All Hail Testacles!

May 2, 2005 10:19 AM

Apparently, what it boils down to is this: V-day is "empowering" while P-day is "subversive," "harrassing," or just plain wrong. More tales of PC run amok, this time from Roger Williams University in Providence, RI. [warning: the P-Day link is NSFW, if it's NSFW to look at a mascot costume of a penis.]
posted by LilBucner (159 comments total)

Gosh darn it, you beat me to it while I was posting. Here's my post since it'll get deleted as a DP. (intentional):

Equal opportunity expression, penetrating satire, or political correctness gone haywire? Students at RWU expressed their sentiments about the v-day movement by starting p-day. Meet the friendly 6-foot mascot, Testiclese,. Despite swelling support, the students involved have been placed on probation and the mascot is in a box.

posted by thedevildancedlightly at 10:24 AM on May 2, 2005

and my comment to yours, since said will be happening ...

4 minutes too late my friend.

but great minds think alike ...
posted by LilBucner at 10:26 AM on May 2, 2005

oh, and ....


heheheheheheh ..... DP.
posted by LilBucner at 10:26 AM on May 2, 2005

Uhh... is this the room where we're going to be talking about dicks a bunch?
posted by Divine_Wino at 10:31 AM on May 2, 2005

Cleanup in aisle 7 in . . . 5 . . .4 . . . .3 . .
posted by petebest at 10:40 AM on May 2, 2005

is this the room where we're going to be talking about dicks a bunch?

Dicks, cunts, whatever you want.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 10:41 AM on May 2, 2005

When PC runs amok, I'm not worried about students with shallow ideas of what satire means, I'm more worried about anti-PC nuts running amok on campuses, trying to disassemble various pieces of important legislation.
posted by AlexReynolds at 10:48 AM on May 2, 2005

From top of the pages on the "P-day" site:

Roger Williams University College Republicans

Hmm... I guess I can't be blamed for thinking that Republicans are a bunch of dicks.
posted by clevershark at 10:49 AM on May 2, 2005

Anti-PC nuts? Never heard of 'em.
posted by Witty at 10:55 AM on May 2, 2005

This "satire" wouldn't have caused such an uproar if it had been done with a modicum of subtlety, intelligence, or comprehension of grammar. Jeez. (Learn to write in English, dicks.)
posted by veronica sawyer at 10:58 AM on May 2, 2005

I don't know about the rest of the men here but everyday is Penis Day where I live.
posted by fenriq at 11:01 AM on May 2, 2005

Anti-PC nuts?

No, anti-PC cocks! pay attention.

Actually, biologically speaking, aren't your coullions more important than your johnson in terms of masculinity? That's where all the testosterone comes from.

Not that I'd want to be without either of mine.

Seriously, though, vaginas are great, peckers are great. celebrate 'em both. Now onwards to the ass, boobs, and bile ducts.
posted by jonmc at 11:04 AM on May 2, 2005

fenriq wins
posted by LilBucner at 11:06 AM on May 2, 2005

I guess college republicans are given to this kind of stunt - outrageous, perverse, and occasionally worth noting. At UCLA they staged an affirmative action bake sale where different races paid different amounts for cookies and such. Some idiot actually attacked them and tore down their sign - so much for equal opportunity. I thought it was an interesting if rather simplistic way of demonstrating their position, but obviously some people thought it was a goddamn abomination. There were "Viewpoint" articles about it for weeks.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 11:06 AM on May 2, 2005

Seriously, though, vaginas are great, peckers are great. celebrate 'em both. Now onwards to the ass, boobs, and bile ducts.

I sense a South Park episode in there somewhere ...
posted by LilBucner at 11:07 AM on May 2, 2005

I'm here to say that I'm very proud of my varicocele and would like to request a special day upon which I may cherish it and share it with others.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 11:08 AM on May 2, 2005

I hate to be a nitpicker, but shouldn't the title of this page say "testicles" instead of "testacles"?
posted by clevershark at 11:09 AM on May 2, 2005

Whatever our differences, boys and girls, we all have perineums.
posted by AlexReynolds at 11:09 AM on May 2, 2005

Anti-PC nuts? Never heard of 'em.

Why am I not surprised?
posted by AlexReynolds at 11:10 AM on May 2, 2005

Yes, it should. And isn't "subversive" good these days?
posted by kenko at 11:10 AM on May 2, 2005

A friend of mine, who couldn't really be described as "conservative" in a meaningful way, started the Asian Students Society (think acronym here) at his university... not letting his being a Caucasian get in the way of course.

He stirred up a bit of controversy when he tried to implement "Laundry Day" as a function of that society.

Yeah, he's quite the sh*t-disturber, and probably the most fun guy you can hope to see at a party.
posted by clevershark at 11:12 AM on May 2, 2005

I hate to be a nitpicker, but shouldn't the title of this page say "testicles" instead of "testacles"?

Actually, it should probably say "Testaclese", but who's counting?
posted by Johnny Assay at 11:12 AM on May 2, 2005

Personally I prefer Planters' nuts to Anti-PC nuts, but that's just me.
posted by clevershark at 11:13 AM on May 2, 2005

Actually, Testacles was how the P-day guys spelled it, and since this post is about them, that's how I spelled it.
posted by LilBucner at 11:13 AM on May 2, 2005

Clevershark, testacles are the kind you wear on your nose to help you see better.

And thanks LilBucner, I haven't won a thread in a while!
posted by fenriq at 11:15 AM on May 2, 2005

I defer to Johnny Assay.

Heheheheh .... "assay"

Personally I prefer Planters' nuts to Anti-PC nuts, but that's just me.

Personally, *I* prefer DEEZ NUTS!
posted by LilBucner at 11:15 AM on May 2, 2005

i find it particularly amusing that testaclese was going to introduce christina hoff sommers.
posted by pxe2000 at 11:17 AM on May 2, 2005

I don't know about the rest of the men here but everyday is Penis Day where I live.

Can I come over to your house and play?
posted by WolfDaddy at 11:19 AM on May 2, 2005

Whatever our differences, boys and girls, we all have perineums.

Alex, you are familiar with my Unified Ass Theory, right?

That only straight men and lesbians care about boobs and pussy, only straight women and gay men care about dicks, but everyone enjoys a nice ass. The ass love will be what brings us all together in the end.

so to speak.
posted by jonmc at 11:22 AM on May 2, 2005

That only straight men and lesbians care about boobs

Totally false. I have a few gay male friends who still appreciate a good mammary (and are actually known for groping them under the excuse "it's okay, I'm gay").
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 11:27 AM on May 2, 2005

jonmc writes "The ass love will be what brings us all together in the end."

Thus we can all come together over asses.

So to speak.
posted by clevershark at 11:29 AM on May 2, 2005

Clevershark, testacles are the kind you wear on your nose to help you see better.

Wait, how are we pronouncing this now? I thought it was intended to rhyme with Hercules (uhh... just in the last syllable, but whatever) to go with the whole super-hero/mascot theme.
posted by heatherann at 11:29 AM on May 2, 2005

Totally false. I have a few gay male friends who still appreciate a good mammary

well, they're appreciating it the way you or I would appreciate a well made table, say. It's aesthetic not visceral.
posted by jonmc at 11:30 AM on May 2, 2005

Metafilter: We can all come together over asses
posted by AlexReynolds at 11:30 AM on May 2, 2005

well, they're appreciating it the way you or I would appreciate a well made table, say.

Jonmc, you made me snort milk out of my nose. Thanks for making my day.
posted by AlexReynolds at 11:32 AM on May 2, 2005

thedevildancedlightly, man, that is a GREAT excuse. I wish I were still single as I'd not be above faking being gay to cop a few feels!
posted by fenriq at 11:32 AM on May 2, 2005

heatherann writes "Wait, how are we pronouncing this now?"

Yeah, that just dawned on me too. I think it's meant to be pronounced "testa-clees".
posted by clevershark at 11:32 AM on May 2, 2005

and are actually known for groping them under the excuse "it's okay, I'm gay".

