Deranged feminists sue to gain admission to fraternities that sexually assaulted them

[Toni]

I am uncertain what connection you see between examples of individuals you disagree with and the OP. Is it because they are women?

If an orgy of evidence were ever needed to prove my point, your response here surely suffices.

The women in the OP have been infected by feminist ideology. That's what connects them. It has nothing to do with them being women. Some of the most cringey unhinged feminists I have ever encountered were men. It has everything to do with them being steeped in feminist ideology.

None of that seems to remotely justify sexual assault of women who attend parties. Why do you think that it does?

Feminism has wrecked your brain Toni.

Nowhere did I justify the sexual assault of people at parties. Nowhere. Only a feminist, or somebody whose brain had been wrecked by feminist ideology whether they know it or not, could imagine I'd said or implied that.

Women complain of being sexually assaulted at fraternity parties where alcohol is served.

Your solution is that women have presumably women only parties with no alcohol. It does not seem to be that men who sexually assault women should be investigated and possibly charged and tried and convicted and expelled and imprisoned. That seems deranged to me.

It seems to me that you are expecting the women to alter their (legal) behavior: attending a party while giving a pass for the men who assault women (criminal behavior) at frat parties where alcohol is served. That seems like typical repressive 1950s or conservative Muslim attitudes to me.

I don't understand why you think I'm deranged for seeing the problem lays with men who assault women --you know: men who engage in criminal behavior rather than women who wish to engage in normal college aged behavior: attending a party with men and women and alcohol.

I don't see how I am deranged for thinking that women should have equal access to career opportunities as men.

I don't think I'm the deranged person here.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I realize that this will be entirely lost on you but what a woman wears or does not wear does not affect her chances of being raped.

Worse, he's not talking 'chances.' He literally says the argument is that

clothing can make men rape you

(Emphasis added) which is odd for someone who elsewhere insists that men are always rational, women are emotional.
But here, he supports a theory that either a bikini or the skin exposed by a bikini literally coerces a male into violating women. Sexy violation, too.

 

[Metaphor]

Women complain of being sexually assaulted at fraternity parties where alcohol is served.

Your solution is that women have presumably women only parties with no alcohol.

No. I didn't say they had to be women-only. It's the women in the lawsuit who think that the boozy culture contributed to their assaults, and they think less alcohol would improve the situation.

Now, I was never in a fraternity, but 'less alcohol at parties' is not something that, I think, they are too mad keen on as a concept. So low/no alcohol parties are not likely to come from the fraternities.

It seems to me that you are expecting the women to alter their (legal) behavior: attending a party while giving a pass for the men who assault women at frat parties where alcohol is served.

Well, I'm not expecting these particular women to. Do you go to parties where you know the men are going to end up a drunken, obnoxious, gropy mess? Are parties tutorials that students are required to attend? Do you choose friends who you think might assault you given the first opportunity?

Who gave the men a pass? Where did I say sexually assaulting people was right or acceptable?

I don't understand why you think I'm deranged for seeing the problem lays with men who assault women rather than women who wish to engage in normal college aged behavior: attending a party with men and women and alcohol.

I don't think they do want to attend a party with alcohol. They think alcohol is the problem. They want the State to force fraternities to accept women, so that women can (nag? influence?) the fraternity bros into using less alcohol.

But why do parties have to be a particular thing? Are women entitled to go to parties with men and alcohol?

I don't see how I am deranged for thinking that women should have equal access to career opportunities as men.

You may think that, but forcing single-sex organisations to admit women won't give women equal career opportunities. What it may do is shift that privilege to some women who join fraternities, while women who remain in sororities will remain (apparently) networkless. But I doubt it will do even that much. If, as feminists believe, men conspire to keep women out of the most lucrative labour market positions, they'll go ahead and do it anyway, only they will be additionally resentful now.

I don't think I'm the deranged person here.

I know you don't.

 

[Arctish]

If you mean me, I wasn't logically inconsistent. Metaphor has a number of axes to grind.

No, I didn't mean you, I meant his OP.

In Metaphor's defense I can understand the backlash against feminism in a certain light, but I don't think the way forward comes from dehumanizing feminists. So what's the goal of this thread? Is it actually to do anything constructive, or is it a kind of show of dominance, and putting them in their place.

Presuming it's the latter, this thread says a lot more about Metaphor than it does feminists.

The point of this thread--and similar threads--is to highlight the various absurdities and harm that come from feminist ideologies and feminist actions.

