Phi Sigma Kappa brothers urge "Don't feed the sorority girls"
 

http://www.theeagleonline.com/opinio...heyre-eating2/

From the article:

Classy, guys, classy.

Although the shirts are in poor taste and present the fraternity in a negative light, I find it somewhat humorous that a law student (the writer of this op/ed) is essentially calling for a ban on offensive speech (this clothing) or to ban men from the gym during certain hours. Moreover, the shirt reads, "Don't feed the sorority girls." The writer never opines she is in a sorority; rather that she is a second year law student. The message is not intended for her, and yet she is triggered. I'm offended by a lot of things, but I don't expect the world to revolve around me. She can work out at another gym if she dislikes the patrons at her current gym.

I am not condoning the message of the shirts. The fraternity was stupid to print these shirts up with their letters in the first place. I'm pretty sure that these shirts won't earn them any points with the sororities they are seeking to court for social events. According to the comments following the op/ed, there are about 20 guys in this fraternity. Not a smart PR move for them no matter how you slice it, and I have no doubt their advisers or nationals will be on their case about it after this article makes the rounds.

The fact that she uses the word "bros" in a disparaging manner and refers to them as a pack (equating them to animals) makes her no better than the guys in the t-shirts.

I think it was more the the whole "Don't feed" message triggered her response. It reminded her of her EDNOS. Didn't matter who the target was.

Besides that, I totally agree with everything that's been said here. The author, while understandably shook up and angry, overreacted a bit.

First, I wished she didn't group the whole organization of Phi Sigma Kappa into this in the title. Maybe mention the school chapter of PSK, but not all of us. That's too much.

Second, from what I understand, a small group of men had these t-shirts. Ok, you're pissed. Have women only hours so YOU feel better? No. You're punishing every man for the actions of some. You described the usual men as " perfectly pleasant," yet you don't want them at the gym anymore at certain times because a couple of guys ".

I understand that she might have had difficulties with her disorder, and she is recovering from it, and I do not defend the actions of my brothers. However, this is not the right way to go, banning everything to make a person feel better.

I don't know, maybe I'm overreacting just a little as well.

If I were to have seen this, I think my response would be sad rather than offended. It is a tragic statement that the future leaders of our country would think this was 1-funny 2-acceptable social behavior and 3-something worthy of paying actual time and money to print on t-shirts that will some day end up in a goodwill bin.

I think it's less about banning speech as much as wishing so much better of them. That you CAN make a piggish statement like this doesn't mean you should, or especially that they apparently didn't know they were doing something embarrassing for themselves. A girl who would be personally hurt by this needs to grow a backbone and never EVER date one of these guys. I'd probably do my best to get the other sororities on campus to show their appreciation for the t-shirts by not participating in any events with them for about a year or so. Or forever. Say it if you want, but understand there are consequences to your behavior.

I agree with this completely. I wouldn't necessarily be offended (all of us as sorority women learn not to listen to the ignorant comments and ridiculous stereotypes), but I would try to make these guys realize that what they did was just plain dumb. The sororities should subtly let them know that by joining together and cutting this fraternity chapter out of their social plans.

I agree that the op-ed is a bit of a mess. But the t-shirts are dumb and offensive, and to wear one years after your chapter has gotten in trouble for/apologized for it is really dumb.

To anyone who feels she shouldn't have been personally offended:
You obviously haven't ever had an eating disorder, which I hope you never do. However, you cannot then understand how harmful something like this can be.

That's a ridiculous statement. That's like saying you can never know true love until you have given birth to a child. False. We can appreciate the harm of a trigger without having an eating disorder.

She has every right to be offended, but she has no right to ask the university gym to have female-only hours or for her university to inhibit free speech. And by announcing her feelings in an op/ed, she opens herself to be criticized. I am criticizing her, not for her eating disorder or feeling triggered, but for the fact that she's a second year law student who obviously hasn't been paying attention in class.

Lots of people have triggers. Recovering alcoholics avoid bars for this reason. She can go to a different gym and she can go to therapy and continue to work on herself. The world is not going to stop to accommodate her.

Again, the fraternity members wearing these shirts are misogynist pigs who deserve to be shunned by the sororities, but I support their right to wear whatever they please.

Well since eating disorders are mental disorders, it's a little different. Kind of like people not understanding depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, etc unless you've had them. It's extremely difficult for someone to really comprehend the extent of the damage it does without experiencing it. But if you think I'm wrong about it, then that's something I can not change your mind about.

No. It's not different at all. You don't have be schizophrenic to be empathetic of someone suffering from schizophrenia. To suggest otherwise is an incredibly ridiculous and short-sighted statement. By your logic, a psychiatrist/psychologist must themselves suffer with the same disorder to "really comprehend the damage it does."

No one is saying mental disorders are not real. I am saying that if you suffer from any disease, you should get treatment and minimize aggravating the condition by knowingly avoiding places that will exacerbate your symptoms. The answer is not in getting the rest of the world to accommodate to each and every person's special symptoms because it is unreasonable and impossible.

Missouri.girl: Your reasoning is fallacious and your argument specious.

This.

