A fundamental issue that the Wespeaks of Ms. Schwartz and Ms. LeBlanc, and Mr. McAteer ignore remains that of sexism, namely the propagation of sexual stereotypes by fraternities at Wesleyan. In the opening of their November 8 Wespeak, LeBlanc and Schwartz claim, “there is a difference between gender discrimination and reinforcing stereotypes in an optional party setting.” I urge you to further explore this notion. Do stereotypes fail to exist in a “party setting?” What if I were to host a “Birth of a Nation” themed party, where I asked guests to either dress in blackface or in white sheets. Would this cease to be offensive if I included beer and claimed that it was “fun”?
I think that the implication is that the saving grace of these parties is that they are satirical. Yet, by definition, satires are supposed to reduce the object they satirize to the ridiculous (and yes, I do get the pun on “hos” and “pantyhose”). Somehow, I imagine that the “women on this campus [who] look forward to dressing up for the costume parties as a fun female-bonding event” don’t consider themselves objects of ridicule. The problem isn’t, as Schwartz and LeBlanc claim, that those who oppose “Corporate CEOs and Secretary Hoes” themed parties think that women actually believe that they are whores, but rather that the themes of the parties reinforce the notion that women are diminutive sexual objects intended to pleasure men. Despite the function of role-playing, isn’t this degrading nonetheless? And I don’t deny that this is a matter of context: yes, it does matter that a male-dominated institution hosts these parties. In a perfect world, anyone could “satirize” stereotypical female occupational roles, but in a perfect world, corporate women wouldn’t ever hit the “glass ceiling.”
And, in response to Mr. McAteer, while there may be a persuasive and cogent argument defending fraternities as harbingers of “diversity” on the Wesleyan campus, your specific Wespeak fails to make it. You refrain from considering the incidents of sexual harassment and the sexual attacks that have occurred at these houses in past years, calling the frats as institutions “innocent.” But when someone at these parties chooses to inappropriately and illegally grope women, the houses fail to be a “safe space.” Though this obviously is not an issue that only occurs at fraternities, it is a rather large issue to ignore. And it also fails to consider, again the role of sexism.
While I don’t think that the answer to the issue is to ban parties like this one all together—such a move would only hide rather than solve the problem—I would urge fraternities to consider the implications of their actions. If, as you say, you intend to remain a part of the campus community, then wouldn’t it be wise to avoid such displays of chauvinism?
As members of a common community, I would hope that we would attempt to move closer to an environment in which no identity group is offended. This is not to say that I think we need to become monolithic, or like “Trinity” as Schwartz and LeBlanc explain, but rather, more like a place where “fun” ceases to be stereotypical.
Leave a Reply