I get the feeling either that many people simply are not aware of what feminists actually advocate and argue, in which case I think it's worth bringing it to people's attention. But if they are aware and don't care or worse--agree--then I'd like to know why they don't care or why they agree.

Andrea Dworkin was super morbidly obese, but she blamed her knee problems on "the patriarchy". That's not something I made up. It's not something I could make up. I don't have the imaginative power that feminists have that make women the victims of every conceivable event.

I read just now read the article she wrote about her osteoarthritis. I didn't see a single reference to "the patriarchy", much less an indication she thought "the patriarchy" was responsible for bone disease. She did say she believed it was related to a rape she survived, but she also said it might have been due to having experienced homelessness, sexual abuse, beatings on her legs, or it might have been due to her weight.

You say you get the feeling that many people simply are not aware of what feminists actually advocate and argue. Well, when you repeat something you heard about a feminist without finding out if it's true or not, you become one of them.

BTW, if you see a captioned picture or meme about Andrew Dworkin, especially one that Derec has posted, beware MRAs bearing false tidings.

 

[Toni]

No. I didn't say they had to be women-only. It's the women in the lawsuit who think that the boozy culture contributed to their assaults, and they think less alcohol would improve the situation.

It is well known that excessive alcohol consumption on and around university campuses causes all sorts of harms, including to men. Including death due to acute alcohol poisoning. There are a few each year in my college town that make the papers. And some that don't.

These sorts of behaviors are acknowledged in the article you linked in YOUR OP:

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in federal court in Connecticut, comes as universities across the country have been trying to crack down on bad behavior by fraternities, from binge drinking and sexual harassment to abusive hazing rituals that have led to several deaths.

Nevertheless, the law suit isn't about compelling fraternities to have alcohol free parties or about limiting alcohol consumption at fraternity parties, although efforts at limiting excess alcohol consumption really should be made by all universities. It does very serious damage and is sometimes fatal.

Now, I was never in a fraternity, but 'less alcohol at parties' is not something that, I think, they are too mad keen on as a concept. So low/no alcohol parties are not likely to come from the fraternities.

Yet such behavior causes serious harm to the young men who belong to fraternities. See the link from the article in your OP that I posted above. It is clear to universities and the general public that there is a serious issue with excessive alcohol consumption on university campuses and fraternities are notorious for this. It is clear that fraternities are not likely to do much to curb such excesses on their own.

This, of course, is skirting one of the major complaints in the article from your op: That women are routinely sexually assaulted at social events held by university sanctioned social clubs. Why are you skirting this issue? Why is it not important enough an issue that you speak out against it?

Well, I'm not expecting these particular women to. Do you go to parties where you know the men are going to end up a drunken, obnoxious, gropy mess? Are parties tutorials that students are required to attend? Do you choose friends who you think might assault you given the first opportunity?

All three women who are bringing the law suit were in their first semester at university when they were assaulted. So, as 17 or 18 year olds, likely away from home for the first time in their lives, likely not on a campus surrounded by their friends and without the social protections of a formed group of friends or their families, they did what all young adults are expected to do: attempted to make friends by attending a social gathering.

This can and should be a normal and safe thing for all persons to do. The women did nothing wrong. The men who assaulted them did. The adults who refuse to accept any responsibility for tolerating dangerous drinking and other behaviors that cause significant harm not only to women and non-binary students but often to the members of the fraternities themselves also did and continue to do wrong by tolerating and excusing and diminishing the harm caused by the excessive alcohol consumption. Yale is a very expensive school. It's really a shame that so many young men squander many tens of thousands of dollars each year on tuition while simultaneously destroying brain cells and rendering them incapable of benefiting in full from this wonderful opportunity to learn at one of the world's most prestigious universities.

Do you go to parties where you know the men are going to end up a drunken, obnoxious, gropy mess?

Well, I did have the advantage of having been sexually assaulted years before I could drive a car so I was naturally a little more wary of such situations. I could spot a creep pretty quickly long before I attended university. Still ran into a few, though. Also, older girls in my dorm straight up told freshmen girls to avoid fraternity parties. Of course, the campus where I attended University was much larger and had many other opportunities for social life than fraternities.

Who gave the men a pass? Where did I say sexually assaulting people was right or acceptable?

That's the main salient point in the article that you posted in your OP and yet rather than address the criminal behavior of the men at these parties who sexually assault other students--you victim blame and suggest the women simply don't attend these parties.

It seems that you have no trouble accepting the criminal behavior of the men at all. It's not even worth your mentioning it. Fortunately the article you posted did so, explicitly.