I don't see it being just about eating disorders. It has to do with societal values. And I don't want to go into a huge rant, but it irks me to no end that women are always first judged by appearance, then by who they are. Even at the inauguration, there was so much talk about what the FLOTUS and her daughters were WEARING. Which designer made their coats?? Who cares??? I really like and admire Michelle Obama but I'd like and admire her if she didn't have great arms and if she didn't dress sharply. I like and admire her because she's a very intelligent, warm and seemingly compassionate woman. Anybody know who designed the suit the President wore? NO. Anybody pay any males attention on the red carpet?? NO. And we do it to ourselves too. We are incredibly judgmental of each other.

It's really interesting that you say this, particularly because I wasn't aware that empathizing and understand were the same thing. Obviously I was wrong though, thanks for informing me.

Then maybe you should crack open a book once and a while instead of coming on to a new chatroom to argue with people you don't even know. To empathize with someone is to understand someone (or identify with). Your logic about understanding/ empathizing with someone eve though that person never suffered that condition is just plain ridiculous. I'm a therapist who specializes in addictions and guess what??? I don't do drugs and I've never had a crack addiction (or any for that matter). Does that mean I must be horrible at my job? I guess it must.

I agree with adpiucf about the girl not paying much attention in class. Sure, it sucks that she was triggered and the shirt was clearly in poor taste but, so are a lot of things. I'm not going to ask someone to wear a different shirt because I disagree with what they think is funny.

I know what suit POTUS wore! It was Brooks Brothers--just like almost every other President since BB was founded.

While I do agree that women are judged first by appearance, and it can be very problematic, in the cases you mentioned, it's more finance-based. There's a LOT of money to be made in women's fashion--apparently the sales of the J.Crew and Kate Spade coats Sasha and Malia wore skyrocketed. Even a relatively inexpensive dress from Zara sold like hotcakes once Kate Middleton wore it. I think that the emphasis on women's fashion is more marketing than anything else. Women will buy something if they like it on a public figure...men, not as much.

Back to the OP--the writer was, in my opinion, overreacting. Let's face it--triggers are everywhere for everybody. Part of recovery, whether it's from an ED, mental illness, or even a death in the family, is becoming resilient to MOST triggers. It seems like the author of the post may have a long way to go.

Also, I didn't even know women's only hours were a thing at college gyms. Is it to protect ED patients, or for Muslim or married Orthodox Jewish women who can't have their hair uncovered when men are around?

I absolutely agree. This poor woman apparently is still suffering greatly from her disorder, as she recounted in the article. She still counts calories religiously and is very sensitive to these stimuli. I hope she is still receiving treatment so that she can withstand the multitude of triggers that bombard modern women in our daily lives. Speaking out about the t-shirt may be a good sign for her, though, rather than internalizing those feelings and hurting herself with more poor eating behaviors. It's a continuum. Maybe her next step will be to let it go.

People who write articles like this usually don't understand the difference, and don't care to figure it out or be informed.

The bolded would make more sense. I can't imagine having to work out with your head covered. Sweat city!!!

You're so very welcome.

There are also general modesty issues to keep in mind as well.

Some women are just more comfortable working out without men around for a variety of reasons. The gym can be a hotbed for "street harassment"--it's like getting catcalled when you walk around or take public transit, but there is no escape route if you are mid-workout. Even if it's not so aggressive, the success of places like Curves shows us that self-consciousness is a serious problem in encouraging women to work out.

Whether or not it's the place of a university to accommodate these women is an open question in my mind, but certainly the demand is there.

It's a hard thing to explain to guys, especially those who aren't pigs and don't understand what their buddies do FREQUENTLY. I was driving with my husband and a friend of his in my car and the guy rolled down the window and cat-called a girl. Right out of my car! I nearly kicked him out of the car, but then he'd have been within access of the girl. The fact that I was (and am) in my mid-40's when this happened made it all the more horrifying.

I've never cared about working out with guys, but some girls really do. The only reason it bugs me is the meat market the gym becomes on Thursday night. And speaking of that, words to live by: if you can see the pantyline of your thong, EVERYTHING you're wearing is too tight. But then those girls aren't worrying a whole lot about what the guys are saying to or about them. Possibly they worry about their next yeast infection...

In the 4 years I was at school, I worked out in the gym a total of.. three times? I stopped going because every time I was there I got hit on. It might have been ok if I wasn't called "baby" or if the pick-up lines were something better than, "You need help with that?" (referring to whatever piece of equipment I was using at the time). It's annoying, and a lot of times the "meatheads" of the gym look at it as a perfect time to show off their bodies so you'll drool over them and won't be able to turn them down. I've belonged to many gyms, and I've seen the same thing happen to other women. It can be uncomfortable in such a setting.

When I lived in MA, I belonged to a gym that had a women's only room. It was great - not only because there weren't any men around, but because there was only was equipment that women generally use (smaller free weights, cardio machines, and a handful of machines to work the arms, legs, and one for abs).

In some cases, I don't think it has to do with being self-conscious, but rather, it causes less of a distraction. I go to the gym to work out, and that's it. It's nice to know that I'm not going to get hit on by a guy who's only interested in me because he saw my butt moving up and down on the stairmaster.

Right, to be clear, I meant to call out two different phenomenon: one is an internal self-consciousness, and the other is having to deal with BS from men.

What's ED here? Erectile Dysfunction???

Eating Disorder