The Guardian has has published an op-ed piece calling for college fraternities to be banned.
Armstrong reminded me of what I hear on campus visits myself – that fraternities are hotbeds for all sorts of risk beyond sexual assault: there’s also alcoholism, alcohol poisoning, people falling out of windows and dangerous hazing incidents. She insists that frats “vary tremendously” in terms of how sexually dangerous they are – traditionally African American frats, gender-inclusive frats and multicultural frats are not as threatening as those populated by mostly-white, economically-entitled students, for example – but when you look at the overall risk fraternities create for students on campus, “reforming or preserving these organizations doesn’t make a lot of sense,” Armstrong said.
I don't think that fraternities need to be eradicated from universities and colleges. I think that more women just need to be more aware about their environment. Stay with people you know. Watch your drink or better yet BYOB. If you feel uncomfortable, then leave the situation. I had an awesome undergrad experience and I even lived on campus. It was a time for exploration for me both sexually and drug-wise. The type of behavior that can be found in fraternities aren't just relegated to fraternity houses; they are also found in dorm parties, house parties, and other off-campus housing.
Be wise. Be safe. You are on the verge of adulthood. Don't be stupid! What do you think?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DECbot on Monday September 29 2014, @06:10AM
Idiots do idiotic this, often forcing them on others. Young people have little personal experience and practice idiocy or naively allow it to happen to them. Nothing new here. News at 11.
Seriously, this has been part of the college culture for a long time. Trying to curb the worst parts of it holds merit, but don't touch our traditions and good parts of the college culture. Hold the frats accountable for illicit behavior, but for "Bob's" sake, don't disband them because "there are bad apples in one frat, there's bad apples in k+1 frats, so there's bad apples in all frats. Toss out the barrel, torch the orchards, they all have to go! Think of the children!" Besides, removing the frats just makes it harder to police/contain.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 2, Insightful) by keplr on Monday September 29 2014, @06:10AM
Nice victim blaming, shitlord! Way to perpetuate rape culture by suggest women are at all able to control their own lives. Women are helpless, delicate, perfect creatures and any time harm is done to a woman it's the rest of society's fault for allowing it to happen. Why do we teach women not to get raped, instead of teaching men not to rape? I dream of a world where rape is looked down on. I dream of a world where professional rapist isn't a highly esteemed career choice. One day, we might even have laws against rape. We can get there, together. Once we reach all men with the message that rape is wrong, there will be no more rape.
Now, that might seem like the psychotic ramblings of a crazy person unhinged from reality (because it is), but it's the actual platform of a group called Social Justice Warriors. I'm lampooning them here, but almost every statement in the first paragraph was taken from actual blogs (tumblr) and written by authors who are as sincere as they are delusional. And these people sometimes can wield political power. They recently got the sexual consent laws changed [ksl.com] to basically criminalize all sex other than femdom. "Do I have permission to touch you, mistress? May I enter you? Do I have permission to ejaculate now?"
These people don't want to make the world safer for women. They want to make the world more dangerous for men to correct what they see as millennia of injustices against females. They want their turn swinging the stick. They really don't like male sexuality, in any form, and want to chip away at it.
Fraternities are not the problem. You can't outlaw them because at bottom it's just a free association of persons, which is protected by the First Amendment. Neither is "rape culture" the problem--because it doesn't exist. Ask the thousands of men in prison or on parole for rape if society was cool with what they did. Do some men get away with rape who are guilty? Yes. The nature of the crime makes it inherently hard to prove guilt, and our justice system is based on a presumption of innocence--another thing they'd like to change. They'd prefer to be able to accuse a man of rape, have all of society take them at their word, skip that quaint "due process" malarkey, and just lock up the bastard.
Now that's social justice. Me, I'll stick with the old kind, thank you. And if that means some rapists will go free, I'm fine with that. Putting innocent people in prison is worse. [wikipedia.org]
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Whoever on Monday September 29 2014, @06:24AM
Fraternities appear to me to be a uniquely American institution. I don't understand why this happened, why fraternities exist in the USA but not elsewhere. Perhaps, in the UK, the collegiate system in Oxford and Cambridge provided a better alternative for students.
As you point out, they would exist with or without the Universities' consent. So perhaps attempting to regulate them is better than merely ignoring their existence.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by keplr on Monday September 29 2014, @06:36AM
Well, like most things, the UK's version is much more dignified. The Royal Society for example started out as basically a fraternity. The US version is just the result of opening that type of institution up to a bunch of middle class guys, giving them too much free time and not enough clearly defined academic goals.
These people don't actually want to be scholars. They're there for the parties and some vague notion that they'll get a degree in something like business. They're not serious students. They're definitely not academic lifers, and that's really who University should be for primarily. If you just want to learn how to run a business and then go be an entrepreneur and make lots of money, you don't belong in College. But we haven't given them any alternatives, so they get thrown in with the people who actually want to be there and do good work in the sciences and humanities. We don't even have any alternative meaningful transitions into adulthood in our society. The University has had to become all of these things and it's a strain on the whole system.
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: -1) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @06:52AM
Srsly? What are the firearms for, why dontcha use them?
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Monday September 29 2014, @11:19AM
That sure is a nice collection of words you've just randomly strung together.
I'm fairly sure you're a troll, but beyond that, I'm utterly incapable of deciphering the point you're trying to make.
(Score: 1) by Mike on Monday September 29 2014, @02:59PM
I'm fairly sure you're a troll, but beyond that, I'm utterly incapable of deciphering the point you're trying to make.
I'm betting on the ever elusive, yet just as despicable... Meta-Troll!
(Score: 2) by MrNemesis on Monday September 29 2014, @08:17AM
Can anyone explain in culturally-neutral terms what a fraternity actually is, what it does and what it's meant to do? Maybe I'm just suffering from pop-cultural osmosis failure, but from what I've seen in movies and the like it basically just appears to be a bunch of guys who go around drinking shitty beer from a keg that's perpetually on the front lawn of their house (why do they all live in the same house?), shouting random greek letters at one another and generally acting like arseholes. Even one of my friends who went to uni in america was unable to explain what they were for and wikipedia doesn't really have anything to say on the matter either. Is it related to the "sorority", is that meant to be a direct female equivalent?