I don't think they do want to attend a party with alcohol. They think alcohol is the problem. They want the State to force fraternities to accept women, so that women can (nag? influence?) the fraternity bros into using less alcohol.

Really? That's not what the lawsuit says.

But why do parties have to be a particular thing? Are women entitled to go to parties with men and alcohol?

Are MEN entitled to attend parties with men and alcohol?

You may think that, but forcing single-sex organisations to admit women won't give women equal career opportunities. What it may do is shift that privilege to some women who join fraternities, while women who remain in sororities will remain (apparently) networkless. But I doubt it will do even that much. If, as feminists believe, men conspire to keep women out of the most lucrative labour market positions, they'll go ahead and do it anyway, only they will be additionally resentful now.

Men who are so inclined to behave as sexist misogynists tend to behave as sexist misogynist pigs when the social structure allows them to. When they are in positions where they are expected to treat other people with respect (women, persons from other ethnic groups, non-binary persons), they tend to treat them with respect, even if that respect is sometimes fake.

Men enter university at the same chronological age as women but are socially much less mature. Perhaps men should attend all male junior colleges for a few years before being allowed into universities.

 

[Metaphor]

I read just now read the article she wrote about her osteoarthritis. I didn't see a single reference to "the patriarchy", much less an indication she thought "the patriarchy" was responsible for bone disease. She did say she believed it was related to a rape she survived, but she also said it might have been due to having experienced homelessness, sexual abuse, beatings on her legs, or it might have been due to her weight.

I did misremember the article (I've read it before). Dworkin writes:

Doctors tell me that there is no medical truth to my notion that the rape caused this sickness or what happened after it. I believe I am right: it was the rape. They don't know because they have never looked.

That Dworkin believed her rape caused her osteoarthritis and that she is justified in dismissing multiple medical doctors on this point of medicine is nothing less than I'd expect from a feminist. It's sad to read about Dworkin's physical pain, but it's also sad to read about her mental delusions.

You say you get the feeling that many people simply are not aware of what feminists actually advocate and argue. Well, when you repeat something you heard about a feminist without finding out if it's true or not, you become one of them.

I didn't 'hear' about this. I read Dworkin's article many years ago and misremembered the specifics.

But when I post an OP, I link to whatever it is I'm talking about.

 

[Metaphor]

Nevertheless, the law suit isn't about compelling fraternities to have alcohol free parties or about limiting alcohol consumption at fraternity parties, although efforts at limiting excess alcohol consumption really should be made by all universities. It does very serious damage and is sometimes fatal.

The lawsuit is about forcing fraternities to accept women.

Yet such behavior causes serious harm to the young men who belong to fraternities. See the link from the article in your OP that I posted above. It is clear to universities and the general public that there is a serious issue with excessive alcohol consumption on university campuses and fraternities are notorious for this. It is clear that fraternities are not likely to do much to curb such excesses on their own.

This, of course, is skirting one of the major complaints in the article from your op: That women are routinely sexually assaulted at social events held by university sanctioned social clubs. Why are you skirting this issue? Why is it not important enough an issue that you speak out against it?

What on earth do you want me to say about it? I minimize sexual assault by not sexually assaulting.

You don't minimize it by forcing fraternities to accept women.

All three women who are bringing the law suit were in their first semester at university when they were assaulted. So, as 17 or 18 year olds, likely away from home for the first time in their lives, likely not on a campus surrounded by their friends and without the social protections of a formed group of friends or their families, they did what all young adults are expected to do: attempted to make friends by attending a social gathering.

This can and should be a normal and safe thing for all persons to do. The women did nothing wrong. The men who assaulted them did. The adults who refuse to accept any responsibility for tolerating dangerous drinking and other behaviors that cause significant harm not only to women and non-binary students but often to the members of the fraternities themselves also did and continue to do wrong by tolerating and excusing and diminishing the harm caused by the excessive alcohol consumption. Yale is a very expensive school. It's really a shame that so many young men squander many tens of thousands of dollars each year on tuition while simultaneously destroying brain cells and rendering them incapable of benefiting in full from this wonderful opportunity to learn at one of the world's most prestigious universities.

So, these problems are solved by forcing fraternities to accept women?

Well, I did have the advantage of having been sexually assaulted years before I could drive a car so I was naturally a little more wary of such situations. I could spot a creep pretty quickly long before I attended university. Still ran into a few, though. Also, older girls in my dorm straight up told freshmen girls to avoid fraternity parties. Of course, the campus where I attended University was much larger and had many other opportunities for social life than fraternities.

