The We Hunted the Mammoth Pledge Drive is on! Please consider donating through the PayPal button below. Thanks!
So yesterday I posted about the repulsive, rapey banners that some frat guys hung from the balcony of their frat at Old Dominion University in Virginia. Banners that were so obviously problematic that the school administration immediately suspended the frat to investigate.
Here. as a reminder, are the banners in question:
I also quoted Amanda Marcotte, who noted that, when faced with clear evidence of rape culture like these banners, rape apologists like to
suddenly pretend they are aliens from another planet and only learned human language last week and therefore are incapable of picking up on humor, implication, non-verbal communication and nuanced language. They pretend to ascribe to a form of communication so literal that even the slightest bit of metaphor or implication, to hear them talk, sends them spinning into a state of confusion.
After I put up my post yesterday, several rape culture deniers wandered into my Twitter mentions, as if to prove Marcotte’s point, posting pictures of banners put up by sorority women at the school and demanding to know why I wasn’t attacking these women for their alleged promotion of rape culture as well.
@DavidFutrelle HOW HORRIBL- … wait, what happens if i look to the right? ohhh i see … nice try :^) pic.twitter.com/ViClZV0RBu
— Dragunov (@NkDragunov) August 25, 2015
https://twitter.com/WoolyBumblebee/status/636343927914786817
I suspect most of you are as nonplussed by this as I was. Because these banners don’t actually promote rape culture. And not because the people holding them up are women, not men.
The frat’s banners have a creepy, predatory edge to them. They are addressed not to the incoming freshmen women, but to the fathers of these women. They strongly suggest that any woman who walks through their doors — or is “dropped off” by dad — is going to be shown a “rowdy … good time” whether she’s “ready” for it or not.
They don’t explicitly use the word “rape” but given how completely they erase the agency of the young women in question they might as well just do that.
The rape threat is implicit, not explicit, but it is clear enough that most people seeing these banners can understand in an instant what they “really mean” and what the problem is.
The banners held up by the sorority women are a different thing entirely. They don’t put forth the message: “we are going to do things to you (whether you like it or not).” They are playful, not threatening, and tell prospective dates “we like sex, and if you get with us you might even get to do ‘butt stuff.'”
The first banner only asks that men pull out before they come; no one wants any babies. The second tells men they are “welcome” to use the back door, nudge nudge. Instead of saying “we will do things to you,” they say “you can do things to us.” Presumably in the context of consensual sex.
Just as rape =/= sex, talking about sex =/= talking about rape.
Is it creepy that when new freshmen men arrive on the campus they’re greeted with giant banners aimed at them and laden with sexual innuendo? Maybe, but it’s nowhere near as creepy as banners greeting freshman women (and their mothers) with not-very-subtle threats of rape.
I tried to get this point across to one of my Twitter interlocutors, the antifeminist Youtube gadfly WoolyBumblebee; it didn’t take. Some excerpts of the ensuing “discussion.”
Rape threats, even implicit ones, are rape culture. Mentions of sex aren’t. You’d think this wouldn’t be hard to understand.
Does WoolyBumblebee really not understand that if someone says “you can put it in my butt” they are not threatening to rape you?
It might not be the appropriate thing to bring up at, say, a dinner party. And if you say it repeatedly to someone not interested in sex with you, it would be sexual harassment.
But it wouldn’t be a rape threat.
WoolyBumblebee more or less conceded this point shortly afterwards. And returned to claiming (or pretending) she didn’t see the threat in the banners posted by the frat guys.
Around and around we go!
Or we would have if I hadn’t gotten off the internet to watch an episode of Mr. Robot.
The question I am left with, as I generally am in the wake of “discussions” with those who seem to be incapable of understanding the basics of human language, is this: Are these people really this literal-minded and obtuse, or are they just pretending?
If the former, how exactly do they manage to even work a computer? Did they make bird noises at their laptop or into their phone for weeks on end before someone explained that’s not how Twitter works? Do they understand the difference between filing their nails and filing their taxes?