I knew a closet bi-sexual in college who used just this tactic to watch some female cast members change costumes during a play.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 11:32 AM on May 2, 2005

jonmc writes " well, they're appreciating it the way you or I would appreciate a well made table, say. It's aesthetic not visceral."

Actually my brother (who is gay) dated a pre-op transsexual for a while, and I can assure you that he enjoyed the boobies as much as I (who am straight) do in my relationships.
posted by clevershark at 11:33 AM on May 2, 2005

heatherann, oops, yeah, it should be like Hercules. I was reading it outside the context, damned context!!!!!

At least it didn't get written as tasticles.
posted by fenriq at 11:33 AM on May 2, 2005

Yeah, that just dawned on me too. I think it's meant to be pronounced "testa-clees".

Now I'm picturing Eddie Murphy as the old woman in The Crumps, only she's not saying "Herk-a-lees! Herk-a-less!" anymore.

Actually my brother (who is gay) dated a pre-op transsexual for a while, and I can assure you that he enjoyed the boobies as much as I (who am straight) do in my relationships.

a) those weren't real boobies. and b) if he's looking for boobies and he's gay, somebody gave him bad directions, or perhaps he's actually somewhat bi.
posted by jonmc at 11:38 AM on May 2, 2005

Wow, the subversive genius of this has opened my eyes and caused me renounce my evil feminism and other liberal impulses. Thank you, College Republicans. Thank you.
posted by dame at 11:46 AM on May 2, 2005

I have often wondered what the response would be to the penis monologue. Or for instance a man saying something like, "Hey i have a right to check out your ass, im a male. I mean sure you hvae a right to get all pissy about it and slap me, but i mean come on you're a female."

Where's my bloody gender equality..... also AlexReynolds as a white kid who got fucked by affirmitive action when it came time to apply for schools, I personally could give a damn if it went by the wayside. I support intigration, but my school is training the next generation of indian and chinese doctors/scientists.

The theory is that there is a high rate of foreign students who choose to live in the US. But, as far as i have been able to discern thats a dirty lie, and as a tax payer i cringe over that reality. Because, they are most certainly getting some sweet scholarships and other such hookups on my dime.

spellcheck seems busted, posting anyway.
posted by sourbrew at 2:18 PM on May 2, 2005

Must. . not. . .let. . .women. . .organzize. . .

must. . .stick. . .dick. . . in. . . pussy. . .balance. . .equilibrium. . .must mjjdsgender dpoka fkdaovfa..............
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 2:38 PM on May 2, 2005

Two participating students, Monique Stuart and Andy Mainiero, have just received sharp letters of reprimand and have been placed on probation by the Office of Judicial Affairs. The costume of the P-Day “mascot” — a friendly looking “penis” named Testaclese, has been confiscated and is under lock and key in the office of the assistant dean of student affairs, John King.

This is truly disgusting. Under what authority does a college confiscate a student's -- or anybody's -- property?

How the hell do they justify putting students on probation for speaking their minds?

What was the point of Berkeley Free Speech Movement if only the "free speech" in support of officially sanctioned idea is protected?

This makes a mockery of Academic Freedom. I'm no College Republican, but that doesn't matter -- free speech shouldn't be constrained based on what I -- or some college dean -- believes.
posted by orthogonality at 2:38 PM on May 2, 2005

RWU is lame. They're just ripping of the RISD hockey teams' mascot, scrotie. *sigh*
posted by atom128 at 2:42 PM on May 2, 2005

jonmc writes " a) those weren't real boobies."

That's some shocking insight you have there, I never would have guessed :-)

Well, he did mention that talking about that relationship earned him scorn from some of his gay acquaintances... which, I guess, goes to show that just because someone is part of a marginalized group, doesn't mean that he or she is any more accepting of others than anyone else.
posted by clevershark at 2:43 PM on May 2, 2005

This makes a mockery of Academic Freedom

Amen. I think the adminstration made this group's point for them by confiscating the costume. A 40' inflatable vagina is okay, a 6' walkng penis is not? One can argue that neither are happy, but both were making legitimate points and suppressing one group but not the other draws into question the university's commitment to free and open dialogue.

The Free Speech movement is about unpopular speech. That's the entire point.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 2:45 PM on May 2, 2005

I love that the leftists who run higher education are so predictably provoked. It's like deep down they know how ridiculously wrong they are and are too tormented by it to tolerate any reminders.
posted by MattD at 2:52 PM on May 2, 2005

placed on probation by the Office of Judicial Affairs

How... ironic. Thanks, OJA, for making their friggin' point.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 2:52 PM on May 2, 2005

This looks like yet another case of some moron in a school's administration committee making martyrs out of jokers. This is the sort of thing that makes me glad I left the US before fathering children...
posted by clevershark at 2:53 PM on May 2, 2005

I love that the leftists who run higher education are so predictably provoked. It's like deep down they know how ridiculously wrong they are and are too tormented by it to tolerate any reminders.

Reminds me of some other people I could mention...
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:56 PM on May 2, 2005

Yeah, this has pretty much absolutely nothing to do with free speech. This is just stupid trolling. Colleges are private institutions. They're not the government.

And picking on women, while a favorite Republican past time, is pretty lame. I liked it better when they went after the Blacks and the Jews. It seems there was just something more *sincere* about such demonstrations.
posted by nixerman at 3:02 PM on May 2, 2005

I think it's a vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, orthogonality.

The College Republicans "subvert the norm," the Dean, a conservative (as high ranking officials at Universities tend to be), "admonishes them," somebody leaks it to the AP and what do you know, Bill O'Reilly's got his "Talking Points" for the next three weeks.

Seriously, though, I understand what these kids are doing and fully support their right to do it but is there any real sort of demand for Penis Monologues? For a P-Day? I mean, I hate the Vagina Monologues as much as the next guy, but, you know, at least it's sincere.
posted by StopMakingSense at 3:03 PM on May 2, 2005

I'm not going to bite at MattD's condemnation of "leftist administrators", but I gotta admit, it was a similar situation to this that made me lose a lot of faith in the "movement" that seemed to be arising in the Pacific Northwest after the WTO protests.

I was up in Portland at the time, at Lewis and Clark, and was part of a ridiculously bad video production group called LCTV. All the student media kids decided to run for office, and I may have singlehandedly ruined our chances of winning for pissing off the Womyn's Vote. How was I to know that calling for a Gender Center as opposed to a Womyn's Center was counter-revolutionary. Of course, after this run in, it was war.

Shortly thereafter, we staged the Penis Soliquys out of the newly founded "Penys Center". Nothing better than Darth Vader (who, though not quite Testacles, is a bit of a Phallic hero himself) letting the unwashed masses know that "This is how I learned to love my Penis."

But seriously, it's this sort of thing that really does alienate the majority of the country. When we are so concerned with being PC that we forget that college kids are by nature crude and ridiculous, we become exactly the closeminded fools that the conservatives accuse us of being.
posted by dj_fraudulent at 3:04 PM on May 2, 2005

Hmm. The Young Repubs. around here have been staging a different kind of penis show . . .
posted by washburn at 3:06 PM on May 2, 2005

And picking on women, while a favorite Republican past time, is pretty lame

How is this picking on women? It's either saying "I love my penis too", or "the whole concept of v-day is stupid." Neither is "picking on women", but rather picking on a political message that is being promoted primarily by women. Interesting, it seems the main organizer behind this is female.

Colleges are private institutions. They're not the government.

When they recieve federal support they become agents of the government. Further, universities should be places for free and open dialogue, regardless of whehter the 1st Amendment formally applies or not. I mean, of all places a college should be a place where people of all viewpoints can speak their mind. Even if the university weren't subject to the 1st Amendment I would still hope that they would allow unpopular viewpoints to be voiced.

That's what the Free Speech Movement was all about.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 3:07 PM on May 2, 2005

When they recieve federal support they become agents of the government.
So why are our corporations not in the same boat, dependent as they are on the continual intervention of the Fed?