And do you believe fraternities control all social life at Yale? That women are incapable of organizing? That parties held by fraternities are the only form of socialization available? That socialization with your preferred parameters is a human right?

That's the main salient point in the article that you posted in your OP and yet rather than address the criminal behavior of the men at these parties who sexually assault other students--you victim blame and suggest the women simply don't attend these parties.

Suggesting women shouldn't attend parties if it's going to be traumatic for them isn't victim blaming. Suggesting women are capable of organizing their own parties with the exact parameters they want is not victim blaming. It ought be fucking empowering.

It seems that you have no trouble accepting the criminal behavior of the men at all. It's not even worth your mentioning it. Fortunately the article you posted did so, explicitly.

What does 'accept' mean to you?

I think it means "in any series of events, if you don't explicitly pick the event that I personally find most troubling, you are accepting and condoning criminality"

Are MEN entitled to attend parties with men and alcohol?

Well, yes, in the sense that men are entitled to associate with each other and consume alcohol at the same time. They make the party through their own association and alcohol use.

And if those men want to invite women, then they can invite women. It's not hard to grasp.

Women are also entitled to associate with each other and consume alcohol (or green tea, or nothing) at the same time. They make the party through their own association. And they can invite men if they want to.

Men who are so inclined to behave as sexist misogynists tend to behave as sexist misogynist pigs when the social structure allows them to. When they are in positions where they are expected to treat other people with respect (women, persons from other ethnic groups, non-binary persons), they tend to treat them with respect, even if that respect is sometimes fake.

Men enter university at the same chronological age as women but are socially much less mature. Perhaps men should attend all male junior colleges for a few years before being allowed into universities.

Well, let's see if universities like Yale and Harvard take to that idea.

 

[Arctish]

I did misremember the article (I've read it before). Dworkin writes:

That Dworkin believed her rape caused her osteoarthritis and that she is justified in dismissing multiple medical doctors on this point of medicine is nothing less than I'd expect from a feminist. It's sad to read about Dworkin's physical pain, but it's also sad to read about her mental delusions.

Or, she was referring to the link between emotional stress and overall health, which by now has been so well documented I'm sure you're aware of it.

You say you get the feeling that many people simply are not aware of what feminists actually advocate and argue. Well, when you repeat something you heard about a feminist without finding out if it's true or not, you become one of them.

I didn't 'hear' about this. I read Dworkin's article many years ago and misremembered the specifics.

But when I post an OP, I link to whatever it is I'm talking about.

So do I.

I also link to quotes or articles containing quotes when I'm asserting a specific person has taken an extreme position, like blaming "the patriarchy" for knee problems. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and all that.

 

[Half-Life]

I realize that this will be entirely lost on you but what a woman wears or does not wear does not affect her chances of being raped.

Worse, he's not talking 'chances.' He literally says the argument is that

clothing can make men rape you

(Emphasis added) which is odd for someone who elsewhere insists that men are always rational, women are emotional.
But here, he supports a theory that either a bikini or the skin exposed by a bikini literally coerces a male into violating women. Sexy violation, too.

Keith, I did not say that her clothing would make the men rape her, just that it could increase her chances of getting raped compared to the other women at the party.

Imagine one girl at a frat party walking around in a bikini while another girl is walking around fully clothed in jeans and a t shirt. Who do you think the men's focus will be on the most? Who would be the most likely target if some of those men started getting rowdy and out of control?

In fact, ironically the girl in the t shit and jeans would probably be calling the bikini girl a slut. "Why would she dress like that at a frat party?," she would probably ask her friends in the corner.

 

[Patooka]

Worse, he's not talking 'chances.' He literally says the argument is that

(Emphasis added) which is odd for someone who elsewhere insists that men are always rational, women are emotional.
But here, he supports a theory that either a bikini or the skin exposed by a bikini literally coerces a male into violating women. Sexy violation, too.

Keith, I did not say that her clothing would make the men rape her, just that it could increase her chances of getting raped compared to the other women at the party.

Imagine one girl at a frat party walking around in a bikini while another girl is walking around fully clothed in jeans and a t shirt. Who do you think the men's focus will be on the most? Who would be the most likely target if some of those men started getting rowdy and out of control?

In fact, ironically the girl in the t shit and jeans would probably be calling the bikini girl a slut. "Why would she dress like that at a frat party?," she would probably ask her friends in the corner.

