The Rules According to a Fraternity "Cocksman"

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by 33girl

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

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

the ugly one

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

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.

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

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.

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.

Originally Posted by agzg

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 mysogynistic thought processess 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 like ONTD feminism. That's all I have to add here.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by agzg

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 mysogynistic thought processess I've ever had the "pleasure" of reading. Don't disagree with you about Jezebel's agenda, however.

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.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by agzg

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

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

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.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by agzg

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 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.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

[SOM]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by SOM

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?

[SOM]

Originally Posted by agzg

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.

[DSTRen13]

Originally Posted by agzg

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?

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.)

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by DSTRen13

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.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

^^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.

[KSig RC]

[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.