UVA Sororities no parties

[bluethread]

National chapters are advising women at UVA to not go to frat parties. Is this misogynistic sexism, or is that only the case when the advise comes from their fathers or spiritual leaders?

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 1 by bluethread]

Warning women of potential risks, including, but not limited to, harassment or violent/sexual assault is not at all misogynistic; however it does seem to be expressed at a sensitive time. Modern "social justice" is going full horseshoe theory and starting to express ideals of segregating based on gender or race for the purpose of glorifying or protecting individuals who rate themselves as highly 'sensitive' to social issues. As a result, the response to this advice against frat parties may be presented in a variety of ways.

[wiploc]

..

[Hamsaka]

National chapters are advising women at UVA to not go to frat parties. Is this misogynistic sexism, or is that only the case when the advise comes from their fathers or spiritual leaders?

I really should watch this 'story' on several news channels because each one has it's spin . . . but I didn't. I may not need to, in that I can see several issues brought up by the OP converging, and the devil isn't in THOSE details, but is in the unexamined assumptions driving the issues.

From what I did read, the UVA sorority was forbidden to go to A weekend frat party, not any or all of them. Just the one weekend party. Forbidden to go, whatever that means, probably a memo or a verbal edict of some kind. As for EVER going to frat parties, the advice was not to, but this was in the manner of a suggestion, rather than an edict. This wasn't a decision made WITH the sorority but FOR them, by some authority.

Issue 1: Forbidding an entire sorority of young women from doing anything that is not against the general law is questionable in quality, but allowed. Each university campus is given dispensation to make it's own 'rules' for what happens on campus, and some of these rules are naturally going to be stupid, irrelevant, unnecessary and manufactured from someone's bloated ego . Was the way this 'rule' was layed down inappropriate? It could be. Was it appropriate? That's another question. I'll get there shortly.

Issue 2: Is this misogynist sexism? Probably, to some extent, it was at least in part motivated by this. I'll explain why I think so, and why I think whether it was or was not 'misogynistic sexism' is actually irrelevant, and inserted into this issue to be provocative.

Issue 3: Do edicts coming from fathers (the male parent) or religious leaders (of either sex but typically male) have a thing to do with the price of rice in China?

**************

So for the first issue, the appropriateness of 'forbidding' young women of a sorority to go to a frat party, made in the spirit of preventing any of them from being raped by drunken frat boys, is solid *IF* the people making the edict have the authority to do so. Things done in the spirit of preventing suffering can legitimately claim to be 'moral'. I assume the authorities had the authority to make such a rule. It was appropriate of them to do so.

But the appropriateness of this edict has a few 'horns', so to speak.

Was it a knee-jerk appeal to the public and media to show how 'on top of the problem' the university is? I think so, and this is one of the 'horns' of the issue. I sense this draconian edict was not well thought out, possibly could NOT be well thought out when trying to predict the political/social climate of those receiving the news. Oh well, it was kind of a stupid over-reach and treated the young women as if they were 'grounded' for their own safety. I can see some of them reaching that conclusion, and they would have a point. I can hardly call the authorities who made this rule 'stupid' themselves (their thought processes, that is), because of the pressure to 'please' and pacify the public and the media after young women are brutally raped by their own classmates. How embarrassing.

Another horn (I won't get them all) is the odd fact that the fraternity and it's members were not the 'target' of any 'edicts' directing THEIR behavior. Last thing I knew, it was the frat boys who raped a sorority girl. The 'evil doers' were not the recipient of any (so far) publicly known penalties or 'edicts'. Of course, there is serious investigation into what happened, and the frat boys are in hot water. But what exactly is being done about THEM is not disclosed. Nor could it be, the investigation is incomplete and ongoing. Here we have the APPEARANCE of victim(s) having their 'rights' curtailed instead of the perpetrator(s). That tends to just look BAD no matter how you slice it. Refer to how absurd rules can become (stupid, bloated egos, thoughtless, etc) when exercised quickly in response to bad things happening.

As for the second issue, 'is this misogynist sexism', I say that it is likely to have shaped the decision to forbid the young women from attending a frat party. There is no explicit sexism IMO, but the implicit sexism, however weak or nebulous, is definitely there. I claim that because the decision the uni authorities DID make were not addressed in any way to the frat boys -- that we know of. I'll retract this claim if it comes out they did do something but felt it best not to publicize WHAT they did at this time.

I do think claiming a huge helping of misogynist sexism is overdoing it, manufacturing drama that doesn't need to be manufactured. I also think assuming the media hype to be BECAUSE there is some claim thatmisogynistic sexism nay be happening is a provocative statement with dishonest motivations. It is jarring to hold the idea of a young woman being brutally raped in the same line of thought where the protestations against it are suggested to be 'misogynist sexism'. I mean really, what a thing to say! I'll leave that alone from here unless I'm asked to take it further.

As for the third issue, I still do not see why this statement was added onto the first two, as if it were a duckling following its mother. I do see it as separate from the presence of misogyny because what is implied by Issue 3 is different than what is implied by Issue 2 and its 'horns'. Perhaps Issue 3 is being used as an explanation for Issue 2? Anyway, it's just not clear and I don't want to speculate.

[lamar1234]

[Replying to bluethread]

[National chapters are advising women at UVA to not go to frat parties. Is this misogynistic sexism, or is that only the case when the advise comes from their fathers or spiritual leaders?]

Misogyny is most usually defined as 'hatred of women as a group.'

How could you equate a national chapter of a sorority ADVISING their members to avoid fraternity parties at one particular university because of the incidence of date-rape, DWIs following the party and other demonstrable dangers young women face when attending these soirees with misogyny?

They are not FORBIDDING it, according to what you posted, merely attempting to ensure young women make informed choices.

The notion that an organization of, by and for women could be misogynistic seems more than a little strange to me.

Could you elaborate on this?[/quote]