I went to one of the UK's old universities (not oxford, cambridge or hull however) and there didn't seem to be anything like this when I attended, unless I didn't know the secret handshake or something. A billion little clubs and societies, both academic and non, yes, but nothing I'd say was similar to how I've seen fraternities represented.
"To paraphrase Nietzsche, I have looked into the abyss and been sick in it."
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday September 29 2014, @08:36AM
However, if they're a hotbed of misbehaviour and misdemeanours, isn't it best to *keep them*? That way, *you know where the misbehaviour will be*.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @10:36AM
primarily exist at 4+ year colleges, there's that Phi Beta Kappa or something for overachievers (does that start in high school?), but other than that the closest I came to Fraternities/Sororities was the on-campus clubs, which were quite cliquish, and honestly having gone to a few meetsings for them, didn't seem to provide me anything that wasn't better learned off the greybeards of my various classes (Math and CompSci classes all had older career men/women, many of whom worked in tech, who were educating themselves preparing for shifts in the job market at HP, Intel, etc in the (Non-Silicon Valley) area I lived in.)
Honestly it seems the lynchpin of Fraternities/Sororities is on-campus/dorm life. Places that don't live on-campus, or where the income required to go to college is lower don't seem to have them as much/at all). But that's just an outsider's perspective looking in. Other than an ex-girlfriend's brother, I have personally known nobody who was a member of a frat or sorority even among people with Masters and Doctorates. Most were too busy trying to get out ASAP, either because of family obligations, career opportunities, or simply financial considerations.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @08:43AM
A fraternity is basically a group of men at a college who do social things together in a semi-official setting, generally with some pretense of tradition and hierarchy. There is generally drinking involved, but not always, and there are also fraternities that are established entirely to create a positive environment for academic growth without all the partying, though these are less popular by far. A sorority is the female equivalent. They live in the same house because it forces social interaction with other members, and is cheaper. The biggest advantage is being able to call in favors with members who have already had successful careers, as membership is lifelong.
(Score: 2) by MrNemesis on Monday September 29 2014, @12:42PM
Thanks AC - makes a bit more sense, although can you expand further on what a "semi-official setting" means? Are fraternities ordained/funded/organised by the university itself, or is the house college property or something?
Doesn't really sound like we have anything similar here, at least not to the stage where I'd say it were common, although it sounds similar in principle to the "old boys network" which typically comes out of the public schools (public schools being, somewhat perversely, the very expensive private schools - long story). Probably the closest thing I can think of would be "clubs" like Bullingdon [wikipedia.org] although as the wiki says, Oxford goes to great pains to distance itself from their antics.
"To paraphrase Nietzsche, I have looked into the abyss and been sick in it."
(Score: 3, Informative) by TK on Monday September 29 2014, @05:52PM
Fraternities and Sororities are chartered by the schools of which they are a part. They have to meet certain obligations set by the school and the national organization in order to keep their charter. Things like insurance, academic performance, not being on the Dean's shitlist, etc. The school does not fund them, and typically leaves them alone aside from the aforementioned obligations.
Depending on the school, parties can be sanctioned or non-sanctioned. Usually there will be official parties and unofficial parties throughout the year.
Also depending on the school and the Fraternity/Sorority, the property can be owned by the school or the organization, or just the land under the house. It can be on campus or off campus, also depending on the school and the Fraternity/Sorority.
From the school's POV, there are some benefits, such as a good way to get a large group together for a common goal that doesn't have to fight the apathy of busy students in the general population. This could be charity events, fundraising, tours for potential students, etc.
The negatives are when they get in the news for something unpleasant. Then the angry parents of the victims can sue the members involved, the organization, all the way up to the school. This is one of the downsides to having Greek organizations on your campus.
The fleas have smaller fleas, upon their backs to bite them, and those fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum
(Score: 1) by idetuxs on Monday September 29 2014, @10:02AM
what a fraternity actually is, what it does and what it's meant to do?
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Monday September 29 2014, @08:52AM
When dealing with a hot-button issue, basic things, such the presumption of innocence, are ignored.
Regardless, the presumption of innocence works very in conjunction with the fact that most criminals have a limited mode of operation. If someone has a 10% chance of being caught and convicted for any individual crime, they may be inclined to repeat such crime. However, after 10 similar crimes, there is only a 35% chance that they are free to commit more crime.
Furthermore, sentencing is structured to take previous crimes into account. Although it is contentious, this may include the consideration of hate crime in which the incident would not have occurred in other foreseeable circumstances. For example, inflicting violence on a homosexual or "rape correcting" a lesbian.
1702845791×2
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @09:24AM
Jesus Christ, you're brave. These people would crucify you for saying that, probably literally.
"You're a supporter of rape culture and a rape apologist", they'd say. Watch your head mate, some of these people are a sperge away from going postal.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Sir Garlon on Monday September 29 2014, @12:39PM
I am probably going to get modded to oblivion for saying this, but I have karma to burn, so to hell with it.
I think I understand what you are trying to do here, but you're going about it in a way that makes the conversation worse, not better.
At the kernel of your screed is a legitimate position: that you're not going to put up with marginalization and degradation of men. Nobody should. It is also clear that people who do want to beat men down smell blood in the water and are going into a frenzy.
Where you run into trouble is that your tactics and your tone are pretty much indistinguishable from the radical misandrists you condemn. You're failing to draw a distinction between the people who have a legitimate grievance, those who point out for example that rape still happens a lot more than it ought to, and those who just want to rip out your throat because you're from the other tribe.
Other than lashing out (with ample provocation, I would add), what exactly were you trying to say?
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Monday September 29 2014, @05:03PM
I believe the statistics in Occidental countries are that 0.5% of women and 0.05% of men get raped each year. That doesn't mean that a woman has a 14% chance of getting raped over a 30 year period. It means that a minority get themselves into risky situations repeatedly or find themselves in risky situations which they cannot avoid, like prison.