That's an existential "why," I know the legal justifications.
posted by sonofsamiam at 3:09 PM on May 2, 2005

dj_fraudulent, this has nothing to do with being PC. This has to do with one group mocking and trying to undermine another group. The "anti-PC" people aren't interested in free speech or open discussion or anything of the such. All they want is a cover for their biases and prejudices. It's a cowardly way to maintain a position without having to defend it. So, yes, you can try to pin this on "PC hysteria" or you can ask what the real motivations were behind P-Day.
posted by nixerman at 3:11 PM on May 2, 2005

"I support intigration, but my school is training the next generation of indian and chinese doctors/scientists."

That has nothing to do with Affirmative Action, which in this country is for Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and genders. (For the last it can be either gender - girls get into MIT easy and cheap, guys get into nursing school easy and cheap.) The Indians and Asians don't get Affirmative Action.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 3:13 PM on May 2, 2005

It's a cowardly way to maintain a position without having to defend it.

Or it's a way to point out how ridiculous another position is by showing the absurdity of its natural counterpart.

All they want is a cover for their biases and prejudices.

How is it not equally biased and prejudiced of you to assume that's what their motivation is without learning more? Assuming that your ideological opponents are bigoted is just as much of a prejudice as anything else.

you can try to pin this on "PC hysteria"

So you're saying that the students should be on probation and the administration was right to confiscate the costume because you think they were making an ineffective protest? Because parodying another group is criminal conduct? This is exactly why free speech is not about content, it's about the concept of speech.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 3:15 PM on May 2, 2005

Anyone notice the hand symbol? Just wondering.
posted by elwoodwiles at 3:15 PM on May 2, 2005

Anyone notice the hand symbol? Just wondering.

I'm shocked.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 3:16 PM on May 2, 2005

thank you devildancedlightly... exactly what i was about to say, but better worded.
posted by dj_fraudulent at 3:17 PM on May 2, 2005

girls get into MIT easy and cheap

Um, no. MIT admissions does employ some affirmative action for underrepresented minorities, but not women. (Third paragraph of this Tech story.) As for affirmative action for men, it's not just nursing - some prestigious liberal arts colleges have admitted to preferring male applicants to create a balanced class (I can't find the story I read about this.)
posted by transona5 at 3:21 PM on May 2, 2005

thedevildancedlightly, so what is the political message behind V-Day?

Glancing at the About VDay I see no overtly political message.

Why do you say it's promoted primarily by women? Source?

I guess I'd also want to know why would women promote such an insidious movement. Is this like the Republicans and Terry Schiavo? Do you think this is all a ploy of Hillary to bank higher poll numbers?

Try as you might, this was no grand political gesture or stand for anything. It was a group of men who saw and leaped at the chance to mock and insult women. Not classy at all and extremely unoriginal.
posted by nixerman at 3:22 PM on May 2, 2005

I always that that male applicants were preferred at all American universities because the numbers have always been so off-balance in terms of male/female ratios?
posted by StopMakingSense at 3:24 PM on May 2, 2005

I'm still not clear why the costume was confiscated and the participants reprimanded - it appears to be because they embarassed the university provost with the penis award?

Rule #1: Don't embarass the faculty.
posted by theorique at 3:26 PM on May 2, 2005

thedevildancedlightly, again, this isn't a free speech issue, this is a policy of a private institution.

"Criminal conduct" is just stupid hyperbole. These kids weren't arrested or treated as criminals. It's a shame because such bad "satire" should be criminal.

You can continue to tbang the free speech drum but until these kids are looking at hard time or exile I don't think it'll fly with most reasonable people. If they feel so strongly about their penises then let them go to another more penis-friendly school.

As for their "real" motivations, I think it's been spelled out clearly. It's not exactly subtle.
posted by nixerman at 3:29 PM on May 2, 2005

MIT Common Data Set, Admissions to the class of 2007

"Total first-time, first-year (freshman) men who applied 7651
Total first-time, first-year (freshman) women who applied 2898

Total first-time, first-year (freshman) men who were admitted 885
Total first-time, first-year (freshman) women who were admitted 850 "
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 3:29 PM on May 2, 2005

Try as you might, this was no grand political gesture or stand for anything. It was a group of men who saw and leaped at the chance to mock and insult women. Not classy at all and extremely unoriginal.

Uh, I don't see how this circus mocks or insults women. It parodies the Vagina Monologues, a play about women's issues, by depicting a parallel 'male' version. Silly, immature, and coupled with a political agenda, perhaps, but hardly insulting.
posted by theorique at 3:31 PM on May 2, 2005

Why do you say it's promoted primarily by women?

V-day? Personal observation at my local vagina monologues on two differnet college campuses on both coasts of the US.

P-day? Because "Monique Summers" is a name generally used by women.

Glancing at the About VDay I see no overtly political message

It's not "overtly political" as in "vote for candidate X", but it promotes a set of socail values and advocates for societal change. For example, to "stop rape" is a goal. I don't think anybody on this site is pro-rape, but I think there is room for disagreement about the means to achieve that goal. Higher penalties? More suspicion of men at parties? Chemical castration of sex offenders? Those sorts of things. Even if you get beyond that the very idea of a day for genital self-examination is a social goal that can be questioned.

to mock and insult women

How is this mocking and insulting women? "Take your smelly cunts somewhere else" or "Get back in the kitchen" is mocking and insulting women. A counterpart to v-day is questioning the presmise of a day dedicated to gential self-examination. Unless you assume that v-day represents all women and that the identity of all women is inherently connected to a day of genital self-examination then this is just mocking the movement of v-day. Are you saying that just because a group is connected to a movement means that I can't question it? Would you prohibit a group putting up signs protesting abortion because that would be insulting to women?
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 3:35 PM on May 2, 2005

this isn't a free speech issue, this is a policy of a private institution.

I can concede that it doesn't have to be a First Amendment issue, but it is still an important free speech issue. Are you saying that we shouldn't comment on Bob Jones University prohibiting interracial dating because it's a private institution? They may have the legal right to do whatever the hell they want, but it is our obligation to comment and criticize.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 3:38 PM on May 2, 2005

Look, though I'm all for cunt-love, I think the Vag Monologues are kinda dumb if useful for some women. That said, if you can't see the difference between the ways cunts and dicks are considered and represented and how that would create different interpretations of V-Day and P-Day, then you're even stupider than I suspect.

If this were a question of wanting to discuss gender and how men are just as trapped in gender assumptions (even if they are nicer ones) or a question of wanting to celebrate Genital Day, then great. I bet a lot of feminists would have been down. But it was a bunch of idiots stirring shit. So stop being so fucking disingenuous already.
posted by dame at 3:47 PM on May 2, 2005

MIT Common Data Set, Admissions to the class of 2007

...

That in itself doesn't show that MIT has an admissions affirmative action policy for women. There are a number of reasons that there might be many more male applicants but only slightly more male admitted students. Women tend to be less confident in their abilities and might only apply somewhere like MIT if they're really certain that they're good enough. The classic absentminded genius type - who might do well at MIT but wouldn't be admitted due to bad high school grades - might also be more likely to be male.
posted by transona5 at 3:54 PM on May 2, 2005

hehe...too many unintentional puns...must resist...

*head asplodes*

On a more serious note, I helped some friends organize a V-day event when I was in college. I participated in a parody of V-day as well. I guess i just don't see the big deal here...
If women get a whole event dedicated to the V, why can't men have an event dedicated to the P (especially when it is as laughable as this)?

Nice DP, LilBucner and Devildancedlightly.
posted by schyler523 at 3:56 PM on May 2, 2005

I guess college republicans are given to this kind of stunt - outrageous, perverse, and occasionally worth noting. At UCLA they staged an affirmative action bake sale where different races paid different amounts for cookies and such. Some idiot actually attacked them and tore down their sign - so much for equal opportunity. I thought it was an interesting if rather simplistic way of demonstrating their position, but obviously some people thought it was a goddamn abomination. There were "Viewpoint" articles about it for weeks.