I would guess the girl in the bikini will be stopped by Brad, the congressman's son who's quarterback for the team in a dark isolated corner of the frat house. Bikini girl's nerdy, but still kinda hot friend is going to stumble upon the two and uses her psychic powers to punish Brad. Nerdy friend is then going to reveal a deep dark secret that her father was experimented on by Cuban Soviet Spies during the Vietnam War which gave him powers because of reasons, who then passed those powers onto his daughter. Brad, disturbed by the incident and not having the balls to take responsibility for his actions decides to run to his father who is good friends with the Sheriff, so they can drive Nerdy girl's family out of town. Cuban Soviet spies have been trying to find Nerdy Girl's father since he escaped captivity, discover he is hiding in town and so invade Rural America completely unnoticed. The town is almost overrun, but Nerdy girl and her father use their powers to drive back the evil communists and save the town. The townfolk, ashamed by their mob mentality apologize to Nerdy Girl's family and agree to keep their secret, showing us all the magic of community and accepting diversity in all it's forms.

I mean, for fuck's sake, if your argument is just centered on hypotheticals that belong in the script of an 80's movie, at least try to show some creativity.

 

[Metaphor]

Or, she was referring to the link between emotional stress and overall health, which by now has been so well documented I'm sure you're aware of it.

If she meant that she'd've written that.

She wrote the rape caused this sickness. Not "the rape contributed to my declining overall health and possibly worsened my osteoarthritis"

 

[Half-Life]

Worse, he's not talking 'chances.' He literally says the argument is that

(Emphasis added) which is odd for someone who elsewhere insists that men are always rational, women are emotional.
But here, he supports a theory that either a bikini or the skin exposed by a bikini literally coerces a male into violating women. Sexy violation, too.

Keith, I did not say that her clothing would make the men rape her, just that it could increase her chances of getting raped compared to the other women at the party.

Imagine one girl at a frat party walking around in a bikini while another girl is walking around fully clothed in jeans and a t shirt. Who do you think the men's focus will be on the most? Who would be the most likely target if some of those men started getting rowdy and out of control?

In fact, ironically the girl in the t shit and jeans would probably be calling the bikini girl a slut. "Why would she dress like that at a frat party?," she would probably ask her friends in the corner.

I would guess the girl in the bikini will be stopped by Brad, the congressman's son who's quarterback for the team in a dark isolated corner of the frat house. Bikini girl's nerdy, but still kinda hot friend is going to stumble upon the two and uses her psychic powers to punish Brad. Nerdy friend is then going to reveal a deep dark secret that her father was experimented on by Cuban Soviet Spies during the Vietnam War which gave him powers because of reasons, who then passed those powers onto his daughter. Brad, disturbed by the incident and not having the balls to take responsibility for his actions decides to run to his father who is good friends with the Sheriff, so they can drive Nerdy girl's family out of town. Cuban Soviet spies have been trying to find Nerdy Girl's father since he escaped captivity, discover he is hiding in town and so invade Rural America completely unnoticed. The town is almost overrun, but Nerdy girl and her father use their powers to drive back the evil communists and save the town. The townfolk, ashamed by their mob mentality apologize to Nerdy Girl's family and agree to keep their secret, showing us all the magic of community and accepting diversity in all it's forms.

I mean, for fuck's sake, if your argument is just centered on hypotheticals that belong in the script of an 80's movie, at least try to show some creativity.

No refutation. Got it.

 

[Patooka]

No refutation. Got it.

Try having an argument rather than a hypothetical wank fest if you want a refutation. You're not Geoffrey Roberstson, mate.

 

[Half-Life]

No refutation. Got it.

Try having an argument rather than a hypothetical wank fest if you want a refutation. You're not Geoffrey Roberstson, mate.

Hypotheticals can produce results. For example, you know it would be stupid for a girl to wear a bikini to a frat party but you can't admit it because then it undermines your belief about rape.

If I recall correctly, atheists come up with hypotheticals about God to try and prove their points all the time. Saying I can't would be hypocritical.

 

[Arctish]

Or, she was referring to the link between emotional stress and overall health, which by now has been so well documented I'm sure you're aware of it.

If she meant that she'd've written that.