1702845791×2
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Sir Garlon on Monday September 29 2014, @06:59PM
No offense, but part of the difficulty in discussing rape, particularly on and around college campuses, is the lack of reliable statistics. If you ask, say, a rape survivor's support organization, no doubt they will tell you a woman's chance of getting raped is a lot higher than that. If you look at actual crime reports at the police station, probably you will find a lot fewer rapes than the numbers you cited. That controversy is not ancillary to the discussion, it's central to it. It should be easy to agree on a standard set of reporting criteria and just collect consistent numbers for a while, but AFAIK that is not happening. Rape survivors want to make the point that the crime is very prevalent, because once society accepts that, the will for change will be strong. That's not without merit. There is opposition, also not without merit, that only real, not exaggerated or fabricated, rapes ought to be counted. Since rape is a serious crime it should take serious evidence to accompany a report or accusation. I would think that people who are actually interested in justice would see those two aims are both served by standard and reliable reporting criteria. That seems a long way off, though, since today we don't even have a generally accepted definition of what rape is and what it is not.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Monday September 29 2014, @07:48PM
I've been discouraged by friends but encouraged by police to report sexual assault (or worse). So, I appreciate that the conviction rate for rape is probably about 1%. I also appreciate that there is the issue of false positives and false negatives at each step of the process: charging the correct suspect, conviction and prosecuting false allegations of rape (which a subset of women believe they should be able to make freely, anonymously and without repercussion).
Even if rape is rare, it is a terrible effect on people. Some commit suicide. Others are deeply affected, especially if the rapist was known to them. I've met a man who was raped by a teacher and a woman who was raped by a family friend. The man was very unsure of his sexuality and the woman was very untrusting.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Tuesday September 30 2014, @02:04PM
I did not know quite what to say to this at first, but what I eventually decided on was: I'm very sorry that subject ever came up for you.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Atatsu on Monday September 29 2014, @01:44PM
Neither is "rape culture" the problem--because it doesn't exist.
Dude, what the hell. Of course it exists. When a woman is raped and people ask "what was she wearing?", that's rape culture. When young women are told to cover up because the mere sight of their skin is too great a temptation for us men, that's rape culture. Just because men are in prison for actually having committed rape doesn't mean rape culture doesn't exist.
We have "hate crime" laws, with people in prison for violating them, so racism doesn't exist either, does it?
(Score: 2) by velex on Monday September 29 2014, @02:19PM
When young women are told to cover up because the mere sight of their skin is too great a temptation for us men, that's rape culture.
Similarly, we have the other side of the rape culture coin. When young "men" (I'm not heterosexual or cisgendered, but that doesn't stop the rape culture) are required to attend a presentation on date rape and sign a form that basically acknowledges that they're a rapist who hasn't been caught in the act yet, we also have a rape culture.
The obvious response is that guys should be big enough to handle an hour and a half meeting and a little name calling as long as women are getting raped. That's sexism.
Rape cultures are evidence of deeply seated sexism.
For some reason, requiring everybody who is assigned the male gender to attend presentations on date rape while leaving women in the dark about the issue doesn't seem to be solving it. Maybe if we got that information in front of women as well things would improve. I don't have a problem with the presentation itself; merely the sexist, counter-productive way its delivered.
I am an individual and will not be held accountable for the actions of others.
More sexism is not the answer. Sexism causes more sexism. Nobody's even considered if the sexist way we go about this problem isn't even fueling it.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Monday September 29 2014, @05:17PM
When people in authority suggest that women change behavior, it is more likely to cause a backlash. For example, a police officer from Ferguson, Missouri who mentioned ridiculous domestic violence arrangements was described by the Daily Mail as a racist, sexist, homophobic, ranting killer and forced on leave [soylentnews.org]. A crime program presenter who advised women to dress conservatively was labelled as a chauvinist [soylentnews.org]. And who could forget the police officer who advised women to not dress like sluts [wikipedia.org]?
However, none of this precludes showing a video presentation to a male assigned audience and showing the same video presentation to a female assigned audience.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by monster on Tuesday September 30 2014, @01:50PM
I'm reminded of two anecdotes from all of this. The first is from the movie Die Hard 3, when the villain forces the character of Bruce Willis to go to a mainly black neighborhood with a "I hate niggers" sign on him. The second is a real life one: An italian girl (an artist, if I recall correctly) intended to travel alone around the world on bicycle dressed with a bride's dress to show that the world was full of love. She got raped and killed in Turkey, several thousand miles into her journey.
Sometimes people forget the world is neither just nor safe, and laws may serve to punish the guilty, but don't stop bullets and don't avoid crimes being commited in first place. Avoiding dangerous situations is not sexism, it's common sense.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 30 2014, @02:06AM
Do you have any evidence to back up that claim that young men are being required to sign a form admitting to being a rapist who "hasn't been caught in the act yet"? Methinks I smell bullshit here.
No. The obvious response is that this is a problem on college campuses and young men entering college need to know that it will not be tolerated. Yes, these guys are big enough that they can handle an hour and a half meeting on an uncomfortable subject. That doesn't mean that they have to put up with name calling. That's just reprehensible.
I'm going to go way out on a limb here and guess that women are not "in the dark" about this. Perhaps too many young women are naive in supposing that this will never happen to them, but in the dark? I think not.
Depending on what information you are talking about, I think that we agree on this much.
And this is where I am completely confused. You had already made the accusation that young men are being forced to sign forms admitting that they are rapists. Now you are saying that you don't have a problem with the presentation?!? If that is not counter-productive, then I don't know what is.
Yeah, you go, you rugged individualist, you! Whatever.
I will give you a little hint here. No man (or woman) is an island. As a member of a community, you share in the blessings of that society. Similarly, you also are affected by that community's problems. That doesn't automatically mean that you somehow are partly to blame for the problems, just that you have a part to play in solving those problems. I hope this helps.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Tuesday September 30 2014, @07:51AM
I believe the objection is that half of the student intake is exempt from this treatment due to accident of birth.
In the interest of equality (and innocence until proven guilty), potential perpetrators and potential victims should be subjected to the same treatment. Unfortunately, this isn't happening [soylentnews.org].
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by velex on Wednesday October 15 2014, @03:23AM
Do you have any evidence to back up that claim that young men are being required to sign a form admitting to being a rapist who "hasn't been caught in the act yet"? Methinks I smell bullshit here.