BlackLeotardFront, the *exact* same thing happened at NYU this semester. Lots of drama ensued.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 4:04 PM on May 2, 2005 [1 favorite]

schyler523, perhaps you didn't see dame's comment?

Look, though I'm all for cunt-love, I think the Vag Monologues are kinda dumb if useful for some women. That said, if you can't see the difference between the ways cunts and dicks are considered and represented and how that would create different interpretations of V-Day and P-Day, then you're even stupider than I suspect.

If this were a question of wanting to discuss gender and how men are just as trapped in gender assumptions (even if they are nicer ones) or a question of wanting to celebrate Genital Day, then great. I bet a lot of feminists would have been down. But it was a bunch of idiots stirring shit. So stop being so fucking disingenuous already.

Spot on, dame.
posted by Specklet at 4:04 PM on May 2, 2005

"Hey daddy, if they have mother's day, and fathers day, why don't they have a kids' day???!!"

"Because every day is kids' day."

Some kids never learn, apparently.
posted by Space Coyote at 4:10 PM on May 2, 2005

I love the "My Penis is" series.
posted by LarryC at 4:11 PM on May 2, 2005

They're just ripping of the RISD hockey teams' mascot, scrotie. *sigh*

Go Nads!
posted by notclosed at 4:19 PM on May 2, 2005

hmm...i guess i read that differently...apparently I'm even dumber than dame expected. But my knuckledragging aside, these sort of pranks are exactly the sort of things me and my radical friends did in college. Everything was ripe for parody...if you can't laugh at inflatable genitals, then i don't want you as a friend (though you probably don't care much for irreverent ol' me.)
posted by schyler523 at 4:26 PM on May 2, 2005

It's a shame the university is disciplining the students, if only because it lends legitimacy to their fucking stupid behavior.

We had an Affirmative Action bake sale as well. College Republicans. *sigh*
posted by scarymonsterrrr at 4:27 PM on May 2, 2005

that v-day stuff is annoying as hell (in particular the "vagina warrior" pamphlet passed out at the event i had the misfortune of attending) and deserves some level of japery directed at it, but still... these guys/gals are unfunny jackasses, and not simply because they're republican (tho the two go hand in hand more frequently than not).

the idea of a p-day in a phallocentric society such as ours is absurd, even in hamfisted jest. it's the same old saw trotted out by the sort of douchebags that complain about affirmative action and their inability to publicly celebrate their "white heritage."

really, the v-day people are so over the top they're beyond satire, and woe to those that try. kind of like the administration.
posted by Hat Maui at 4:28 PM on May 2, 2005

Wow, on refresh, what Hat Maui said.
posted by scarymonsterrrr at 4:36 PM on May 2, 2005

the idea of a p-day in a phallocentric society such as ours is absurd

Exactly, but does that justify probation and confiscation? They may be stupid and childish, but should that give the university the power to restrict their speech? You can disagree with it all you want, but should they be forbidden from making their protest?

They may be immature, stupid, etc, but limiting speech should take more than being childish. Who doesn't love a walking penis to brighten their day?
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 4:47 PM on May 2, 2005

What disgusts me is that all-American, apolitical frat humor in the grand, beautiful tradition of Animal House has suddenly become all wrapped up in partisanship.

Can't someone be a crazy, crude motherfucker without getting into some sort of radical stance these days? I guess that the same crazy bastards who would have just not given a shit about politics have now been roped into the Young Republican axis simply because they're more credible assholes these days (just as, I imagine, many people got into the leftwing stuff in the Sixties because it was goddamn funny and berserk back then.)

Take back college humor!
posted by perianwyr at 4:48 PM on May 2, 2005

Did anyone else notice the P-mascot's fingers? He's flashing the shocker.
posted by bugmuncher at 5:13 PM on May 2, 2005

ddl, no, i don't think the university is in any way justified in what it did -- thus my comment: really, the v-day people are so over the top they're beyond satire, and woe to those that try. kind of like the administration.

just as i didn't think he administration at my college was justified in stymie-ing my attempt to start the campus crusade for satan in response to all the annoying campus crusade for christ table tents i had to look at every day at lunch.
posted by Hat Maui at 5:14 PM on May 2, 2005

MetaFilter: Don't embarrass the faculty.

MetaFilter: I'm all for cunt-love.

MetaFilter: Every day is kids' day.

MetaFilter: Take back college humor!

MetaFilter: Notice the hand symbol.

This stuff just writes itself today ...
posted by LilBucner at 5:20 PM on May 2, 2005

I've seen College Republicans act like dicks, but until now I've never seen any that felt they needed a costume for it.
posted by jonp72 at 5:25 PM on May 2, 2005

Hmmmm. Another backlash ambush succeeds.

There is a difference between the dickheads and the vagina warriors -- and it goes right to the heart of free speech law as it plays out in schools.

The concave advocates were engaging in speech -- in that their content was directly linked to their viewpoint.

While the convex kiddies were engaged in conduct -- shit stirring for the sake of being disruptive. Their only viewpoint seems to be the suppression of anyone different from them. And they are very careful not to enunciate that viewpoint.

It's not that different from when racists play the "we're diversity too" card. The sad thing is most people don't see the fallacy and then we end up with situations like this.

It's all about beliefs. And I believe I'll have another drink.

What tools these mortals be.
posted by warbaby at 5:29 PM on May 2, 2005

warbaby writes "The concave advocates were engaging in speech -- in that their content was directly linked to their viewpoint. While the convex kiddies were engaged in conduct -- shit stirring for the sake of being disruptive. Their only viewpoint seems to be the suppression of anyone different from them. And they are very careful not to enunciate that viewpoint."

Both were using props to make a point.

Even if we stipulate that the Republicans' p[point was a meta-point, namely, "we want to point out that the Vagina Monologists' point is silly", it's still two groups using props to make points.

Much more "disruptive" is allowing any authority to say "only some points are allowed to be made".

Forty years ago, the college administration would have said that the vagina warriors' point shouldn't be made, or the point of the anti-war protesters, or the point of the civil rights activists. Be careful when you wish to suppress speech you don't agree with -- because sooner or later it'll be your side in the suppressed minority.
posted by orthogonality at 5:42 PM on May 2, 2005

it's the same old saw trotted out by the sort of douchebags that complain about affirmative action and their inability to publicly celebrate their "white heritage."

As someone who 1) is frequently considered part of a "racial minority" because of my multiethnic parentage and 2) is sick of letting the race checkboxes play a role in opportunities afforded to me, I proudly claim my title of "douchebag".

While the convex kiddies were engaged in conduct -- shit stirring for the sake of being disruptive. Their only viewpoint seems to be the suppression of anyone different from them. And they are very careful not to enunciate that viewpoint.

I don't think speech in opposition to other speech is necessarily suppressive. I think you're right about the "shit-stirring, though. Unpopular speech often results in fecoagitation.
posted by bugmuncher at 5:49 PM on May 2, 2005

...oops. I meant that you're right that it is shit-stirring. Not that it was necessarily for being disruptive. It depends really on what you consider disruptive.
posted by bugmuncher at 5:51 PM on May 2, 2005

Wow, the subversive genius of this has opened my eyes and caused me renounce my evil feminism and other liberal impulses. Thank you, College Republicans. Thank you.

Oh, come on. Regardless of the intentions of these people, what I took away from this was a neccessary antitode to the overblown Mystical Wisdom Of The Bearded Clam claptrap that we've been hearing nonstop since the Ensler play came out.

The original aim of the play, to demysify tfemale genitalia and sexuality, was a noble one, but the what people have taken away from it was wrongheaded. The best way to do it was this: this is a vagina, every fucking mammal has one, get over it. Instead, we've got a generation who think that the pusy is some kind of magical device (and belive me college age males already knew that, they spend 90% of their time chasing it.)