She wrote the rape caused this sickness. Not "the rape contributed to my declining overall health and possibly worsened my osteoarthritis"

This is what she wrote:

The doctor who knows me best says that osteoarthritis begins long before it cripples - in my case, possibly from homelessness, or sexual abuse, or beatings on my legs, or my weight. John, my partner, blames Scapegoat, a study of Jewish identity and women's liberation that took me nine years to write; it is, he says, the book that stole my health. I blame the drug-rape that I experienced in 1999 in Paris. I returned from Paris and finished Scapegoat over a period of months while caring for my dying father. Shortly after he died I was in hospital, delirious from a high fever, with infection and blood clots in my legs. I was there for a month. John had been told that I was dying. I forgot that in hospitals when one is dying, nurses abrogate the rules. John was allowed in after visiting hours; nurses would pull the curtain around my bed and let him lie with me. This was my happiness.

Doctors tell me that there is no medical truth to my notion that the rape caused this sickness or what happened after it. I believe I am right: it was the rape. They don't know because they have never looked.

We don't know what she thought the doctors might have looked for, what tests they didn't run that she thought might have been informative. Perhaps she was talking about measuring the cortisol in her bloodstream. Maybe she heard about neuroimaging to assess the effects of traumatic stress on the brain and wanted that done. We'll never know because she doesn't dwell in the issue. Her article is about her experiences living with the disease, not about her arguing with her doctors.

You said:

Andrea Dworkin was super morbidly obese, but she blamed her knee problems on "the patriarchy". That's not something I made up. It's not something I could make up. I don't have the imaginative power that feminists have that make women the victims of every conceivable event.

Actually, you did make that up. Not intentionally, perhaps, but it was your brain that produced the claim you thought Dworkin had made. If you haven't checked your premises now that you know just how badly you misremembered her writings, you should probably do that now. Or at least it before you make more claims about feminists.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Keith, I did not say that her clothing would make the men rape her,

that is exactly what you said. As you quoted me quoting you:

clothing can make men rape you

scroll back if you don't believe yourself.

 

[Gun Nut]

You couldn't make it up.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/12/us/yale-fraternities.html



It's incredible that these women have been banned from the internet and forbidden by law to organise their own social events. That's deeply unjust.


[Citation needed]

Aware that their image has been tarnished, fraternities have often been partners with universities in trying to change party culture.


Yale has often looked the other way, the plaintiffs claim, while parties rage and women from Yale and surrounding colleges are routinely sexually harassed and abused.




Joan Gilbride, a lawyer for the fraternities named in the lawsuit, said the accusations are “baseless and unfounded,” and that the fraternities and their national organizations would vigorously defend themselves against the claims.


A Yale spokesman, Thomas Conroy, said he could not comment on the specifics of the lawsuit. But he shared a message to Yale students last month from the dean of Yale College, Marvin Chun, after a yearlong review of campus culture, including fraternity culture. It said in part, “I condemn the culture described in these accounts; it runs counter to our community’s values of making everyone feel welcome, respected, and safe. I also offer some plain advice about events like these: don’t go to them.”

Chun needs to check his privilege. How can Yale women be expected to not go to parties where they'll be sexually harrassed? That's blaming the victim and it implies women are capable of organising their own social events, which they clearly are not.

The dean said that Yale “plays no formal role in the organizations not affiliated with the university, including Greek organizations,” and he said the university was working on providing alternative social spaces and events on campus.


The lawsuit acknowledges that there may be questions about Yale’s ability to regulate off-campus organizations.




“Yale often claims that the university cannot punish the fraternities because they are unregistered, off-campus organizations,” the lawsuit says. But it argues that this position is disingenuous, because the fraternities “act as extensions of Yale,” providing party space, while Yale permits them to use the Yale name, Yale email addresses, Yale bulletin boards and campus facilities for recruitment.


Peter McDonough, general counsel of the American Council on Education, a university trade group, said universities have been reluctant to become too deeply involved in regulating fraternity life.


“The very concept of a campus is where people learn not only from each other but through shared experiences,” he said. “And this isn’t the K through 12 environment.”


The plaintiffs — a sophomore and two juniors — have demanded in the lawsuit that Yale and its fraternities rein in the parties. They have also asked for a court order that would force the fraternities to admit women and allow them to share in the benefits of membership, like housing and powerful alumni networks that can lead to jobs, internships and social capital.

It makes sense. All the people I know who've been sexually harassed wanted the State to compel the harassers to let them live with them.

“Simply put, fraternities elevate men to social gatekeepers and relegate women and non-binary students to sexual objects,” the lawsuit said. “Moreover, Yale’s fraternities have alumni and professional connections to the business world, including banking and consulting firms, which often result in coveted job offers and economic opportunities.”