Yes, I may be able to get this for you. I've thought about contacting my college, but it's been over a decade. However, they've renewed their rapist culture, and my brother is going there to get a doctorate currently. I might have a good chance, especially if I pretend to be a white knight.
Now you are saying that you don't have a problem with the presentation?!? If that is not counter-productive, then I don't know what is.
My apologies. I was unclear. I disapprove of the form one must sign acknowledging that one is a rapist who hasn't been caught in the act yet. I believe this presentation contained very useful information, however, especially if one is passable as a woman. I was not at the time. For the cisgendered female who passes as a woman, it's obvious the value this information has. If I were to have begun HRT a year before I started college, it would have helped me because the danger to trans women being targets of date rape can be death when the rapist discovers he's targeted someone who didn't quite have the equipment he had hope for.
I think everybody needs to have this information about date rape.
I will give you a little hint here. No man (or woman) is an island. As a member of a community, you share in the blessings of that society. Similarly, you also are affected by that community's problems. That doesn't automatically mean that you somehow are partly to blame for the problems, just that you have a part to play in solving those problems. I hope this helps.
Perhaps, but my duty to the community becomes more questionable the more I am blamed for the actions of others and held to rediculous stereotypes of men and trans women simultaneously. If I were starving to death with no home, who would help me?
Nobody, that's who. Therefore, I have stopped donating to charities and food pantries.
That's my logic here.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Monday September 29 2014, @04:57PM
It is entirely legitimate to ask what someone was wearing. If someone dresses like a hussy and puts themself in a risky situation, it is foreseeable that something risky could happen. [soylentnews.org]
1702845791×2
(Score: 1) by Murdoc on Wednesday October 01 2014, @03:20AM
I agree with your linked post for the most part, but one thing I think should be clear is about the whole assigning blame thing. Outside the courtroom, in private, yes, someone should tell her "That was pretty stupid, taking all those risks. Have you learned your lesson?" or something like that. But in the courtroom, it should never come up. She did nothing criminally wrong, and he did everything criminally wrong, and deserves all the blame for it there. If any blame goes to the woman in the courtroom, then that is a signal to potential rapists that people do think that she was asking for it, and things will go more leniently for them if they get caught, and none of us want that.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday October 01 2014, @03:27PM
It's more than just the courtroom. It's the media too.
Your friends might tell you to move out of a dangerous neighborhood. But if you get shot, the police and the media won't be saying "well, they *could* have just moved, or worn a bullet-proof vest, or taken further precautions, they *knew* the risks when they moved in!" That sounds ridiculous, because it is. But with rape, often they'll spend less time talking about the criminal than about how she should have worn something else, shouldn't have been at that party, shouldn't have been drinking, etc...
There are news reports where people leave their garage doors wide open and someone walks in and takes something, and the homeowners don't get blamed in the media or in court for "asking for it". Rape victims do. THAT is the problem.
I can't actually think of any other crime where that routinely happens. Sure, we should teach people not to take unnecessary risks, just like we teach people to lock their doors or install smoke alarms. But that doesn't mean we should focus on the person who DIDN'T when someone steals from their home then sets the place on fire.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @07:55PM
(Score: 2) by velex on Monday September 29 2014, @01:56PM
The salient point is that once again, they don't go after individual offenders, but they employ sexism instead.
If implemented, this sounds like grounds for a class action lawsuit.
(Score: 1) by mtrycz on Monday September 29 2014, @02:58PM
You certainly can't correct an extremist stance with an (equally outlandish) extremist stance.
First, you make a patchwork or different statments form different people, of which "almost all" are actually real. Then you go saying that asking for consent (and I don't have an opinion here, don't live in US and don't know your laws) equals femdom. No wait, it "criminalizes sex that isn't femdom". Lol, wtf man?
Again not being from the US, i don't know about the advocacy groups you have there. What I know is that most often you're going to be exposed to the most batshit ones than the reasonable ones. Don't let this fool you into being "as sincere as delusional" yourself. There are lots of reasonable people (women and men) who advocate against rape. Because, you know, rape exists, and it is a potential problem for virtually all women.
Your rant makes you look, well, not a reasonable person, may I say, along the lines of the people you're going against.
In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
(Score: 2) by keplr on Monday September 29 2014, @03:13PM
When the other side has people like this [vice.com], it's pretty ridiculous to call me an extremist. You might also find this aggregation [reddit.com] edifying.
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @04:04PM
> When the other side has people like this, it's pretty ridiculous to call me an extremist.
Extremists never recognize their own extremism. Just because someone you disagree with is nuts doesn't automatically make you sane.
(Score: 2) by mtrycz on Monday September 29 2014, @08:33PM
Wow, the person in that video is so stupid it's almost funny. I'm not going to read it throught, but that's some of the most finest bullshit I've read this month. Good thing she *explicitly* distinguishes herself from feminists. So, you know, there's no space for ambiguity, if there ever was any.
Anyway, you're falling for the two sides fallacy. "us" and "them", and look that people "they" have. Let me pul the consequences of this reasoning: look what people "we" have - rapists, misoginists, puas, alpha male evangelists, you name it.
I refuse to identify with "your side", as well as I refuse to aknowledge people like that one crazy woman as serious.
Instead I'll go with some reasonable people, solving problems.
In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
(Score: 2) by keplr on Monday September 29 2014, @09:28PM
rapists, misoginists, puas, alpha male evangelists
Whatever "side" I'm on, it's not the same as them. I denounce all of those things. I like to think I'm merely a passionate, if perhaps overzealous, supporter of the reasonable camp.
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by RobotLove on Monday September 29 2014, @10:10PM
You post distorts the issue in a way that trivializes the situation of women in our society and perpetuates the existing power structure. You are part of the problem, not the solution.
I realize me calling you out on it is unlikely to get you to change your view, but I didn't want your bullshit to go unchallenged.
(Score: 2) by keplr on Tuesday September 30 2014, @12:34AM
I realize me calling you out on it is unlikely to get you to change your view
And why should it? You haven't actually presented any sort of argument. You just asserted that I'm wrong.
