Former president of UVM's Sigma Phi Epsilon chapter Alexander Haller calls it "a social injustice," because it is.
Mr. Haller was referring to the fact that his fraternity was shuttered indefinitely by the national fraternity, with the university's blessing, in the wake of the infamous rape survey.
We've previously reported that the fraternity neither sent out nor sanctioned the infamous question asking "who" the recipient(s) would like to rape. One new frat brother posed the query at issue to a limited fraternity audience. The person or persons to whom the survey was sent refused to answer the question and told the new member who sent it to change it immediately.
According to Vermont Public Radio, Haller says his home away from home, his former fraternity house, was besieged -- by the media, by women's rights groups, and by administrators.
Mr. Haller explained: "I don't know what's going on behind closed doors at UVM, but I feel like they're just looking for any reason to continue to make us look like monsters."
Haller has a good suggestion. Instead of "the whole world" telling the frat brother who wrote the query "in bad taste" that "they hate him because he doesn't get it," the guy could us "some sensitivity training."
Ah, but that's not good enough for the national fraternity, or the University of Vermont. Annie Stevens, director of student and campus life at the university, said she supports Sigma Phi's decision to close down its UVM chapter because of the survey.
If a rogue professor in a department at the university did something similar, no one would suggest shutting down the entire department or cleaning house and bringing in all new professors. The same with a business in the private sector; a symphony orchestra; or an office of the federal government.
But fraternities are different. Why? Dr. Warren Farrell explains why -- and he doesn't pull any punches. Mr. Haller is strongly urged to pay close attention to what Dr. Farrell wrote. And after he reads that, he's strongly urged to contact FIRE, because the university's possible role in shutting down the fraternity raises serious First Amendment questions that ought to be addressed. Here's what Farrell said:
"The freshman male is likely to acquire a new feeling about himself: he is the designated potential perpetrator until proven innocent.
"This message will be reinforced by a barrage of gender courses, the attitudes of a good many faculty, and on many campuses, what Charlotte Allen calls 'the scorched-earth war against fraternities.' The anti-fraternity movement is ostensibly about wantonness and excess (binge-drinking, hazing, date rape), but in reality it’s about erasing the best-known male refuge from the suffocating political correctness on campus and its theory of the evil male.
"The only males likely to escape this pressure are gays, African-Americans, the transgendered, or the harmlessly hetero—docile guys who agree with the standard campus view that males are dangerous. The campus environment is so hostile toward men that it doesn’t allow hostility toward men to be considered a 'hostile environment.' Only established grievance groups get to detect hostile environments."
Sources:
http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2011/10/chilly_world_of_the_campus_male.html
http://www.vpr.net/news_detail/92795/after-sigma-phi-epsilon-closes-bitterness-lingers/
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/15/4125637/fraternity-no-sign-vt-rape-survey.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
27 comments:
Keep in mind too, nobody has presented a copy of the alleged "survey".
And, as a prior posting here stated, it was one rogue member, who was not sanctioned by Sigma Phi Epsilon...
I question if even that happened...
In other words, some kid asked a question in bad taste, and various women's groups got bent out of shape about it, and decided to blame as many men as possible.
This is nothing new.
Such misandry goes two ways as it reverberates through society. On one hand, more young males are increasingly being socialized into having female-like metrosexual traits that women now say they don't want in a man. Other boys and men are going in a different direction.
The more men, boys, and masculinity are attacked and oppressed by the femin-nazis and their supporters the farther and faster will spread the ideology of MGTOW and ghosting. Along with such social moves by men will occur an ongoing marriage strike, decreasing identification with and practice of chivalry, and much more. Modern women have intentionally stepped onto the prongs of a garden rake and are only partially aware that the long handle of the same rake is flying fast upward toward them.
AL
It is entirely possible that an injustice is being perpetrated in this case. But it is also true that fraternaties are, by and large, populated by crude assholes, so it is hard to be sympathetic. Just as young women must understand the risks of dressing scantily, getting drunk, and walking down dark alleys, young men must understand the risks of notoriously behaving like jackasses. By the time I was 12 I had absorbed the reality that frat boys are the poster boys for numbskullery. Does that mean that they should be accountable for things which they are not guilty? No more than a women should be blamed for being raped. But, in the spirit of Katie Roiphie and Camille Paglia, they need to understand the risks that they take, and maybe act more responsibly from the get-go.
Wow, Nicolas! Don't know how to respond exactly, except to say this: if I applied your thinking to my work on this site, I wouldn't feel sympathetic toward very many of the guys we write about here. Most got in trouble after sleeping around with women they didn't know well, drinking, etc. I don't go for that lifestyle, to be perfectly candid. I had no use for fraternities in college, or anything else that interfered with studying, because I was obsessed with finishing with an "A" average, and I did. Summa cum laude. I don't drink, I go to church every week, and have been with the same woman for many years.