All kidding aside, there've been better male-oriented responses to TVM, in book form that demysify the male genitalia without any misogyny.

But anyone with any knowledge of the satirical and contrarian impulse in humans should've seen this coming.
posted by jonmc at 5:54 PM on May 2, 2005

Actually orthogonality, that is the point. As a private institution the college has the right to supress most any speech it wants. There's no way around this and it's generally a good thing. Crying that the suppression of any and all speech is a moot point. You'll be sad to know that colleges supress such speech every single day. (Heck, I had a professor physically throw me out of class. I still despise him and despise Plato!)

You could make the moral argument that the college suppressing these dickheads is some how morally wrong and violates the college's mission--but you'd just look stupid. I doubt even thedevildancedlightly is prepared to offer a moral defense for these idiots.

So again, this boils down to one group deciding to mock and insult a minority and the college rightfully disallowing this. There's no doubt that if these guys wanted to raise serious questions about V-Day (and again, what questions?) the college would've let them or if they'd decided on a more inspired prank there'd be no complaints. Instead these guys wanted publicity and the college happily obliged.
posted by nixerman at 5:55 PM on May 2, 2005

That said, if you can't see the difference between the ways cunts and dicks are considered and represented and how that would create different interpretations of V-Day and P-Day, then you're even stupider than I suspect.

True enough, but neither cunts nor dicks are ever cnsidered...honestly, as in what's it like to have one, too often it's caught up in power fantasy or mystical gobbledygook.

So again, this boils down to one group deciding to mock and insult a minority

Women, though they have a history of oppression, are not a numerical minority. And anyway, I refuse to treat them like china dolls or handicapped infants. Part of equality is taking your lumps and mockery like evryone else. Work out your guilt over having a penis elsewhere.
posted by jonmc at 5:58 PM on May 2, 2005

jonmc writes " Instead, we've got a generation who think that the pusy is some kind of magical device"

It IS a magical device! Look what ridiculous hoops we straight guys go through in order to get to play with one!
posted by clevershark at 6:01 PM on May 2, 2005

I kinda said as much later in my comment*, clevershark, but think of think of how much less fraught relations between men and women would be if both the cock and the ussy were demystified of all forms of claptrap, once and for all.

*(the old joke goes "man emegres into the world from between a womans legs and spends the rest of his life trying to get back in..hawhawhaw")
posted by jonmc at 6:06 PM on May 2, 2005

I like boobs.

That is all
posted by delmoi at 6:24 PM on May 2, 2005

you are good American, delmoi.
posted by jonmc at 6:26 PM on May 2, 2005

No one has convinced me yet that this is not hilarious.

Yes, it's retrograde, but that is what makes it hilarious.

This is also what college is for.
posted by perianwyr at 6:32 PM on May 2, 2005

Ortho: yup, they were using props. That's not really important to the free speech argument.

I've been through a variety of free speech fights with various nazis, racists, Indian-haters, anti-semites, fascists and holocaust deniers on the other side. And the right-wing tactic of laying a free-speech ambush is old hat and can be fought successfully along the lines I've described.

You see, the root of it is the Penis people really aren't engaging in free speech; they are suppressing opinions they disagree with. It really isn't any different from heckling, shouting people down or throwing a tear gas grenade into a meeting hall.

I suppose you could claim that was "speech" using props. You'd be wrong.
posted by warbaby at 6:37 PM on May 2, 2005

It really isn't any different from heckling, shouting people down or throwing a tear gas grenade into a meeting hall.

And I've read plenty of leftists bragging about how they've shouted down right wing speakers. Don't pretend that your arguments are about anything other than silencing what you don't like. I don't neccessarily like them either, but suppression never works and only reveals the suppressor as a paranoid.
posted by jonmc at 6:41 PM on May 2, 2005

"Yeah, this has pretty much absolutely nothing to do with free speech. This is just stupid trolling. Colleges are private institutions. They're not the government."


I think that looking at this from a free speech viewpoint is wrong - it's not about the fact that penis would be supressed, I think it's like most college republican stunts -> doing a stupid stunt that will get talked about.
Just look at the linked editorials, the idea isn't about the penis being captured, it's just to do something stupid and funny that will be a catalyst to make other people bring it up.

I mean I don't know if you notice this effect - but issues tend to be ignored until something brings it up, and I've heard that the vagina monologues are pretty anti-male, although I haven't yet read them myself.
I myself have huge amounts of guilt about my sex drive because of femnism anyway so I think that it's an issue that should be talked about.
posted by klik99 at 6:48 PM on May 2, 2005

I myself have huge amounts of guilt about my sex drive because of femnism anyway

Misplaced guilt, man. You're a young male, you're supposed to have a healthy sex drive. 90% of college "activism," is goldfish swallowing anyway, that gets abandoned as soon as they graduate and become yuppies of one variety or another, so it's not worth tying yourself in knots over.
posted by jonmc at 6:53 PM on May 2, 2005

Nixerman - I fail to see how this is outright misogamy. Beyond that, grow a pair man. Sure its a little more in your face, but men have been increasingly emasculated over the last 20 years. There had to be some sort of male reaction to the destruction of our classical position in society, and this is the predictably juvenile reaction of some college kids.

Now before anyone gets their panties in a bunch about the male "classical" position, what i mean is that men are more and more frequently having the position of what is appropriate action for males refined and reduced whilst women have the exact opposite happening. Male strippers have become symbols of a womans right to experience her sexuality in new ways, while female strippers are still just whores and destructive to women's credibility... i could put more effort into this, but no.... There is little to be gained arguing here, vagsepratists are every bit as vociferous as the penial lobby, just with 9 times the credibility for whatever reason these days.
posted by sourbrew at 6:56 PM on May 2, 2005

nixerman: So again, this boils down to one group deciding to mock and insult a minority and the college rightfully disallowing this.

And who's the minority in all of this? Women are actually a majority, numerically speaking.

Granted, the 'speech' that these yahoos are practicing is not be serious, or intellectual. It is grounded in reactionary impulses and intended largely for shit-disturbing.

However, their speech was not hateful or angry. It did not promote violence. The worst you could say about it was that it was immature and obnoxious, and that's hardly anything new or actionable on a college campus.

nixerman: There's no doubt that if these guys wanted to raise serious questions about V-Day (and again, what questions?) the college would've let them or if they'd decided on a more inspired prank there'd be no complaints.

It's not the college's business to let people speak. Speech is free unless otherwise stated (e.g. violence, incitement, etc.). It doesn't have to be serious questions, either - no one's stopping people from standing in the town square spouting gibberish (but no one has to listen either).

I maintain that the only reason these guys got themselves banned is because they publicly embarassed the provost of the university. If they hadn't given him their "Penis Award" or whatever, then he wouldn't have had any reason for his ill-conceived knee-jerk reaction.

In the conservative narrative, the provost set himself up to look like a stereotypical hypersensitive liberal whiner (probably not the case at all) and the College Republicans got to pretend to be all oppressed.
posted by theorique at 7:00 PM on May 2, 2005

And I've read plenty of leftists bragging about how they've shouted down right wing speakers.

citations, please.

anyone else notice that aside from the odd lucid comment, jonmc seems wasted?

the ol' monday night "get sloppy and post," jon? someone better call chicobangs.

see my examples below, lifted directly from the master's musings...

but the what people

are ever cnsidered

this is a vagina, every fucking mammal has one

the pusy

the ussy

to demysify tfemale

man emegres
posted by Hat Maui at 7:03 PM on May 2, 2005

hat maui, when I want your opinion on my personal habits, I'll ask you for it, Dear Abby, and keep my friend chico out of it. I type fast, so I make spelling mistakes, if you feel that gives you a license to disregard what I say, that's your fucking prerogative.
posted by jonmc at 7:07 PM on May 2, 2005

Actually, jon, the best reason to disregard what you say is that you don't really seem to be reading the posts you compose your overly dramatic contrarian replies to.