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 30 2014, @04:19AM
You'd think that the United States is a first-world nation. You'd be increasingly wrong.
Wyoming state statutes, S 6-2-311. Corroboration unnecessary.
If you are accused, you are guilty. (I looked -- this has been upheld by the Wyoming supreme court.)
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday October 01 2014, @03:09PM
Not at Penn State University where they get special status with the university administration (ie, frats can reserve areas for events that no other organizations can) as well as with the city government (where they regularly host meetings between the borough council and the frats)
THAT is why we should ban them. They're not a "free association"; in large college towns they're a powerful, aristocratic political machine.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @06:11AM
> Be wise. Be safe. You are on the verge of adulthood. Don't be stupid! What do you think?
What I think is that no one on soylent has attended college in the past 10, probably 15, years.
So kind of the wrong audience.
(Score: 3, Funny) by tangomargarine on Monday September 29 2014, @02:23PM
I have. Graduated in 2012.
But I'm male so apparently I'm not allowed to have an opinion on the topic, so hey.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @04:00PM
> I have. Graduated in 2012.
But you were a non-traditional student, the kind that's too old to be welcome at frat parties.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday September 30 2014, @01:52PM
I'm 25. Pretty much as traditional as you can get.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @06:40PM
I rarely comment, but had to respond to this. Still enrolled, finishing up this year.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by dougisfunny on Monday September 29 2014, @06:12AM
I imagine most of the issue specifically is that a fraternity has traditions. If fraternity x has a tradition of keeping a tally board of 'conquests' or a tradition of looking the other way and covering when a member administers a date rape drug to add to their tally that would be bad. Traditions like that would be perpetuated more readily in a frat house than in a random dorm where people are reassigned each year.
When you consider how easy it could be for something to turn in to a tradition, such that each new class picks up the same bad behaviors you can begin to understand how a fraternity would be a problem.
(Score: 2) by keplr on Monday September 29 2014, @06:22AM
Rape is already a crime, a serious one. So too is drugging someone's drink; whether or not you intend to rape them. If someone has evidence of a crime, we have a legal system to deal with it. It sounds like the problem is that fraternities often have politically and economically powerful (and to the University, valuable) members who are able to out maneuver the criminal charges against them. We can deepen our analysis of the problem still further. Why are these students economically and politically powerful? Because of the way the University is funded and often the student's connection to athletics.
Fund higher education differently, such that universities aren't dependent on wealthy alumni donations, tuition, and keeping in good graces with the power elite. Also, get rid of college sports. No academic scholarships, no multi-billion dollar industry built around being NFL/NBA-light.
What are the chances that any of that will happen in the US any time soon? You tell me.
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 2) by hash14 on Monday September 29 2014, @06:37AM
It sounds like the problem is that fraternities often have politically and economically powerful (and to the University, valuable) members who are able to out maneuver the criminal charges against them.
This is a huge source of the problem, and frankly I think this is a large reason why universities shouldn't be expected to handle these cases. They're criminal acts anyways (as you say), so I would say that the university's responsibility, at most, is to help students as they go through the proper legal process. Having universities handle the entire case is just a source of massive conflict of interest.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Monday September 29 2014, @09:12AM
What you seek is very simple and works in practice. Specifically, donations should only be accepted if they come without conditions. My local hackerspace works in this manner and it is very effective. People are told that if they donate equipment, there is no obligation for the hackerspace to keep it or operate in any specific manner. If it is most cost effective to sell the equipment to raise funds, this will be done without hesitation. Likewise, a financial donation is not accepted if it comes with conditions.
If we apply this principle to educational establishments, that means no buildings, schools or institutions being named after anyone, no discriminatory scholarships (sports, ethnic, sex-specific), no on-campus frat houses, no private tuition from staff and no book plugs. This might be a break from traditional practices but it is either an institute of open learning or it is a series of ploys.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday September 29 2014, @03:59PM
If value is transferred you can say "no strings attached" all you want. In the end you know that further donations are always dependent on the donors willingness which comes with "strings attached". The only way out is anonymized of donations from the receiver. Or better no transfer of valuables at all.
A similar problem is when politicians enter the lobbyist cadre.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Monday September 29 2014, @04:32PM
Perhaps you are correct. A hackerspace has a natural geographic monopoly which may not apply to an educational institution. Given that a large number of educational institutions have got themselves in too deep, if any switched to a truly ethical stance of donations without strings, it would be at a disadvantage compared to other institutions. I don't know how to fix this problem. Legislation won't help because it is an international problem.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday September 29 2014, @04:02PM
Never got why athletic capability is of any merit in a academic setting. Seems so out of place. Beside the fact that athletic culture is incompatible with the academic.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Monday September 29 2014, @05:29PM
Athletic ability brings in funding. Sports scholarships, ticket sales, television coverage, alumni donations. Even ignoring that, it raises the profile of an institution. There's also the possibility of receiving state funding [wikipedia.org] and healthcare [go.com] if an activity is deemed to be a sport [wikipedia.org].
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday September 30 2014, @04:41AM
Still missing the contribution directly to the core academic activity. Otherwise they might as well start to sell products from the chemistry lab for street sales to boost income..
"Good chemist get schoolarship......"
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Tuesday September 30 2014, @07:34AM
If the objective was to increase blood to the brain, reduce fat and improve muscle tone for the purpose of maximizing academic achievement then there are safer, cheaper an more inclusive methods to achieve that. For some, it may provide social opportunities and improve morale. However, at best, it is tangential to academic achievement, especially when considering the amount of incoming and outgoing money.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday September 30 2014, @10:52AM
Considering the high probability of a negative attitude towards academic achievers. It's detrimental to academic results. It's more efficient to have exercise as a complement to studies not as a goal in itself.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Tuesday September 30 2014, @11:36AM
I agree that mandatory jumping jacks and suchlike would be more beneficial. Indeed, Japanese and Koreans extend this practice to employees. However, it may be difficult to introduce this where it is not already a cultural tradition. Any educational institution providing generous course credits for exercise would find lowered standards whereas any educational institution not providing generous course credits would be less attractive to prospective students. Likewise, for compulsory exercise.
