Shutter Fraternities for Young Women's Good

[DaffyKD]

Let me get this straight. This lady was raped in a fraternity house 27 years ago. By my calculations, whether the culprits were prosecuted or not, none of they are still in school. As a result of her nightmare, all fraternities should be shuttered now?? Guilty by association?

What about men who have an apartment and have parties in their apartments, should that now be made illegal? Coed dorms-- illegal since men are in close proximity to young ladies and can rape them? Oh, lets not forget the young men who live at home and commute to school-- should they no longer be allowed on college campuses for fear they COULD rape a woman?

Should all schools be same sex?

This is one very illogical article.

DaffyKD

[33girl]

Originally Posted by DaffyKD

Let me get this straight. This lady was raped in a fraternity house 27 years ago. By my calculations, whether the culprits were prosecuted or not, none of they are still in school. As a result of her nightmare, all fraternities should be shuttered now?? Guilty by association?

No, Liz Seccuro (the one who was raped 27 years ago) talks in her book about how one of her rapists was making his AA amends and came forward to her. From a brief google, she doesn't seem to be focusing on the fact that it happened at a fraternity house (although it did), rather on her ultimately getting justice, and on forgiveness and redemption.

Caitlin Flanagan (google her name, apparently the gender feminists AND the equity feminists both hate her) is the one who wants all fraternities to be closed down because that will automatically eliminate rape. She is an idiot.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by 33girl

No, Liz Seccuro (the one who was raped 27 years ago) talks in her book about how one of her rapists was making his AA amends and came forward to her. From a brief google, she doesn't seem to be focusing on the fact that it happened at a fraternity house (although it did), rather on her ultimately getting justice, and on forgiveness and redemption.

Caitlin Flanagan (google her name, apparently the gender feminists AND the equity feminists both hate her) is the one who wants all fraternities to be closed down because that will automatically eliminate rape. She is an idiot.

Normally, regardless of how you feel about her, Caitlin Flanagan's essays make sense. This one does not.

Liz Seccuro (the actual victim) ended up joining a sorority at UVA. None of the articles I've read about her mention any indictment of the Greek system or even that specific fraternity (she did mention that she avoided that house)--it seems like she understands that it could have happened anywhere.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by AnotherKD

My fourth night at school, I went with some friends to Rugby Road, where the fraternity houses are located. They are built of the same Jeffersonian architecture as the rest of the campus. At once august and moldering, they seemed sinister, to stand for male power at its most malevolent and institutionally condoned. I remember standing there thinking I'd made a terrible mistake. It wasn't worth it, I decided. The next day I withdrew from the university."

Hey, don't laugh. Preppies everywhere felt the same when they saw their first Hot Topic. Why do you think LL Bean's catalog business is so big? BECAUSE HOT TOPIC IN ITS SINISTERISM AND MALEVOLVENCE SENT PREPPIES RUNNING AND SCREAMING FROM MALLS ACROSS THE NATION.

[agzg]

When I was a collegian, there was only one sexual assault lecture that we had to have something like 40% of our chapters attend. It made a difference among my fraternity friends. Mandatory and more frequent programming (like the alcohol stuff we had to do every year) might be more effective. I do think some men's groups have this through their national organization, but right now we as Greek organizations are doing a great job at educating women about sexual assault, but a really shitty job at educating men.

It's fucked up that we teach people not to murder, but don't teach them not to rape.

[DrPhil]

Women are taught about sexual assault and rape whereas men are not taught (beyond the occasional "if she says no...") for the same reason that women are taught to be cautious of other forms of victimization (such as robbery and aggravated assault) despite the fact that men are the victims of violent crimes (not sexual assault and rape) at a higher rate than women. Noncoincidentally, men are the majority of perpetrators regardless of whether the victim is a man or a woman. And stranger assaults are relatively rare. While people are victimized by strangers, all violent crimes (including rape and sexual assualt) are most likely not stranger perpetrators. That includes people who see you around town but you've never spoken to the person or don't remember ever speaking to the person.

Therefore, women are taught not to leave the house too late whereas men are allowed to run through life "boys will be boys" with no consideration to anything. Men are allowed to sit with their legs wide open to allow space for balls that don't need that much space whereas women are taught to sit with their legs closed. Be careful, women, your vagina may run away or at least the mere sight of that area of your body may warrant a sexual attack. But, men, you keep doing your thing. You're in charge. Sit back and relax.

