocked. I'm just aware that there's something wrong with them, not with me, for their thinking.

The message here is that undergrads need to be conscious that their organization is a brand, and as a brand, it has a certain image. If they want to get quality members, their image needs to be such that those individuals will be attracted to the organization. If they want to get men who will disrespect women, sounds like that particular group can just keep on keepin' on.

I will admit my own bias came into this as it really was from a fraternity where I know alumni and just wouldn't expect them to seriously make those types of clothing design. Sure there's a lot of joking and ridiculous not to be taken serious outrageous ideas that never leave the privacy of the group, but I found it even stranger since IFC decided a few years ago to not have parties or themes with women as hoes and such. I've seen clothing that allude to groups and if you're from this campus you would know who they are, but aren't outright the names and letters of an organization. Now with instant publishing with digital cameras and social media one poorly thought t-shirt design may haunt a group for a long time.

I continue to be confused by the women in sororities who play into the party themes of being prostitutes and sex objects. Why would I go to the party where it is made clear my place there is someone who is used for sex and seen not as a person, when the women who founded our organizations fought so hard for education and to be taken seriously. Maybe it is how I was raised, my personal values, or high self esteem but I managed to never attend any party with a theme that degraded women, or any other group of people who may have, or still are marginalized. I'm still waiting for an invite to 33girl's "Federal Express" party where the guys line up by package size and delivery time ;)

I also saw this story as a headline, and immediately thought the USC further from me since the author referred to himself as a cocksman, and the University of South Carolina mascot is the Gamecock. There's also a Kappa Sigma chapter there. Maybe he was also perping crew, and meant coxswain?

No comment on your organization's ideals, those may ultimately be incompatible with what I'm about to say, but I'm not sure that these women who do attend these parties and play into these themes are necessarily anti-feminist. Heck--they're exhibiting a lack of sexual inhibition, freedom and power, if nothing else. Or at least that's one possible interpretation. And of course, many of the women attending these events, in many cases, will be GDI, so the founders' values concept really doesn't apply.

Maybe you're placing too much emphasis on the theme and too little on how people behave? The later is just as important as the former.