But I don't think it's necessary or proper to preface every post here by noting that I don't approve of the conduct at issue. That's because I also know that I don't have a monopoly on morality, that I'm not "better" than anyone else, and that the worst sin I could commit is to judge others who've done things that maybe I wouldn't do myself. If I see that a guy has been wronged, I am able to put my personal views aside.
Are fratboys crude assholes? Some of them are. Just as some attorneys and some scientists are. We try to keep our broad brush out of these discussions.
"...Haller says his home away from home, his former fraternity house, was besieged -- by the media, by women's rights groups, and by administrators."
And why do they use these tactics?
Answer: Because they work!
That's why I was so pleased to see the most recent actions of the NCFM against the misandrist Verizon commercials. Other groups, like F4J-UK do similar public protests. It takes different types of activism at all levels, but I think direct action and confrontation get the biggest results.
Some are Presidents of the United States.
Defining crude politically incorrect behavior and legislating rules and punishment is a dangerous slope. Then again, it would be really funny to arrest, kick-off campus, and send off to sensitivity training and therapy millions of crude feminist assholes and bitches. OK, let's do it!
AL
I still remember when a few years ago the Duke lacrosse team was lynched like this; when that stripper said she was raped in the bathroom.
Come to find out the lynching of Duke lacrosse guys by the infamous "Duke 88" university professors, was a lynching based on a false rape accusation.
This is beyond over the top. It's ludicrous.
I still think the "survey" was meant as a joke.
Yeah, Nicholas provides an excellent rationalization for all sorts of excesses. Hope the feminists and other groups looking to victimize others don't think of it. Oh, wait a minute. They already have. And have used it liberally (or illiberally, I should say) for years. Get it straight, pal, for the one millionth time. Popular speech doesnt need to be protected. The nicest people in the universe who never say or do anything controversial and never offend anybody dont have to worry about their constitutional rights - well, unless they are men. If hiring a stripper means its ok to falsely accuse you of rape, if one jackass asking a stupid immature question merits holding the whole fraternity accountable (when I would question how it even justifies holding him accountable beyond social repercussions - but Im one of the fools who fought for our supposed freedoms so I guess I see "freedom of speech" in a twisted way)- then our freedoms mean not one goddamn thing. Its not a question of freedom then, its a popularity contest. And you may think thats just spiffy when you agree with the mob at the moment - Ill bet you sing a different tune when the mob decides guys named "Nicolas" dont have rights worth respecting.
Furthermore, if hiring a stripper or asking a stupid immature question is as bad as rape, the reverse is also true - then rape is no worse than hiring a stripper or asking a stupid immature question. And anyone who justifies these draconian measures in reponse to this asinine behavior has lost all credibility in accusing anyone of minimizing the seriousness of rape. I dont care if you are the sorriest human on the face of the earth - if I will use that to excuse your rights being dismissed and trampled on, I'm at least as sorry as you are and deserve to be treated no better.
@WolfMan
Well said,brother.You are one smart motherf*cker.
I credit myself with a good deal of brains,but when you said:"Furthermore, if hiring a stripper or asking a stupid immature question is as bad as rape, the reverse is also true - then rape is no worse than hiring a stripper or asking a stupid immature question." I felt like an idiot, because I'd honestly never thought of it that way.
I mean,I've always realized that the argument that going to a strip club is the same as raping a woman is a stupid and dangerous argument to make,I even understand the reason the feminists do it, "No woman should have that choice, because if they do too many women will make it." ala Freidan,but somehow my dumb ass overlooked the titanic chink in the armor,i.e., this wonderful gift the ideologues have handed us in the form of their own rape apologism and minimization.
I salute you,and I thank the Almighty that you are looking out for men like me.
Thank you my brother. That makes me feel damn good. Merry Christmas.
It is not a precise analogy yet when the ancient Romans outlawed Christianity the act did not cause Christianity's disappearance. Christianity went underground with worship and study occurring behind closed doors in private homes. The non-existence of national fraternity chapters on campus will simply have those students living in private apartments or houses feeling the need to be even less accountable than before for their behavior. Those students will then be even harder for the feminist and male haters to monitor.
One thing I'd like to know if indeed a male student did create such a survey is why did he do it? What was he really trying to achieve or express to others beyond the obvious superficial questionnaire? Feminists do not need to respond since you are too shallow and ignorant to understand my intent here.
AL
For misrepresenting viewpoints, feminists have nothing on the participants in this thread.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and frat boys need to understand the potential risks of their behaviors. Feminists want to immunize women against the consequences of the behaviors, and some posters here want to do the same with frats.
"Feminists want to immunize women against the consequences of the behaviors, and some posters here want to do the same with frats".