The three women who filed the suit are Anna McNeil, 20, a junior from Brooklyn majoring in art history; Eliana Singer, 19, a sophomore from Minneapolis majoring in political science; and Ry Walker, 20, a junior from Brooklyn majoring in astrophysics and African-American studies. The law firm representing them, Sanford Heisler Sharp, is also representing women who are suing Dartmouth College for sexual assault and discrimination by three professors who they said turned a human behavior research department “into a 21st-century Animal House.”


All three women in the Yale case said they were groped at fraternity parties during their first semesters. In the lawsuit, Ms. Walker, who is African-American, said she was passed over by fraternity brothers controlling admission to a party, while white women behind her were admitted.




“We eat together, take classes together, exist in this coeducational place,” Ms. Walker said in an interview. “But somehow because of the way Greek life operates on campus and the control they have over social spaces here, that means that on weekend nights, men are the only ones who have power.”

I didn't realise feminists were so fond of men's company. Perhaps the sororities can host their own, alcohol-free, vegan parties, and invite the boys from the fraternities? They're sure to be successful.

Sororities are not a substitute for fraternities, the plaintiffs said, because they have been around for much less time, and do not have the depth of contacts that fraternities have.

It's true that all those sororities founded in the 19th century just haven't gotten their shit together yet.

The lawsuit, filed as a class-action complaint, accuses Yale of violating Title IX of federal education law, which prohibits sex discrimination by institutions receiving federal funding, and breach of contract for not providing the educational environment it promised. It accuses the fraternities of violating the Fair Housing Act for offering housing only to men, and Yale and the fraternities of violating Connecticut’s law against discrimination in places of public accommodation. It seeks unspecified damages.

Of course I support these women, but is there a small chance that finding that male-only accommodation violates the Fair Housing Act might also apply to female-only accommodation?

The women belong to a student group called Engender that has used civil rights-type tactics to try to force fraternities to accept women. For the past three years, women and “non-binary” students from Engender have tried to join fraternities. Only one fraternity, Sigma Phi Epsilon, let them apply, according to court papers. But in the end they were denied and the fraternity chapter said it was because their national chapter did not allow women, the lawsuit says.


The complaint suggests that there is a “symbiotic” relationship between Yale and its fraternities, which involves letting the fraternities manage social life on campus, in exchange for Yale officials looking the other way when parties get out of hand.

“The fraternities take on the liability associated with student alcohol consumption, and in exchange, Yale allows the fraternities to use Yale resources (and recruit Yale students) and largely turns a blind eye to the sexual harassment and assault occurring in connection with the fraternities,” the complaint says.


The lawsuit claims that Yale lags behind peers like Harvard, which in 2016 announced that it was discouraging students from joining single-sex social clubs by barring them from leadership positions on campus and from receiving endorsements for prestigious scholarships like the Rhodes.


In December, Harvard was sued by fraternities, sororities and students saying the new policy is discriminatory.

Madness. I can't believe that Yale denies sororities the same power to use Yale resources that it grants fraternities.

The thread title is factually incorrect and intentionally deceptive.

 

[rousseau]

The point of this thread--and similar threads--is to highlight the various absurdities and harm that come from feminist ideologies and feminist actions.

I get the feeling either that many people simply are not aware of what feminists actually advocate and argue, in which case I think it's worth bringing it to people's attention. But if they are aware and don't care or worse--agree--then I'd like to know why they don't care or why they agree.

Andrea Dworkin was super morbidly obese, but she blamed her knee problems on "the patriarchy". That's not something I made up. It's not something I could make up. I don't have the imaginative power that feminists have that make women the victims of every conceivable event.

Feminists peddle the absurd lie of 'healthy at any size'. A feminist on my Facebook friends list chastised a UK cancer charity for publicizing the link between obesity and certain types of cancer. She said it was fat shaming (and of course, women are always the primary victims in fat shaming). Her ideology simply would not permit the facts. This was an educated woman-a university lecturer. I was at her wedding. She seemed like a normal human being once.

Feminist ideology is toxic.

Ok, but can you do it without dehumanizing them, or painting them like they're a universal, static whole? Feminists are a diverse bunch

And if you're in the business of highlighting absurdities why focus on feminists in particular? Why not focus on the absurdities that are spewed by basically every ideological group on the planet? If it's because you have an axe to grind with feminists in particular, then it makes you hateful, not benevolent.

Why not focus on feminists in particular? Feminists focus on one particular thing--feminism. They are not equal opportunity in the things they complain about. They focus only on what they believe affects women negatively, or only on the perceived relationship between the sexes.