This is a case where the best syllabus for a rounded education is not the most attractive proposition to staff or students.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday September 30 2014, @11:57AM
The workout part has to be voluntary. And not implicitly forced by coupled with course points either.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday October 01 2014, @03:42PM
Most universities already require two semesters of some sort of phys ed class. What you need is some way to make it take 30 minutes a day and still prove you've done it (ie, no walking to a classroom or gym), then give those classes 1/4 the credit of a normal phys ed class. Make it voluntary, but I'm sure some people would choose to take that route.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Wednesday October 01 2014, @03:57PM
It could be done with accelerometers and positioning. Although, personally, I find that intrusive and also lacking in the encouragement gained from group participation. The scenario of submitting accelerometer data and suchlike would also require plagiarism detection for the "work" submitted.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday October 01 2014, @04:53PM
Yeah, that'd probably work. I was going to say that not everyone has the money for that, or has a smartphone which can already do that...but then I remember being forced to pay $50 for a heart rate monitor for my PE classes, so you could probably put together a $50 heart rate and location logger or something...
They could even build it themselves. I wish universities would do that more. Have an EE class design the hardware, a comp sci class design the software, a mechanical or materials engineering class design the housing, and some manufacturing design class to get the thing built. Instead of the BS they do these days where they'll have a class dedicated to the students inventing some idea for a private corporation where you're required as part of the class to sign a waiver granting the company ownership of all resulting IP. (I was one of ~6 students who refused and worked on a project of our own choosing instead. Most people gladly PAID to be someone's employee for the semester...)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @06:33AM
And we really need less of that shit in the world.
(Score: 1) by DrkShadow on Tuesday September 30 2014, @05:55AM
Sororities, too. Just more "Us vs them" crap. Get rid of it all.
Like separated bathrooms. Just more "Us vs them". Trolls will troll.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hash14 on Monday September 29 2014, @06:35AM
B happens around A and B is bad so let's ban A. Great train of thought there... (sarcasm).
First of all, this is just punishing everybody for the bad acts of a few. There are certainly some fraternities which do more to prevent this kind of behavior than others. But suggesting that all fraternities are responsible and should be punished in some way this is no different than racial profiling of Muslims after the attacks on September 11th.
Second, you're ignoring any potential benefits of fraternities: building contacts, enhancing quality of life for the members of the group, and other positive social benefits that they can provide. There's a lot more to fraternity organizations than parties and debauchery and it's irresponsible to suggest as such.
Third, banning fraternities does not in any way guarantee that sexual assault cases on college campuses are going to be reduced significantly. Most likely, predators will perform their predatorial acts through other avenues - and that may even end up making the situation worse.
This is just another one of those, 'Let's get rid of this, because I think it's causing that, and have no evidence to suggest that it will solve the problem' types of knee-jerk reactions to a problem. While we're at it, why don't we just ban having more than one person in a room at a time while on a college campus? Or get rid of colleges all together? These suggestions are just as worthwhile given this line of logic as banning fraternities would be.
(Score: 0, Troll) by GeminiDomino on Monday September 29 2014, @04:53PM
That's exactly the core of the "rape culture" rhetoric that spawns all this garbage.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday September 29 2014, @06:41AM
Did I summarize well TFA?
Look, I grew in a country in which fraternities don't exist as a tradition (and the graduates are just as fine as any human being, thus I don't thing frats are necessary).
Since I don't know, I'm asking: is the problem so bad it requires the equivalent of RICO laws translated in the college campus life? Or did we (as a society) start getting used with the "labelling as terrorists" reflex reaction and thus we start applying it for everything?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by anubi on Monday September 29 2014, @07:24AM
And why are they supported by "powerful alumni"?
Apparently, its never been "what you know" that leads to success, rather its "who you know", and fraternities excel at forming personal relationships that are not formed in an academically competitive classroom.
I am convinced the "upper class" is not superior, rather they have advanced social skills and connections that the workaday wage slave does not. The upper class can and will hire whatever they want with money they print from thin air, all made legal by their connections to those who make law.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday September 29 2014, @12:54PM
You have to keep it in perspective that most frats are not upper class just like most of the population.
From the point of view of a typical college dude, "owns a car, has an apartment, has a real job or at least a mcjob, can afford to buy us a 6pack, doesn't need fake ID anymore" is a VERY powerful alumni compared to their own pitiful power level.
I did the "19 yr old freshmen" thing as a starving student and then quit full time and transferred into the full time day job with night school and eventually it was very weird or impossible socially to interact with 19 year old boys and girls as a 21 year old guy with a nice apartment, a new car, a real sysadmin job with real responsibilities, etc. It only got weirder and more impossible as I got older and they stayed little 18-22 yr old kids, and here I am 25 married living in a house with a kid of my own and another on the way, etc.
I could see from a dirty old man perspective if I was 50 and single, then being invited to a party full of drunk 19 year old girls as an alumni could be "fun" at least physically. Probably no long term relationship possibility, but I can imagine the appeal. Aside from that I'd think the appeal for frat life is limited pretty well to traditional 18-22 year old students.
I did join an electronics/computer club that for all intents and purposes was a frat, other than not getting drunk together. That was fun.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dyingtolive on Monday September 29 2014, @02:00PM
I'm no fan of fraternities, but I'm less of a fan of people like her. The following comes to mind:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” -C.S. Lewis
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @07:25AM
We apparently spent the past 600-700 years getting rid of one self-righteous moral police (the church) to have it replaced with another.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday September 29 2014, @07:27AM
Or at least put on double secret probation, like the Tri Deltas, before the unfortunate (but necessary) Homecoming parade incident. And then there is the Skull and Bones Fraternity, of which George W. Bush the Lesser was a member, and John Kerry? What were these pervs doing in their dungeons over pledge week, and well beyond, well, well beyond. No Frats, they serve no academic purpose, kind of like the football team and the business school.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Monday September 29 2014, @08:28AM
She's just another race-baiting troll. Wouldn't be a bit different if she were ranting about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and blood libel.