It’s gotta be an act, right?
They’ve chosen what they think and will deny any sort of argument that challenges that. Although why anyone would cling so tightly to the idea that rape culture doesn’t exist is a mystery to me – do they think just being less predatory to people is a wasted effort?
I wouldn’t have been surprised if MRAs were able to produce an example comparable to the ODU shitbaggery (people of all types do fucked up things) but that’s the best they can muster?
I think it’s a state in between the two choices. I think they’re being willfully obtuse. They really don’t understand, but it’s only because they unconsciously reject getting too close to anything that might tell them that they’re wrong. To consciously pretend they would have to have a much better understanding of the facts, the logical relationship between concepts, and their own motivations. But that’s all opaque to them because they will exhaust all other alternatives before any sort of painful realization that they are entitled misogynist shitheels who would exploit women if only they could get close enough to them.
The content of the fraternity signs is obviously worse, but I’m not sure that’s the entire story. I think that if the fraternity sign had said, “Freshmen girls, our couches don’t pull out, so we do” it would still be problematic. The cultural context, where women have a lot to fear from sexual interactions, means that — in this context (sexual messages communicated to strangers in public) — women can be playful about sex in a way that I’m not sure is really possible for men.
(This is not meant as a whine about things being unfair for men — rather, an observation that toxic masculinity hits guys with some collateral damage as well.)
There is no implicit threat of rape in those banners. Doesn’t matter how many times you say it.
Boys make banners to promote rape culture:
“Come on lighten up its just a joke”
Girls make banners that promote consensual sex:
“Girls are promoting rape culture! See!? Girls do it too! You only care about female victims!”
Gotta love that anti feminist logic.
When last I heard of WoolyBB she was defending herself against accusations that she’d swiped $5k from Elam Inc.
The since made superfluous Esmay had much to say about it at the time what with him being a woman-hating survivor of abuse and therefore vulnerable to new woman-hating abusers like WoolyBB and in need of your sympathy. Strange world. At least when they’re around.
Feel free to delete this if it’s a bit too accusatory, but this is my opinion on it:
It’s the cartoon character whistling conspicuously while they saunter away from the smashed antique vase. They know they’ve personally profited from rape culture, either from something they’ve done or something a close friend or family member has done. But they don’t want to think of themselves/their friends/their family as criminals, or don’t want the law to catch up with them, so they deny, deny, deny. The sky would be tartan and water would be as acidic as Cthulhu’s piss if saying so let them stay in their bubble of safety.
It’s not an act. Their hatred of women is just overshadowed by their fear of liability
It doesn’t matter that they’re arguing it wasn’t a rape threat. When something is an explicit rape threat, they still victim blame, say the victim should lighten up, accuse the victim of milking the threat to get publicity, and come up with whacky conspiracy theories about the threats being faked. There’s nothing a man can say or do to a woman that will make an anti-feminism concede that it was misogyny. I exhibit no surprise they’re pretending there was nothing wrong with the banners.
Acknowledging it would then mean doing something about it. They don’t want to exert themselves, nor do they want to hear about it. Even hearing about it is too much effort. So instead they blame those “forcing” them to hear what they don’t want to hear.
Thanks for showing up to prove David’s point by ignoring all the context with your ableist as fuck username. (Just so you know, that’s short for “mongoloid”, which is an ableist term. We’re not fond of ableism here.)
I’m sure you didn’t read the comments policy (and I’m going to assume you’re a drive-by troll as most of you are), so I’ll just link you in case you want to try again.
Since you missed the point, allow me to reiterate: Women have to worry about being sexually assaulted by men, especially in frat houses. The tone of these banners is predatory to women. They are saying “We’re going to fuck your daughters and wives!” straight to the fathers of future female students and husbands of those student’s mothers, without any sort of acknowledgement to the daughters and wives they’re referring to.
