Son, that's not what I meant by "aiming high."
After I read Melissa Bruen's acccount of her assaults at the University of Connecticut, I kept returning to the same questions. How would the parents of these young men react if they learned that their son grabbed and dry humped this young woman? Or that their son had responded to this young woman's outrage by exposing and grabbing her breasts before a crowd of spectators? Or that their son or daughter stood by and did nothing except laugh?
While I am not in favor of shame as a tool to control sexual behavior, I hope that at least a few of the young men in question felt a vestige of that emotion. If nothing else, I hope these students would have cause to fear the loss of financial support if their parents learned of their acts or their failure to act. After all, The acorn does not fall far from the tree. But as soon as I thought of that old adage, I realized that if we want to understand what happened to Melissa Bruen, we have to find the source of this sickness. And it's not just the acorns that are diseased, but the entire tree.
In a discussion thread at Feministing, one commenter recommended that the University of Connecticut require all new freshmen to enroll in a mandatory course on aggression against women. Another commenter, Blue Cat, explained why college level training does not work:
I hate to say it, but my college out in the midwest tried to do that sort of education with entering freshman...starting in 1990. Unfortunately, by then it's too late. It had no effect on crime at all. In my experience, it doesn't matter how much of a "stand up guy" he is, there is a strong possibility that his attitudes are different when he's around the guys, ESPECIALLY if he's drinking. I've unfortunately seen it too often. The only way to affect these attitudes is a change in how children are raised in our culture, both genders. This has to start with the parents. In my view, the best way for us to combat it is to raise our sons to not need to follow the pack to validate their manhood, and for our daughters to learn that it's OK for women to be aggressive, as much so as men (especially if danger lurks). And we must be as vigilant in monitoring our sons' activities as our daughters, to make sure that they behave well and are around good influences. If you've done all of that, then likely you won't see this idiocy happening later when they're let loose.
Consider the controversy that occurred at the prestigious Horace Mann School in New York. In mockery of a student organization called the Women's Issue's Club, Horace Mann students created a Web page for a Facebook group named the "Men's Issues Club." Forty-four of Horace Mann's students were members of the group, included children of prominent families and trustees on Horace Mann's board. The online conversations included insults of teachers such as "crazy ass bitch" and puerile boasts from boys of "banging a teacher in the music dept. bathroom" and "beating up women when drunk." According to the members of Men's Issues Club, the answer to the question where women belong was, "IN THE KITCHEN!! IN THE KITCHEN!!" The club's mission statement:
For too long men have not had a way to express themselves and their beliefs in society. Men need to have a voice, we aren’t meant to be seen and not heard. Let freedom ring, bitches.
One of the slandered teachers, Danielle McGuire, logged into the H.M. Facebook group using her married name. McGuire found that her liberal politics had earned her the title “Official Minority Rights Officer and Head of Protection for Feminist Society” and “Representation of Oppressed ‘Indians’ of America.” But the worst was
... the crude illustration of Tituba, whom she had lectured on last year. Tituba as Aunt Jemima, she thought. The artist had painted a racial slur. In every word on the page, McGuire saw herself depicted as a witch or a bitch.
While the administration of Horace Mann announced that the punishments for students in the group would be severe, the teachers who had viewed the Facebook group pages were told that their employment contracts were under review. One trustee, who was also the parent of a member of the Facebook group, confronted McGuire in public about viewing the site under a false name. When McGuire claimed that she had the right to protect herself against defamation, the trustee countered that the illustrations and insults were nothing more than students "just blowing off steam...[t]hey're very stressed; it's not unusual for them to say racist and sexist things."
[You can read the entire article here, which I found courtesy of Ann Bartow of Feminist Law Professors].
Some have criticized the article which appeared in New York Magazine as staging the conflict between the teachers and the privileged students and their influential parents. Horace Mann will accumulate a debt of $339 million for new construction and other improvements and, as a result, the composition of its board has changed to include lawyers, investment bankers and real estate developers rather than academics. However, the bigger issue here is the ease with which the parents and trustees could overlook the misogyny and racism displayed by their children.
In November 2007, Thomas E. Ford, a psychology professor at Western Carolina University, and his graduate student co-authors published an article detailing the results of two projects designed to determine the effects of sexist humor. According to Ford,
Sexist humor is not simply benign amusement. It can affect men’s perceptions of their immediate social surroundings and allow them to feel comfortable with behavioral expressions of sexism without the fear of disapproval of their peers...Specifically, we propose that sexist humor acts as a ‘releaser’ of prejudice...Our research demonstrates that exposure to sexist humor can create conditions that allow men – especially those who have antagonistic attitudes toward women – to express those attitudes in their behavior. The acceptance of sexist humor leads men to believe that sexist behavior falls within the bounds of social acceptability.
...just blowing off steam...[t]hey're very stressed; it's not unusual for them to say racist and sexist things.
Indeed.
But they're not as stressed as the Horace Mann teachers whose employment contracts were not renewed.