But enough about you....
posted by warbaby at 7:14 PM on May 2, 2005

Sometimes warbaby, I'm being contrarian for the sake of playing devil's advocate or to puncture smugness, but I honestly happen to believe that you're full of shit.

But enough about you....

I din't make this about me, hat maui did.
posted by jonmc at 7:35 PM on May 2, 2005

warbaby, I was pretty much on board with what you were saying in past threads when you were talking about high schools. I think it's a legitimate argument that, in high school, those who aren't really expressing a point of view other than an unstated implication that everyone else should shut up and be beaten shouldn't necessarily be allowed to do or say whatever the heck they want, while they are in that high school setting.

This is not about high school anymore. This is college. These are adults. And, barring certain obvious exceptions (actual threats, etc.), they should be allowed to say whatever the heck they want, whether or not their message is meaningful, sensible, polite, or even extant.

Is what they're doing puerile? Sure. Does it carry any real message other than "we think those other people are stupid"? Nah. So what? Who cares? Why shouldn't they be able to say that? I'm agreeing with thedevildancedlightly, here ... whatever the actual legality of the situation, this *is* a free speech issue. Even if they are, in fact, trying to hide behind free speech issues to convey a message which has no content other than hate - it's *still* a free speech issue.

And frankly, if they were trying to stir up shit, I cannot understand why the most sensible response is not to ignore them completely, anyway. Shit has now been stirred.
posted by kyrademon at 10:25 AM on May 3, 2005

The fact that something is "offensive" is not a reason to ban it. Being offended on a daily basis is the price of living in a free society.
posted by LarryC at 10:37 AM on May 3, 2005

No, it's not a good reason to ban it. But being banned doesn't make the perpetrators of moronic stunts martyrs. Or better at satire. Or whatever.
posted by dame at 11:02 AM on May 3, 2005

I just want to say - I've been lurking on Metafilter for six years, and, reading through these comments, I was finally incensed enough with the chatter coming from some folks that I forked over my five dollars to activate my account.

And, just about at the exact moment I tried to log in, Metafilter went down, and continued to stay that way until sometime this afternoon.

Kismet!
posted by kbanas at 11:22 AM on May 3, 2005

Misplaced guilt, man. You're a young male, you're supposed to have a healthy sex drive.

Yeah, that's my point. But a lot of guys feel this way - feminism makes us feel like we're the bad guys and I don't think they even realize the effect they have on innocent people (innocent as in I've never thought of any violence towards anything that didn't deserve it, let alone sexual violence against women) or if they do realize the effect they think that men deserve it.
So then feminism is an issue that should be brought up - is it about equality or about anger? You're probably right in the point that for most people feminism is a phase of pissed off youth, so bringing up feminism in the context that it's not about equality its about superority should be brought up.
And that's what P-day at least attempts to do, I won't give my opinion on if it succeded or not.
posted by klik99 at 11:39 AM on May 3, 2005

Wait, why is this "satire"? This is retarded.
To put my positions out there before I start an argument: The proper response is not to let these whining right wingers play persecuted martyrs. The proper response would have been for the dean or the president of the university to call them morons.
That's it. Say something like, "Well, these guys obviously just discovered that they have penises, and now they're going around trying to stick them into things. It's a stupid stunt, funded by outsiders, but if we punished every stupid stunt funded by outsiders, we'd have no College Republicans left."
Or even just ask the "protesters" a couple of questions: What is it about the Vagina Monologues that bothers you? Have you seen it? Can you quote the parts that you don't like? Or is this all about getting your homoerotic kicks with some fellow tugjobs, under the banner of being pro-cock?

As for the claims that men have been emasculated, well, I guess that I just define my masculinity in a little bit different of a way, and don't really give a shit about whether you think that not being able to have your cock a-floppin' means you're being persecuted.

And finally, what the fuck is with the constant willful and spiteful ignorance with regard to gender and power structures? Women ARE a political minority, an economic minority and a power minority. This bullshit about having to celebrate the cock is just as retarded as the argument that I have to have "white pride." When women engage in the V-Day activities, it's as a conscious reaction against the prevailing societal images of vaginas. When men celebrate their cocks, it's from a position of power, and thus is not "empowering."
(And frankly, given my perceptions of the prejudices of College Republicans, if the LGTB Union had gotten involved with the cock worship, I bet it would have dried up really fast).

These douchebags deserve to be roundly mocked as mouth breathers and Aryan whiners, not censured by the school. But until school administrators are willing to cop to admitting morons to their schools, that's unlikely to happen.
posted by klangklangston at 11:48 AM on May 3, 2005

Klik99- That's dumb. I'm a feminist. I like sex. I treat women as equals, and that means they're equally interested in sex. Jesus, there've only been third-wave sex positive feminists for about 30 goddamn years now; you'd think that you would have gotten the message that women like sex too. What they don't like, generally, is being treated like they're only good for sex and food. It's almost like women want to be treated like human beings... I mean, I'm a guy and all, but that's what I've heard... That feminism means that women want to be treated equally... (I'm not sure where you guys are getting your views on feminism... Maybe you should check out the Dworkin thread a bit back...)
posted by klangklangston at 11:53 AM on May 3, 2005

klik99, I don't even know where to begin in telling you why I think you need to do a little research on what exactly the feminist movement is.

On preview, this is a good place to start:

And finally, what the fuck is with the constant willful and spiteful ignorance with regard to gender and power structures? Women ARE a political minority, an economic minority and a power minority. This bullshit about having to celebrate the cock is just as retarded as the argument that I have to have "white pride." When women engage in the V-Day activities, it's as a conscious reaction against the prevailing societal images of vaginas. When men celebrate their cocks, it's from a position of power, and thus is not "empowering."
posted by Specklet at 11:53 AM on May 3, 2005

This bullshit about having to celebrate the cock is just as retarded as the argument that I have to have "white pride."

You shouldn't feel guilt or shame about being white or male either. Nor should you fetishize the other, as so many proponents of "equality" do.

When women engage in the V-Day activities, it's as a conscious reaction against the prevailing societal images of vaginas.

Actually, it's merely silliness and kozmik hoo-ha, but ultimately harmless.
posted by jonmc at 11:53 AM on May 3, 2005

Well jonmc, you've just closed the book on feminism. Yeah, I gotta agree: it's all "silliness" and "hoo-ha." But it was a good racket while it lasted.

The sad thing about all this is really does emphasize the effectiveness of attacks like P-Day. It's why Rush Limbaugh is a multimillionaire. This sort of "humor" is just a cover, a way of hiding what is ultimately the same old mix of prejudice and resentment. And then, as usual, when they get called on it and are asked to defend these opinions they cry that political correctness has gone too far. People never really change.
posted by nixerman at 12:21 PM on May 3, 2005

There’s kind of a dichotomy here, actually, in terms of prevailing social attitudes.

There’s no doubt that we live in a relatively patriarchical society – this has begun to erode over the course of the last 50 (100?) years, but, in certain ways, it’s still absolutely true – if you look at the number of women who are CEOs at the top 100 Fortune 500 companies, for example, you’ll come up a little empty handed.

But, separate from that, and also at work here – and a second point I think ‘V-Day’ and other activities try to subvert is a cultural sense of ‘shame’ we feel about sex, and our sex organs, and sexual reproduction, and, well, yeah – the whole sheee-bang. THAT is something which I think attacks both men and women equally. Religion has a lot to do with perpetuating the idea that sex – and the vaginas and penises (penii?) that go along with it – are shameful – are bad. And all you have to do is look at the reaction to last year’s Super Bowl to see that it’s a social norm that’s very much locked into place. But it’s equal opportunity. It’s not like men are allowed to walk around with their pants down, but women are forced to cover their shameful bodies. It’s equal opportunity shame.. so, you know, while it may have been poorly executed (although I laughed), I think that, somewhere in there, no matter how lamely done, there may have been a.. (gasp).. valid point!
posted by kbanas at 12:26 PM on May 3, 2005

Well jonmc, you've just closed the book on feminism. Yeah, I gotta agree: it's all "silliness" and "hoo-ha." But it was a good racket while it lasted.