This has become one of my favorite organizations:
http://carleton-sasc.ca/?page_id=202
Their videos are on youtube and some of them have relatively strong content. It is wonderful for organizations to work toward waking up EVERYONE and not allowing men to remain asleep while women handle these issues.

Men's slumber (i.e. "boys will be boys" and "let the man watch television while the woman goes crazy raising the children") is rooted in patriarchy, sexism, and misogyny and is pervasive in the family and other social institutions.

/end rant

ETA: I don't care about that article and that woman's claims about fraternities. The larger issue is more important.

[Drolefille]

DrPhil, for your post and the linked resource:

[agzg]

DrPhil:

[DrPhil]

It's also important to rid ourselves of the victim double standard. Whenever I talk about sexual assault and rape, I include males as potential victims. 95% of the time, girls/women and boys/men burst out laughing.

That can't be even remotely funny if we don't want women's sexual assault and rape to be funny.

[agzg]

Sexual assault against men is not funny, and I do think there's a high chance it's extremely underreported considering the stigma against all victims of sexual assault, ESPECIALLY men.

[Kevin]

Part of the issue regarding why universities attempt to sweep rape under the rug is the degree to which it is punished.

Here in Oklahoma, for example, the statutes (amended as late as 2002), still say that death is an available penalty for first degree rape (totally unconstitutional), and that there's a five-year minimum sentence, and the option of life or life without parole.

As a society, we generally view college students as being at the beginning of their lives, having all kinds of potential, and definitely being fixable as compared to other criminals. Prosecutors tend to give kids in these situations all sorts of breaks that wouldn't go to an individual from the proverbial wrong side of the tracks who did the exact same thing. Plus there's that whole having to register as a sex-offender thing, which can really ruin your life.

The above needs to be considered with how thin the evidence is on these sorts of cases. It often comes down to consent, which is almost inevitably a question of he said/she said, and it is definitely not unheard of for the female to be dishonest in that sort of situation, and even if we do find a prosecutor willing to prosecute getting a conviction in a he-said/she-said situation is certainly not a certainty.

Perhaps if it was possible to punish someone for a rape without statutes and societal attitudes that left the death penalty on the table, there might be more reporting of it. Until then, right or wrong (and certainly, this should not be viewed as my endorsement of rape), we will continue to see administrators and prosecutors utilize their discretion in cases such as these.

[DrPhil]

Beyond the "penises don't rule the world" point that some of us are making, I admit that I don't know what the discussion in this thread is about.

[knight_shadow]

I see.

I hope you also realize that victims are often attacked when completely sober.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

I see.

I hope you also realize that victims are often attacked when completely sober.

Oh, I know.

But, that person is more aware if she/he is sober than drunk.

[DrPhil]

Interesting. I dated, attended social events and still disagree with the literal interpretation of "men are from mars, women are from venus." What it actually boils down to is that Drolefille and I (and those who feel as we do) have a different interpretation of what the biological differences result in.

Sex is biological and gender is social. The "nature versus nurture" debate has never been settled when it comes to gender. A big reason why is that there are no studies to provide solid evidence of the strength of biology over the strength of the social because no one is allowing test subjects who have just gotten out of the womb. One of the closest incidents that lends itself to the emphasis on "nature" is David Reimer whose story was shared in John Colapinto's As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl.

What I do know is there are people who have raised their own children to be gender neutral and relatively androgynous. Beyond some differences in hormones and bodies (and having to deal with people's stupid "what are you" taunts), there were fewer differences between the sons and daughters than there traditionally is when socialization is gendered.

I posit that the differences between the biological sexes has been exaggerated. For instance, girls and boys aren't born liking pink and blue or dolls and toy cars. Families decorate baby rooms with those things and therefore that becomes the first things the kids learn. Then that applies to how girls are taught to sit calmly and play with dolls while the boys can roar around with toy cars. Would those boys and girls do that if adults didn't teach and permit that? Females like myself who were raised both playing with dolls and toy cars; and jumping from trees "like the boys" are called "tomboys." People hope we'll grow out of it and it frightens parents when we don't. Then people wonder if kids who defy gender stereotypes will be homosexual or "will the young ladies ever stop being so aggressive like the men" or "will she ever be able to get married."

With allllll of that said, no, I'm not buying that men and women are just so darn different; and that these differences are innate or inevitable. I refuse to believe that men have these crazy penises and sexual urges that can't be stopped. That keeps men in the state of boys who are having their first wet dream. And I still don't see why the topic of sexual assault and rape has to be rooted in the presumed differences between men and women in the first place.

/damn this was a long post