I doubt that they're as stressed as Yale student Jessica Sverndson on one January night when a group of 20 frat boys stood in front of the Yale Women's Center chanting "Dick! Dick! Dick!"
Nor will they ever be as stressed as 80% of the victims of sexual assault, like Melissa Bruen, who may suffer chronic physical or psychological problems over time.



Great post. I'm not sure we can prevent people from abusing others once they have reached adulthood or near-adulthood when parents or administrators defend their "right" to do so.
[Actually I think there is something we can do and that is not tolerate the sexist or ethnic jokes. Laughing about a "rape joke" is a variation of aiding and abetting the crime. People tell jokes to win the approval of others. And by not sharing in the ha-ha, we are withholding that approval. I don't think we have to be dogmatic when telling someone that his or her humor is out of bounds.Good rejoinders: "That's really pathetic." or "You lost a lot of points telling that joke." Subtle cues like that deflate the ego and remove the group support harassers need in order to do the deed. True, the harasser-wannabe may find support with another group. But I think that if enough people withdrew their support from someone with antagonistic attitudes towards women and minorities, the potential harasser would receive a message he or she could not ignore. Thanks, b. -- Kochanie]
Wow, talk about privilege in action. The trustees' treatment of the teachers is beyond appalling. It's bad enough that the kids did it - but yeah, there's the acorn, and there's the tree. I knew a handful of people in college who'd gone to similar high schools (not Horace Mann, though), and some of them had the kind of sense of entitlement that got them involved in a cheating scandal. Some folks don't think the rules were made for them.
I agree, Kochanie, about shame being a terrible way to deal with sexuality. But this wasn't sex; it was violence and humiliation and intimidation. As the mother of two boys, I would feel I'd failed if either of them failed to stand up for the right thing. Imagining them as active participants is just horrifying.
[If you have time, read the entire article and the comments to the New York Magazine article. Current students and alumni of Horace Mann responded in the comments. Some condemned the actions of the students, some said it was a parody -- so chill out. Some said the kids behaved badly as kids often do, but the social media broadcasted the bad behavior. Others said that the article was biased because the spouse of one of the teachers is affiliated with New York Magazine. But NYM did not create the Facebook pages. I cannot write-off the racial slurs and feminist bashing as a harmless parody. We ridicule those people from whom we wish to separate ourselves. We ridicule those we see as villiians, not as heroes. I do not recall any of my friends writing Thurgood Marshall parodies when I was growing up in the sixties. I don't envy you, Sungold, raising two boys today. You have to intercept so much negative peer pressure but you don't want to make them feel guilty in the process. Not an easy job. Thank you. -- Kochanie]
You know, my son has been weaned for about exactly a year today. And every day for the last six months, I have had to have a conversation with him about *not* touching my breasts. (Before that he wasn't very conversable - he turns 3 next month).
It is probably going to take several *years* of "Because it is my body and I asked you not to, that's why!" before he stops feeling like he can pat my tits, hug random people's legs, climb up on any adult who will hold still...but by God that child will know to stop when people say no, long, long before he goes to college.
[Rosa, you've brought up such an an important point that it should probably be a separate post. How do you teach a child to recognize when touching is not OK, without giving the message that all touching is bad? That's not a rhetorical question, since I am not a parent I don't know what is the best way or the best age to teach this. But I am very grateful that there are parents like you who realize that this is important. Thank you! -- Kochanie]
I'm with Sungold on this as well -- it really *isn't* ok to shame people about sex (not least because the only real monsters in closets are repressed sexuality) but shaming people for random or senseless violence, abuse of power or position seems sort of a tailor-made response.
And you're right that, "blowing off steam" is one thing, creating elaborate, covert, privilege-rehearsing monuments to misogyny, racism, or what have you is something else entirely. And if I can just repeat a point by Hannah Arendt for a moment, there's some kind of serious disconnect when parents take sides against teachers after they've delegated them the authority to teach. And I might add it's even more out of joint that parents who are fucking *board members* would do so. I mean, talk about acorns not falling far from the tree! If parents and administrators have no sense of their own authority, and deprecate the authority they've granted to others, then what can you expect from their children but acts of entitlement compensating for their failure to responsibly wield power. Sheesh!
Wonderful post, Kochanie.
figleaf
(reCaptcha: symptoms united)
[Insightful observation there on authority via Arrendt: How do you know that you really are not empowered? When your authority can be rescinded at any time by a person who never delegated it to you in the first place.
Yes, parents want to make sure that a child's stupid mistakes committed in adolescence do not ruin the child's chances of getting into college or getting a job. But I suspect that the concern here is getting into the Ivy League, not just any college. So if the parent is in a fiduciary position -- and a trustee is a fiduciary -- the use of trustee privilege to excuse your child's egregious behavior and intimidate his/her targets is a clear conflict of interest. What's worse is that a trustee does not even admit that the behavior is egregious.
"Symptoms United" - no kidding. Thanks, fl! -- Kochanie]