I didn't say feminism was hoo-hah, just the post-Ensler mysical vagina party stuff. Don't you have a lot of scraped knuckles from shoving words in my mouth, nix? Accepting women as equals does not mean I have to applaud something I see as stupid, simply because it comes from a woman, as a matter of fact, to do that would be patronizing and paternalistic, and thus sexist, as well, dont'cha think?
posted by jonmc at 12:35 PM on May 3, 2005

On review, what jonmc said.
posted by kbanas at 12:38 PM on May 3, 2005

A bit late in the thread, but on the homepage of the RWUCR there is a list of their complaints with the actual monolouges. It seems like they all took notes when they went (which is a bit weird). But, it also is further evidence that there was something approaching a rational message here.

Was looking to see what other shit-stirring they'd been invovled in.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 12:43 PM on May 3, 2005

Jonmc: I know, I know, you have this hobbyhorse that you've gotta ride. Where I tend to see appreciation for the other, you see fetishization. But that's neither here nor there.
It isn't "feeling shame" to realize the effects of the male gaze, or the normative positions of dominance. When you're a white male, you have an extra degree of freedom with regard to the stereotypes that you face. If you're poor, stupid and ugly, you're still seen as an individual by the majority of society, and not as a confirmation of stereotypes. And frankly, while my fat ass doesn't mind being objectified every now and then, there's a freedom in that not being normative either.
That's not something to be ashamed about, but rather something to be aware of. I don't feel that these dickcheeses are aware of it, or that if they were aware of it that they'd realize it's a social construction and not just "the way things are."
And that's why they're dumb, and should be called out.
posted by klangklangston at 12:46 PM on May 3, 2005

klangston, that comment wasn't directed at you. Although, I think any reasonable person would have to admit that there's plenty of people who do let their admiration, slide into fetishization.

To use something from my own life as an example, I love my Funkadelic records because I like the music, because it moves something within me as a human, not because it makes me think I'm tuning in on "the black experience." If I do learn something about black people from it, that's a nice bonus, but it's got to be about the music first. So, if I think that say, New Edition was nothing more than a shitty boy band, I'll say so, without granting their schlock any extra hip points for them being black. same goes for the Vagina Day stuff. I think it's silly. YMMV. But it dosen't make me some kind of reactionary misogynist for thinking so.

And you can call it a hobbyhorse if you want, but are you trying to tell me that you don't think a lot of (perhaps well-meaning) white males don't use blacks, women and gays as style and/or moral props rather than relate to them as *gasp* just humans.
posted by jonmc at 12:55 PM on May 3, 2005

It’s equal opportunity shame.. so, you know, while it may have been poorly executed (although I laughed), I think that, somewhere in there, no matter how lamely done, there may have been a.. (gasp).. valid point!

Noooo!

I mean, really. There's no small amount of juvenile silliness bound up in all of this.

'Hee, hee, the girls get to say vagina. That means that I can say penis. Penis, penis, penis. Cock. Balls. Cunt.'

That being said, this media circus still interrogates the power structure that exists within the university and society as a whole. We live in a society which is in the process of transformation from a highly patriarchal system to one which involves women in increasing ways.

The dominant paradigm, however, is profoundly sex-negative and this affects both men and women, though in different ways. We - men and women - are all taught by powerful forces within society to channel and control our sexuality and our sex organs in ways which support the dominant structures of power.

The church seeks to channel our sexuality into domesticated, procreative, and hence controllable, forms of expression; while the corporate world, through the power of advertising, seeks to populate the minds of citizens with their approved fantasy images in order to sell us things we don't need.
posted by theorique at 12:56 PM on May 3, 2005

I mean, really. There's no small amount of juvenile silliness bound up in all of this.

You say that like it's a bad thing.
posted by jonmc at 12:57 PM on May 3, 2005

I had a lot to say, but thedevildancedlightly already said almost all of it.

nixerman: don't give us that crap about the university being a private institution and therefore legally able to suppress free speech. We have as much right to judge the university for its immoral actions as you have to judge the College Republicans.
posted by grouse at 1:10 PM on May 3, 2005

Specklet
klangklangston

Well - I'll admit that the feminist movement has changed a lot, you're certainly right about the whole third-wave feminist thing. But this modern view of feminism is watered-down PC version of the original feminism - Talking about Dworkin what about these statements that all sexual intercourse is rape? That all sexual intercourse is an act of a man dehumanizing a woman? The idea that men and women should be seperated?
Ok so the first two are misattributed to Dworkin and the last one was another feminist (valeria something . .. ??) but read this dworkin work on intercourse.
It really seems to imply that pentration is an invasion of a woman's privacy. Only if the woman is complete control is it ok (I should point out that I've been too tired to have sex but if my girlfriend wants to, I give in and try my best, so is that an invasion of my privacy?) And being human, I get images of sex when I'm talking to a good looking woman which make me feel incredibly guilty.
Yet it's part of being human to have these urges. So feminism is dehumanizing.

So these days feminism doesn't really address the issue of sex. Because I don't think that you can discuss the politics of it, anyway.
posted by klik99 at 1:15 PM on May 3, 2005

anyway too - i was saying the p-day thing was good to bring up the issue of feminism - which would mean discussion, now while I think that feminism is dehumanizing to men, I also know that there is a lot of misinformation about feminism (such as the all sex is rape quote that I mentioned above) which could be cleared up in a discussion.

Although I have to say that the celebration of a penis is from a position of power is a good point.
posted by klik99 at 1:24 PM on May 3, 2005

me: I mean, really. There's no small amount of juvenile silliness bound up in all of this.

jonmc: You say that like it's a bad thing.

Hardly. There's a reason for the court jester - he's allowed to say the things no one else is supposed to say. Great job if you can get it.

klik99: but read this dworkin work on intercourse.

Andrea Dworkin was a rather sad, broken woman who overused hyperbole extrapolated a little too much from her own - admittedly terrifying - personal experience. To take her opinon on something as representative of what 'feminists' think is flawed.

It's sort of like reading Ann Coulter to find out what 'conservatives' think.

klik99: And being human, I get images of sex when I'm talking to a good looking woman which make me feel incredibly guilty.

Yet it's part of being human to have these urges. So feminism is dehumanizing.

Not part of my version feminism, thanks. Only the most twisted, sex-negative feminists would think ill of you for responding positively to the life-giving Goddess-energy contained in the woman in front of you.
posted by theorique at 1:50 PM on May 3, 2005

Wait- Their complaints are that it tries to make "cunt" a more popular word and that it places emphasis on women's ability to be sexual and intelligent? OH NOES!
If that page is the span of their complaints, then they're hypocritical douchebags of the first degree.
posted by klangklangston at 2:07 PM on May 3, 2005

Their complaints are that it tries to make "cunt" a more popular word and that it places emphasis on women's ability to be sexual and intelligent?

Did you even read the document? You can disagree with their complaints all you want, but they complain that (1) reducing a woman to her anatomy is silly and moves feminism backward 50 years, (2) campus-sponsored women's centers should be involved in treatment and counseling, not vagina monologues, (3) the play portrays statutory rape as acceptable, (4) the play does not achieve its stated objectives regarding domestic violence, (5) some less coherent criticisms about means, (6) the whole concept of v-day to replace the traditional concept of Valentine's Day is silly.

You're free to disagree with the above, but you have to at least acknowledge that's what they said. Pulling the "OH NOES!" snark makes you look like the hypocrite here in the middle of an otherwise very rational discussion.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 2:18 PM on May 3, 2005

theorique -> The reason why I was looking at Dworkin for feminism is because someone said that they didn't know where my ideas on feminism came from, maybe I should read Dworkin. So I was explaining that my views on what feminism is come from Dworkin.
Basically it isn't about what anybody's here take on feminism is - the idea is deconstruct what kind of feminism the vagina monologues subscribes to. But I've never read them before so I can't say much.
I did read this excerpt and it seems to be more than just reclaiming the vagina, but putting it on a higher level than the penis. Although it could be her way of saying "it has been on a higher level than the penis before, so why don't we just call it even right now".
It's easy to think that these movements are about equality, but so often it ends up being an attempt to overthrow rather than level the playing field. Maybe I'm cynical but the message in feminism doesn't seem to be to equalize.