If feminists have free rein to hate cis white men (hi!)--and they do have free rein--why should I, as part of the group they target with their hate, not push back?

If you don't like someone else being hateful, why shouldn't you be hateful yourself? Because you're demonstrating the very qualities that you're railing against. It's fine to point out where feminist ideology goes wrong, but you don't have to dehumanize other people when doing so. If you do, again, it says more about you than feminists.

 

[Toni]

Or, she was referring to the link between emotional stress and overall health, which by now has been so well documented I'm sure you're aware of it.

If she meant that she'd've written that.

She wrote the rape caused this sickness. Not "the rape contributed to my declining overall health and possibly worsened my osteoarthritis"

I am impressed by your mind reading abilities.

 

[Toni]

You couldn't make it up.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/12/us/yale-fraternities.html



It's incredible that these women have been banned from the internet and forbidden by law to organise their own social events. That's deeply unjust.


[Citation needed]



Chun needs to check his privilege. How can Yale women be expected to not go to parties where they'll be sexually harrassed? That's blaming the victim and it implies women are capable of organising their own social events, which they clearly are not.


It makes sense. All the people I know who've been sexually harassed wanted the State to compel the harassers to let them live with them.

“Simply put, fraternities elevate men to social gatekeepers and relegate women and non-binary students to sexual objects,” the lawsuit said. “Moreover, Yale’s fraternities have alumni and professional connections to the business world, including banking and consulting firms, which often result in coveted job offers and economic opportunities.”


The three women who filed the suit are Anna McNeil, 20, a junior from Brooklyn majoring in art history; Eliana Singer, 19, a sophomore from Minneapolis majoring in political science; and Ry Walker, 20, a junior from Brooklyn majoring in astrophysics and African-American studies. The law firm representing them, Sanford Heisler Sharp, is also representing women who are suing Dartmouth College for sexual assault and discrimination by three professors who they said turned a human behavior research department “into a 21st-century Animal House.”


All three women in the Yale case said they were groped at fraternity parties during their first semesters. In the lawsuit, Ms. Walker, who is African-American, said she was passed over by fraternity brothers controlling admission to a party, while white women behind her were admitted.




“We eat together, take classes together, exist in this coeducational place,” Ms. Walker said in an interview. “But somehow because of the way Greek life operates on campus and the control they have over social spaces here, that means that on weekend nights, men are the only ones who have power.”

I didn't realise feminists were so fond of men's company. Perhaps the sororities can host their own, alcohol-free, vegan parties, and invite the boys from the fraternities? They're sure to be successful.

Sororities are not a substitute for fraternities, the plaintiffs said, because they have been around for much less time, and do not have the depth of contacts that fraternities have.

It's true that all those sororities founded in the 19th century just haven't gotten their shit together yet.

The lawsuit, filed as a class-action complaint, accuses Yale of violating Title IX of federal education law, which prohibits sex discrimination by institutions receiving federal funding, and breach of contract for not providing the educational environment it promised. It accuses the fraternities of violating the Fair Housing Act for offering housing only to men, and Yale and the fraternities of violating Connecticut’s law against discrimination in places of public accommodation. It seeks unspecified damages.

Of course I support these women, but is there a small chance that finding that male-only accommodation violates the Fair Housing Act might also apply to female-only accommodation?

The women belong to a student group called Engender that has used civil rights-type tactics to try to force fraternities to accept women. For the past three years, women and “non-binary” students from Engender have tried to join fraternities. Only one fraternity, Sigma Phi Epsilon, let them apply, according to court papers. But in the end they were denied and the fraternity chapter said it was because their national chapter did not allow women, the lawsuit says.


The complaint suggests that there is a “symbiotic” relationship between Yale and its fraternities, which involves letting the fraternities manage social life on campus, in exchange for Yale officials looking the other way when parties get out of hand.

“The fraternities take on the liability associated with student alcohol consumption, and in exchange, Yale allows the fraternities to use Yale resources (and recruit Yale students) and largely turns a blind eye to the sexual harassment and assault occurring in connection with the fraternities,” the complaint says.


The lawsuit claims that Yale lags behind peers like Harvard, which in 2016 announced that it was discouraging students from joining single-sex social clubs by barring them from leadership positions on campus and from receiving endorsements for prestigious scholarships like the Rhodes.


In December, Harvard was sued by fraternities, sororities and students saying the new policy is discriminatory.

Madness. I can't believe that Yale denies sororities the same power to use Yale resources that it grants fraternities.

The thread title is factually incorrect and intentionally deceptive.

You forgot inflammatory.