Also, is it just me or is ranting about US rape problems in a UK newspaper bizarre? Sure, there are occasional links to Guardian articles which indicate that the UK might have some of these troubles as well. But all of her examples are US-based.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @09:13AM
i severely doubt that the esteemed Protocols of the Elders of Zion would result in same media exposure.
Another risk averse freak in the risk averse freakshow... Why are they so afraid to chose wrongly? Maybe too much choice and not enough personal responsibility, hmm?
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Monday September 29 2014, @09:28AM
It appears to me that Elizabeth Armstrong has identified a masculine space and wants to tear it down [soylentnews.org].
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Tuesday September 30 2014, @07:28PM
Yes it is bizarre, Guardian has its share of flaws so it's not too surprising that at this point in time they would write about some US could-be/might-be/probably sometimes rape (or plain regret) and associated feminist/anti-sex/anti-male neo-puritanical outrage as if some men & women aren't simply wildly promiscuous or hedonists rather than for example take some effort in confronting themselves on their somewhat strange coverage so far of massive organized “abduction, rape, torture and sex trafficking of children” in Rotherham [wikipedia.org] in England (maybe 1600 —one thousand six hundred— or more victims) where the Guardian has been busy shifting blame away from the perpetrators (can't write too much bad about non-whites, it destroys the storyline). After all the Guardian knows their target audience and has to make sure they stay on track with some bona fide corduroy “leftism”.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 30 2014, @09:02PM
It would be bizarre if it was in a UK paper. The Guardian does also have US and Australian editions (not sure if they are just online only or not, but they do at least have specific versions of the website for US and for Australian content). This article is in the "Comment is free" section which is online only anyway and it is written by someone who clearly went to a US University. Since The Guardian has a US version I don't find it odd at all that they have an opinion piece that pertains specifically to the US.
(Score: 2) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Monday September 29 2014, @11:07AM
I know nothing about fraternities. Are college students compelled to be involved in them? If not, then anyone who is involved knows the risks. This idea that we can ban things to protect ourselves is naive.
(E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
(Score: 3, Informative) by Sir Garlon on Monday September 29 2014, @11:55AM
No, membership in fraternities is optional and in fact members have to pay dues. At my college, some fraternities were terrible -- and by that I mean frequent brawls, one resulting in homicide -- yet on the other hand, the president of the Honors Student Association was a frat member. So it depends on the frat. Another friend and former frat member said there was a strong academic support network in place in his frat. Upperclassmen tutored the freshmen and so on.
On balance -- I think the bad outweighs the good, but I recognize I say that from the outside.
I also think banning things in a sense of moral indignation is the wrong way to make the world a better place. See the War on Drugs. Persuasion is much more effective than coercion in modifying people's behavior.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by spezek on Monday September 29 2014, @12:49PM
I don't think that fraternities need to be eradicated from universities and colleges.
I believe this is a fair opinion.
What sort of arguments does story submitter Prowler have to back it up, to demonstrate why fraternities themselves are not a main cause of sexual violence?
I think that more women just need to be more aware about their environment.
This is not an argument for or against fraternities, just standard rape culture logic packaged as a pseudo-argument related to the story. I will rephrase victim-blaming statements to better reflect what is just: I think that rapists just need to not rape, and that women should need be no more specially aware or alert (read: perpetually vigilant and scared) of their environment than any other human being. I'm certainly not.
Stay with people you know.
Not an argument for or against fraternities. Don't have sex with people you don't know are consenting to it.
Watch your drink or better yet BYOB
Not an argument for or against fraternities. Don't drug other people's drinks.
If you feel uncomfortable, then leave the situation.
Not an argument for or against fraternities. Don't make people feel uncomfortable; don't make people feel like you're going to rape them. It's just poor etiquette, and that is not so good for one of the purposes of college (networking; is it good to be remembered as the creepy rapey guy?).
I had an awesome undergrad experience and I even lived on campus. It was a time for exploration for me both sexually and drug-wise.
That's wonderful for you, but seeing as how the story is about young women experiencing rape at college campuses, I'm not sure that your experience is in any way relevant to the problem.
The type of behavior that can be found in fraternities aren't just relegated to fraternity houses; they are also found in dorm parties, house parties, and other off-campus housing.
Yes. As it's plain to see, rape culture is everywhere. You're part of it. You perpetuate it.
Be wise. Be safe. You are on the verge of adulthood. Don't be stupid! What do you think?
Be wise. Be safe. You are on the verge of adulthood. Don't rape.
I thought that SoylentNews would leave the misogyny of /. behind.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Monday September 29 2014, @01:05PM
I'm not trying to express an opinion but to clarify the likely "WTF" response your post will get, are you seriously suggesting:
women should be less aware of their environment
stay with people you don't know
drink any random thing any random person hands you
if you feel uncomfortable, make sure to stay there
"wtf" is the natural result to complaints about basically good advice.
A good SN car analogy is there are certain parts of the city you need to stop driving thru at night or at least pay very close attention to. Then you'll have very low, basically zero, chance of carjacking. Followed by a flaming response that car jacking is wrong and anyone who advises people not to drive thru the ghetto without paying attention at 2am is a direct cause of carjacking (or something like that).
A better analogy would probably be lung cancer and smoking. So if you want to lower your odds of lung cancer, try not smoking. (insert flames of controversy here)
To some extent it the old doctor joke "my arm hurts when I hold it up this way" "well, then stop holding it up this way". Pragmatically, if X, Y, and Z have negative results, how about not doing X, Y, Z, or at least not complaining about the well known results?
Another way to look at it is its a failure of cognition, some things in and of them selves are inherently bad or stupid, and it gets some people all politically wound up to claim such things actually exist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @04:51PM
There's a continuum based on the possibility of intent. If you crash your car into a tree, you have no one to blame but yourself, for surely you cannot blame the tree. If you smoke and get lung cancer, of course you have mostly yourself to blame, but people have tried to hold the makers of the cigarettes responsible, depending on their intent. But a rapist in a frat house has complete intent, even if he is drunk. Sure, you could avoid the rapist by not attending the party; it might have even been the wiser choice. It doesn't mean the victim is at fault, as if she had crashed into a tree. A victim of a carjacking in a rough neighborhood is not at fault either; the carjackers are.
