Does the word feminism frighten you? Well, it should. As Carmine Falcone says in 2005’s Batman Begins: “You always fear what you don’t understand.” And it’s not that I don’t understand the purposes of feminism (I do) it’s that I don’t understand its parameters. I do not understand where humanism ends and where feminism begins. And frankly, the problem is not with feminism, but the media coverage of what are considered feminist issues.
Last year- in fact, a year ago to the day on August 25 –the Sigma Nu chapter at Old Dominion was suspended while the school was investigated during an incident involving controversial banners hung outside an off-campus house. All the big media guns- NBC, USA Today, CNN, Huffington Post– reported on the story. Tom McKay of Mic called the banners ‘disturbing.’ Emily Shire of the Daily Beast took the disgust a step further, posing the question: “Is Old Dominion’s Sigma Nu America’s Dumbest Fraternity?” Quite scathing considering the topic: a bunch of young, dumb, college kids hanging a morally questionable sign on their house. If you ask me, the fraternities that have been convicted of actual crimes are far dumber than the ones hanging spray-painted sheets from their pillars. But what do I know? I’m just an ex-frat boy with a severely misplaced and dangerous sense of humor.
And now here we are one year later, and apparently, not a soul has learned their lesson. Lo and behold, these dubious banners have resurfaced, this time at West Virginia University:
Pretty f*cking offensive right? How dare they? This is an outrage! A disgrace! Naturally, it was only a matter of time before those same news sites who buried those Old Dominion men just a short year ago were back to… Wait… what? Nobody has reported on this? But… how? I mean, these signs are of the same exact variety that sparked national outrage a year ago. Actually, they aren’t the exact same. There is one difference: this year, the signs were written, hung, and flaunted… by women.
My problem with this is the same problem that always arises during man versus woman disputes: a clear double standard. And yes, I am well aware that more times than not the double-standards of the world favor the men. I have benefited from double standards in the past. It is a fact that I am not proud of, but a fact nonetheless, and should be treated as such. Fact is fact. Double-standards are double-standards. Over-sexualization is over-sexualization. However, the same outrage over the immaturity and sexualization that Sigma Nu at ODU got lambasted for yesterday is barely moving the needle today. Why?
Is over-sexualization acceptable if it’s done by women themselves? Or should over-sexualization be considered harmful no matter which gender is pitching and which is catching? I’m not calling for these ladies to receive any sort of backlash. In fact, if you ask me, I find it to all be tongue-in-cheek college hijinx. But what I am calling is for equal-opportunity outrage. And as I said earlier, the problem is not with feminism itself, but the media’s coverage and portrayal of the ideal. Conor Friedersdorf said it best in a piece he wrote about the ODU controversy:
“How did we reach a place where Local Frat Makes Crude Joke causes staffers at the BBC, CNN, The Washington Post and USA Today to spring into action?”
I revert back to the Daily Beast article, where Ms. Shire sprung into action, saying:
“This camp (people who believe the signs are a harmless result of ‘boys being boys’) is blindingly, irritatingly ignorant. Their embrace of a boorishness that is patronizing and objectifies women is antiquated and frightening.”
I can’t help but wonder if she, and the media as a whole, holds that same sense of vitriol towards these West Virginia ladies. Does she find these women as idiotic and distasteful as she did the fraternity men? Look, I am all for deeming this type of behavior derogatory. I truly understand that actions like these can unnecessarily perpetuate the rape culture that exists on college campuses. I understand the argument. And I am all for drawing the proverbial line in the sand and deeming this type of behavior both offensive and unacceptable. I understand the argument. If this is deemed inexcusable, I am on board. I get it.
However, I also understand the flip side of the argument; the fact that these are generally benign signs being hung on college homes during the tidal wave of excitement that is move-in week, with little to no thought put into the consequences. If this is deemed a harmless prank, I am also on board. I get it.
But what I don’t get is the starkly different reactions the two identical stories receive. When the men do it, it’s monstrous, insensitive, and insulting. When women do it, well, no one notices (other than Total Frat Move, who naturally lauded the ladies).
My point is that we need to make a decision. We have to decide as a culture if over-sexualisation is or is not a legitimate problem. It cannot only be a male issue, because as you can see above, women are capable of those same tendencies. Personally, I give these ladies credit for “clapping back” at us men. So well done, ladies. To me, your signs are harmless and hilarious. Real recognize real.
The fact is the ladies who hung these signs will receive little news coverage, less backlash, and absolutely no punishment. And that’s the way it should be. After all, it’s just girls being girls. But if it were boys being boys, it’d be a whole different story.