The banners being held up by those women are welcoming. They are inviting men to have sex with them, and that’s okay because that’s consensual.
“We’re going to fuck your daughters!” =/= “You’re welcome in the back! (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)”
Again, social context and history is important. Just because you have the luxury of ignoring it, it doesn’t mean women do.
I was referring to rape apologia (don’t drink, what were you wearing, boys will be boys, etc). The rapists themselves are like racists who admit what they are when taking for granted they think what everyone thinks.
They understand it just fine. these are the same people who can use “don’t talk to me” signals just fine when walking past evangelists on the street (walk faster, no eye contact, don’t smile, etc), yet mysterious “had no idea” that the woman they’re harassing didn’t want their attentions.
Ha ha! The women with the second banner really need college, they spelled “but” wro… Oh. OH! Nevermind! ha ha ha.
Anyway… This is how it always is. They never recognize the whole argument is about agency and consent.
I’m commenting as a guy from a guys perspective.
They probably just see the banners as “You can have sex with the guys here” and don’t see any of the creepy undertones.
They fantasize about going to a sorority and sleeping with all of the women there so they don’t see how a similar message could be scary as hell or threatening to a woman.
The women that don’t get it probably see it as just “come here, get laid” and the “we will all fuck you whether you like it or not” and the “if you’re sent here by a third party we’ll rape you” message doesn’t register.
I’m just saying that it might just be their bubble and not the typical MRA lame denial maneuver.
Wooly is an obvious troll but if someone genuinely doesn’t get it it could be harmful to spreading awareness of problems like this if people jump to the conclusion that they must be denying something obvious.
Anon, maybe the first two but “drop off mom too”?
Yeah, anon, I’m a guy and I’m writing from a guy’s perspective, and all three of those banners are entitled (to say the least), aggressive, predatory, and speaking directly to other men about women, with the implication that what the women think about the sex isn’t important.
That’s not inviting or playful, it’s disgusting, threatening, and scary.
@makingfitzcarraldo
Like I said, it’s a bubble thing.
Thanks to my bubble it took me a while to notice the problem.
The students themselves might not even realize the creepy undertones.
They might genuinely think that it’s the equivalent of “come here to get laid, we don’t care if you’re older” without realizing that it reduces women to packages that are sent there for a purpose that they have no control over.
Thanks to my bubble I still might not completely get it. I think I get it but I have the nagging feeling that I’m missing something.
It’s a well known manipulation technique actually. My ex did it all the time. Twisting everything as if he didn’t understand and then, couldn’t possibly be the bad guy and I was because I was accusing him.
There’s no rape threat, implicit or explicit, in the signs. Seriously, get over it. You lose all credibility by making these kind of claims.
Anon, excusing the bubble (this was too aggressive to be even that) doesn’t help. When does it end? Girls have to dress a certain way for the poor boys to concentrate in hs. Sure, boys might start accepting that toxic outlook they can’t help themselves, or are they just latching on to what is easiest to not feel bad about themselves/expect themselves to do better? I grew up with older relatives espousing some “product of their time” b.s.. I don’t know, to me it just seemed an excuse to not stop and think for themselves. No one made these boys objectify teen girls and their moms. They just made it easier to not think about it.
But that’s what’s so bad about it. It’s so normalized to see women as sex objects without any agency that implied rape threat doesn’t even register. That’s what rape culture does. It allows men to talk about raping women, joke about it, and even do it without it ever occurring to them that it’s rape.
Banners basically ordering fathers to deliver their daughters and wives to fratboys’ door are never NOT rapey, no matter how hard you idiots deny it. Because the women are being given no choice or agency in the matter, capisce?
Also, for those claiming the sorority signs were anything equivalent: Most of that stuff is grossly silly (I mean, who uses the pull-out method, a.k.a. Vatican roulette, in this day and age?), but not rapey. “Megan does butt stuff” might be rapey, if it involves a strap-on and a guy who did not express a desire or consent to be pegged. But(t) somehow I doubt that it means that.