If that isn't a classic case of the apples to oranges comparison.
1) Feminists: "women should not be held accountable for making false rape allegations even if falsely accused men get harmed, it costs police resources, and it is illegal because of blah blah blah.
2) FRS comments: 'while socially inappropriate and obnoxious, a private joke masquerading as a rape survey (it is still an alleged survey since it has not been produced) done by one college student is still legal in the spirit of freedom of speech. In any case the fraternity chapter itself with all its members should not be held accountable for the actions of one member'.
Sounds like you believe in group collective punishment for the actual or alleged actions of one individual. History has known many such thinkers as you.
'feminists have nothing on the participants in this thread'
--- unlike feminists, the FRS is about advocating for the falsely accused and for advocating the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
Nicolas Martin or whatever your name is, time for you to slither back under your feminist rock.
AL
Nicolas Martin - ”Feminists want to immunize women against the consequences of the behaviors, and some posters here want to do the same with frats.”
Speaking of misrepresenting viewpoints…
I’m not really seeing any other posters arguing for any sort of immunization for fraternities. In fact, it appears that only Archivist & The WolfMan have even addressed your first post.
Archivist really only takes exception to your “broad-brush” tarring of fraternities as a whole. I case you don’t remember, you wrote:
”But it is also true that fraternaties are, by and large, populated by crude assholes, so it is hard to be sympathetic.”
And The WolfMan takes issue with your seeming suggestion that because (some) fraternity members do engage in questionable behaviors, that they all are well deserving of any and all consequences.
No one is arguing for immunities, only that logic be applied.
Individuals who actually engage in bad acts are the ones who need to be singled out and punished – not everyone who is somewhat/somehow like them. Punishing a whole fraternity house because one individual step over a line is akin to the way gender-feminists seek to blame all men for the bad acts of a very few, or the way racists will point to the bad acts of a few as evidence that all members of a race/ethnicity are bad.
A couple of month ago, there was another kafuffle over the crude behaviors of fraternity members. In response to complaints about some specific activities, I decided to do a quick search regarding the activities of Sororities (http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2011/10/crude-sign-evidence-of-rape-culture.html?showComment=1319146681259#c5076274915632638689, in case you’d like to see some examples – pretty sick stuff some of them sorority sisters are up to, eh?).
Now, seeing as how you have no sympathies with a whole frat house being shut down over some ill-chosen words, I believe the obvious challenge to you would be: “Do you also believe that sororities that engage in even worse behaviors should also be entirely shut down? Or, should offending individuals be punished instead of everyone, including the innocent, having to bear the consequences?”
Wow, NM, you seem to have a serious hate on for frats. Not sure why, but the fact that this is appearing more and more like the work of 1 individual, whom the rest of the members called out on the questionnaire, doesn't even seem to register for you. And the fact that they have been punished, for doing the right thing, fails to register for you.
Did a frat decline to add you to it's membership at some point? I don't understand your hate for them.
"The freshman male is likely to acquire a new feeling about himself: he is the designated potential perpetrator until proven innocent."
This covers all males born in the femocracy of the u.s. and other feminized nations/countries, etc.
"Misandry/Ms.Andry rules while all indoctrinated males drool over the "hotties (female type(s)/"victims" of the world. Feminism/feminists, and their ilk/supporters/subscribers are being lead to hell by their noses.
Sometimes, though not often, Slwerner gets it wrong: "Individuals who actually engage in bad acts are the ones who need to be singled out and punished – not everyone who is somewhat/somehow like them. Punishing a whole fraternity house because one individual step over a line is akin to the way gender-feminists seek to blame all men for the bad acts of a very few, or the way racists will point to the bad acts of a few as evidence that all members of a race/ethnicity are bad."
What if the "bad acts" of a few are allowed to continue because the perpetrators know their infractions will be overlooked by the rest of the fraternity.
Instead of reporting the bad guys, the innocent frat members act as an enabler.
So I ask you ... how should the rest of the fraternity be accountable? As always, I look forward to and respect your opinions.
Archivist, don't get too puffy. There are plenty of summa cum laude Greeks with 4.0 gpa's.
"Archivist, don't get too puffy. There are plenty of summa cum laude Greeks with 4.0 gpa's."
I know. They are also smarter than I am. I had to kill myself between school (and working at the school) to do well. I was always amazed by these kids who did well without killing themselves.
Well, it’s okay, ‘cause, ya know, them frats is full of azzholez
The words of George Santayana are inscribed on a plaque at the site of the Nazi concentration camp at Auschwitz, and read (as translated): "The one who does not remember history is bound to live through it again" (or, as it is more commonly quoted: ”Those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it”)
Which brings to mind the words of yet another intellectual thinker who remarked on the rule of the Nazi’s. As they are often translated, Martin Niemöller’s words read:
”First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.”