(Score: 1) by DrkShadow on Tuesday September 30 2014, @06:21AM
There is likewise a continuum of intelligence. If you drive a car, and the airbag deploys, while driving down the interstate and not having impacted anything. Is this the driver's fault? No. Should the driver have been reasonably expected to have prevented the situation? No.
Someone is being good and not driving drunk, walking a short distance home from the bar at night in a decent neighborhood. They get mugged. Is the walker at fault? No. Is this a situation that the walker should reasonably be expected to prevent? Not really.
Someone is walking home at night from a sporting event, through a bad neighborhood, carrying a multi-thousand dollar camera, and get mugged. Is the walker's fault? No. Should they reasonably been able to prevent the situation? Yes. One should reasonably not provoke people (in this case, flash expensive items) in bad areas.
A female goes to the one frat house that has a reputation for raping women vs any of the nine other frat houses in the area, drinks a drink that a random person that claims to be a member of the frat house gives her, and gets raped. Is it the female's fault? No. Should she reasonably have been expected to prevent this situation from arising? Yes. No reasonable person would put themself in a situation where they know there's a high likelyhood that they could be raped. It is common enough knowledge that danger is out there, and it has been said so many times over the past many decades that you should not trust a drink that you don't know the source of, that one should not drink a random drink. For _any_ reason. Thirdly, if she had heard of such rumors, she should make a _particular_ effort to stay away from such a place.
The third one -- I will never, ever do that. I carry about 4-5000 dollars in camera on me for various events. There was _one_ incident, in downtown Los Angeles, in which I had to walk any distance at all with this camera gear, and I made absolutely sure to stay on known paths, with other people from the event that I was leaving. I did not take back alleys. There was _NO_ "but". There was _NO_ "should". There was only looking out for myself. Surely you're not suggesting that I should have taken a casual stroll, closing my eyes and throwing my head back to enjoy the evening breeze. That's not something that a reasonable person would do. But that's what you're saying that women should do -- enjoy the drinks, kiss the guys -- there _shouldn't_ be a rapist in the frat. Throw your head back, arms out, close your eyes, breathe deep -- there _shouldn't_ be a mugger in the next alley.
This isn't about blame. This is about limits to what you can do for others. All these rape-culturists are crying for a world in which crime doesn't exist. I've never heard of one -- not even in Disney fairytales. No one will ever be able to always look out for you (nor should they have to); it is a _required_ life skill that you be able to look out for yourself, and that will absolutely never change.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday September 30 2014, @12:39PM
"at night in a decent neighborhood. They get mugged."
Something above doesn't add up. This is why some people move to the 'burbs but some people love the urban lifestyle and literally don't understand the people who moved out, much as the burb people don't understand why the urbanites stay in areas with high crime and then dare to complain about it. If we are coworkers and make about the same so its not a financial side, tell me why I should care if you insist on living downtown and you complain constantly about panhandlers and your racing bicycle getting stolen... I live in a civilized area far away for a reason, not just random chance.
This inability to detect and respond appropriately to risk is the same as the woman at the frat problem.
(Score: 1) by Buck Feta on Monday September 29 2014, @02:34PM
> rape culture is everywhere
You got your rape culture in my peanut butter.
- fractious political commentary goes here -
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @04:44PM
You got your systemd in my rape culture!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by WillAdams on Monday September 29 2014, @01:03PM
- disturbing the peace
- underage drinking
- administering of drugs to drinks
- assault
- rape
All of which are covered by existing statutes.
Prosecute for any and all of the above when they happen, wherever they happen, regardless of who is accused so long as the accusation is credible (and whether the accused is on a sports team) and you shouldn't notice fraternities at all.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday October 01 2014, @03:53PM
...but the frat members play golf with the police chief, have lunch with the borough council members, and their fathers just made a six-figure donation to the state police. Good luck finding anyone willing to prosecute...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by danmars on Monday September 29 2014, @02:56PM
Really, this summary and comment thread are a disappointment all around. I'll take a shot at it, too.
The "advice to women" part of the second half of the summary is really kind of a terrible thing to say. Yes, the advice is good, but you come off as a total jerk. A lot of people who read that will mentally put you straight into the victim-blaming group. Women are aware of this advice. Most of them follow it at most times, even in college. But, in the same way it is not reasonable to say "Don't be black around a cop", it is not particularly helpful.
It seems to me that on most college campuses there are a mix of good and bad fraternities. Some just throw parties, and everyone gets drunk all the time. Some actually enable studying and peer tutoring or focus on community service. All work on building useful social networks, even among people who don't come from a wealthy background. The problem is, if you ban fraternities, you ban the productive and nice groups as well as the unproductive or harmful groups. It's wrong to assume fraternities are about partying, in the same way that it's wrong to assume men are rapists. Yes, some are. But does that really make it reasonable to lock them all up? (No, it doesn't.)
The fraternity system is right in a couple ways. They provide less-expensive housing, in a more adult atmosphere than dorm housing; students in dorms seem to be treated more like children in a group home every year. Fraternities also let you make long-term connections, as well as looser connections to older people, which can be very useful in things like job hunting.
When it all comes down to it, if they weren't useful, if they didn't provide more value to their members than not being part of a fraternity, they would not exist. There's no institutional momentum to a fraternity; if they don't get new members every year, they die. Maybe we need to look at the problems that they solve and work on developing solutions to them, rather than blaming all of the institutions for the actions of some of their members. Somehow, like the writer of the summary, I suspect that the same things would happen even if the apartment building with the group of young men were not a "fraternity".
(Score: 1) by Squidious on Monday September 29 2014, @03:59PM
I was in a fraternity in college 20+ years ago and I am incredibly grateful that I tool the leap and joined. I still keep in touch with many of my brothers. We get together at the house every few years and get to know the actives. I met my wife-to-be at a formal house social. Who still calls me on my birthday? My family and my fraternity brothers. There was much drinking and silly shenanigans but it was all harmless fun. Every house on every campus is different by virtue of their members and should not be painted with a broad brush from negative headlines.
The terrorists have won, game, set, match. They've scared the people into electing authoritarian regimes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @06:04PM
Adulthood is at puberty.
12, not 20.