The Nazi-like feminist Zeitgeist is often best seen at it’s very worst in the form of rape-hysteria, and the over-the-top reaction to any and all perceived rape-culture. In the case of the fraternity house closed down because one member posed a crude and ill-considered question is merely the latest example of how any and all allusions to rape of women (now, don’t confuse that with the rape of men, which is fodder for jokes) is considered to be amongst the highest of crimes. The mere suggestion of rape is held as a threat to do so, and anyone even loosely associated with a man making such a verboten suggestion is subject to harsh punishment.
Niemöller spent years in a Nazi concentration camp because he dared oppose the manner in which the Nazi’s came to rule with an iron fist. A similar fate is desired for those who would challenge sacred feminist icons such as “rape-culture” (Hey, they didn’t EARN the moniker Femi-Nazi’s for nuthin’).
And, just as Niemöller recognized his error in not defending the rights of those that he didn’t like/had issues with, we must now proceed with the same sort of introspection ourselves. If we but substitute the words communists, Trade unionists, and Jews with black men, cab drivers, and frat boys, Niemöller’s words are every bit as relevant today.
Heil Dworkin!
Anonymous - ”What if the "bad acts" of a few are allowed to continue because the perpetrators know their infractions will be overlooked by the rest of the fraternity.
Instead of reporting the bad guys, the innocent frat members act as an enabler.”
In this case we happen to KNOW that when the question was first posed, the other members of the fraternity called him out on that question, and demanded that it be removed.
There was no encouragement of bad behavior, no cover-up, no enabling. Yet, everyone else who happened to be a member is punished? A modern “Scorched Earth” war-time policy of the Feminist Zeitgeist?
Sure seems so.
"They are also smarter than I am. I had to kill myself between school (and working at the school) to do well."
It's hard for me to swoop down and attack ... when you're humble :)
Slwerner, you said: Individuals who actually engage in bad acts are the ones who need to be singled out and punished – not everyone who is somewhat/somehow like them. Punishing a whole fraternity house because one individual step over a line is akin to the way gender-feminists seek to blame all men for the bad acts of a very few, ..."
I thought you were generalizing and that your statement referred to ALL infractions in whatever fraternity. That wasn't the case. You were clearly referring to Vermont. My faux pas.
Still, give me your opinion on the scenario I mentioned ... accountability for not reporting, blah blah. Thanks.
What if the question was posed to identify potential undetected rapists amongst the applicants? Whoever wrote a person's name would be disqualified because the only correct answer would be, "Nobody, because rape is a terrible crime."
Anonymous - ”Still, give me your opinion on the scenario I mentioned ... accountability for not reporting, blah blah. Thanks.”
Okay, I’ll bite.
If there had been an actual crime that had been committed, and other frat members knew about it, but failed to report it, then they would be engaging in a cover-up of a crime: and, worse, it they talked to one another in order to further the effort to cover-up a crime, then they’d have engaged in a conspiracy to do so. They would have thereby committed a crime, and would be subject to prosecution.
But, other than a clear-cut case of an actual crime having being committed, there is no legal duty to report anything to anybody. Now, depending on circumstance, one can imagine that there would be a moral/ethical that some may be compelled by, but unless a fraternities by-laws required reporting incidents of members discussing criminal activity, then there would be no grounds for punishment if members decided to not make an issue out of another members bad, and quickly rebuked, judgment.
Now, of course, as we have historically seen in oppressive police states, there is a premium placed on citizens “ratting out” their fellow citizens for even “thought crimes”.
If we wish to live in a such a social-political system, we could chose to allow the man-hating gender-feminists, who’ve taken their cues from the Schutzstaffel and the Stasi, to order the rest of society about (well, it seems that much of our society has already made the choice to do just that).
But, if we wish to continue to live in a free and open society, then we must allow for all manner of dissenting, and even sometimes hateful speech. Words alone harm no one. So, if no action arises due to mere words, then it should be allowed.
If you care to check out http://www.avoiceformen.com/, you will find some recent items detailing the pathological, sociopathic, and even murderous exchanges between radical man-hating gender-feminists. As these hateful, hate-spewing women are unmasked and identified, would it be appropriate to shut down any and all organizations (local chapters, perhaps) that they happen to belong to? Do other members of such organizations who may be aware of the hate-mongering activities of these women be required to report them to authorities? [It gets a bit dicey when you have to consider the idea of women being held to the same standards as are men, eh?]
If you cannot sincerely hold that women who much more frequently discuss even more heinous activities (i.e. the murder of male children) need to be held every bit as accountable as are male organizations, then your entire line of reason and questioning is entirely without the merit to bother continuing with.
Post a Comment