Moreover I think the main reason that more men are in power is because men tend to be more aggressive and destructive and to be in power is to be aggresive and destructive. However, like most people, I live independently of politics and so don't feel "ruled" by men more than women. That's just a fact of life, and feminism (once again, real feminism not a watered down view of it) seems to me a call for women to be the same to men as they imagine men are to women.

Of course like I said I have lot of guilt about being a man, so effectivly I would call myself a unwitting feminist anyway.
posted by klik99 at 2:32 PM on May 3, 2005

Jon- When I listen to Parliment, it's because I want to tune into what doo-doo chasers think about the psychoalphadiscobetabioaquadooloops. Also, because my black neighbors think it's cool, and they've got awesome weed.

Klik- Watered-down view of the original feminism? What, you mean Mary Wollstoncraft's On The Rights of Women? Or do you mean Plato's gender-neutral Republic? Or are we talking Susan B. Anthony? I just want to know what you think you're talking about, so that I can properly imply that you're huffing gas with regard to your views on feminism.
Dworkin didn't say that all sex is rape, neither did McKinnon. That's something you could have learned through reading the death of Dworkin thread. I realize you say that they're misattributed, but you still seem to be treating them as feminist canon.
Reasonable people can differ on whether Dworkin's thesis (that sex that exists in the unexamined context of domination and submission cannot have proper consent granted) is true or not, and I happen to disagree with it, but it isn't "all sex is rape."
Recent feminism doesn't have anything to do with sex? Tell that to Poppy Z. Brite, Annie Sprinkle, or Bitch Magazine.

And so wait, you're thinking that feminism dehumanizes you because you feel guilty about wanting to fuck women? Man, that's got nothing to do with feminism. That's got to do with you being fucked up. The reason you "shouldn't" want to fuck other women is because you're in a relationship that precludes that. That same guilt could stem from Catholicism or crabs, man. It's got nothing to do with feminism "dehumanizing" you any more than when I feel guilty about wanting to choke the life out of the obnoxous sales guy in my office. It's an urge, and it's human, but I know that he doesn't really deserve to die... Damn you, ageism!
posted by klangklangston at 2:48 PM on May 3, 2005

klik99, I'm tearing my hair out.

But this modern view of feminism is watered-down PC version of the original feminism - Talking about Dworkin what about these statements that all sexual intercourse is rape?

What "modern view"? Feminism is a current movement.

So I was explaining that my views on what feminism is come from Dworkin.

Maybe I'm cynical but the message in feminism doesn't seem to be to equalize.

This is exactly my point: your views on feminism are sadly misinformed.

So these days feminism doesn't really address the issue of sex. Because I don't think that you can discuss the politics of it, anyway.

Ruh? Guh?

i was saying the p-day thing was good to bring up the issue of feminism - which would mean discussion

Please, tell me you do not seriously believe these people pulled this stunt in order to begin a discussion about feminism.

the idea is deconstruct what kind of feminism the vagina monologues subscribes to.

Is is?

Moreover I think the main reason that more men are in power is because men tend to be more aggressive and destructive and to be in power is to be aggresive and destructive. However, like most people, I live independently of politics and so don't feel "ruled" by men more than women. That's just a fact of life, and feminism (once again, real feminism not a watered down view of it) seems to me a call for women to be the same to men as they imagine men are to women.

I'm speechless. And I can't even start to formulize a reply to this: I've got an urgent meeting. Take it from me, you need to do some research on what feminism is.
posted by Specklet at 3:24 PM on May 3, 2005

Hardly. There's a reason for the court jester - he's allowed to say the things no one else is supposed to say. Great job if you can get it.

Well, the pay is lousy, but my fans treat me well.

Jon- When I listen to Parliment, it's because I want to tune into what doo-doo chasers think about the psychoalphadiscobetabioaquadooloops. Also, because my black neighbors think it's cool, and they've got awesome weed.

*puts glide in stride, dip in hip, steps aboard mothership*
posted by jonmc at 3:24 PM on May 3, 2005

Not to nitpick, but RWU is in Bristol, RI.

Not that it matters ... I don't like this whole P-day business, and it's a tiny-ass state, anyway.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 3:56 PM on May 3, 2005

Please, tell me you do not seriously believe these people pulled this stunt in order to begin a discussion about feminism.

yeah I do think that they did -> because it has already caused lots of editorials about the legitmacy of v-day. Obviously they would want a discussion in order to present their view, which is that v-day is not a step forward for feminism at all, but you should be happy to that it has allowed you to show your opinions on the matter.

But I also never said that I thought that any feminist of note said that all sex is rape. Though misinformation sometimes becomes part of what a movement is, in this case because unfounded rebuttals against feminism that claim they say all sex is rape are probably more welll known than the article that was misquoted from.

Also I think I made a mistake by referring to the general term "feminism". I was being vague. You must agree that there is no one unifying viewpoint for any movement or philosophy, but everyone has their own opinion on it. So I'm not attacking all feminists for saying that a lot of feminists use rhetoric to diminish men rather than diminish the myth of power and in doing so are (maybe unwittingly) promoting a pro-female society rather than an equal society, which has nothing to do with your own feminism.

Though I would like you to point out some writers who you think personify feminism as it is now, since Dworkin is apparently outdated.
posted by klik99 at 4:51 PM on May 3, 2005

From their complaints:

If feminists really want to empower women, they would refrain from showing them "The Vagina Monologues" and would instead sponsor forums teaching tested principles of hard work, discipline, and vigilance.

Vigilance?

Such scenes are only cheap pornographic displays.

You say that like it's a bad thing!
posted by Ptrin at 4:54 PM on May 3, 2005

The main problem with saying "feminists believe such and such" is that I swear they're worse than Calvinists at maintaining a unified front (I'm sure there's a better analogy out there somewhere, but I haven't found it).

Taken as a whole, feminists have claimed that sex is great and that sex is evil; they have claimed that we need to work towards equality and that we need to work towards a female-dominated society; they have claimed that men are all oppressors and that men are victims of gender roles as much as women are. I don't think any of these positions hold a position of orthodoxy over their opposites. This is why feminism as a word has become fairly useless.
posted by dagnyscott at 5:11 PM on May 3, 2005

Bah. Can we just say that some feminists want equality and believe in equality; others believe in female superiority and want equality; yet others believe in female superiority and feel that society should be structured so as to acknowledge that? (ok, a few might believe in male superiority and want equality out of principle -- but I have yet to meet any of these)

By the same token, can we accept that some men feel threatened by the female-superiority camp, while others feel threatened simply by the attempt to gain equal ground?

People who rail against "feminists" rub me the wrong way in the same fashion that women who rail against "men" rub me the wrong way. Only people who understand that you have more in common with some of your opposite-sex peers than you do with crazier members of your own sex find any place in my life.

Oh, and I thought that P-day was humorous (and insightful in a humorous way), but like any joke that requires you to laugh at yourself, it wasn't likely to be a hit.
posted by dreamsign at 7:46 PM on May 3, 2005

And by "some men" feeling threatened for A, and "some men" feeling threatened by B, I was in no way implying that that all men are threatened by the movement in some fashion.

Yikes, what is it about Metafilter that engenders the defensive ass-covering?
posted by dreamsign at 7:47 PM on May 3, 2005

Only people who understand that you have more in common with some of your opposite-sex peers than you do with crazier members of your own sex find any place in my life.

We have a winner! Some of the best connections of my life have happened because I realized that women could be a "man's man" as much as any man could.
posted by jonmc at 7:52 PM on May 3, 2005

thanks for the link to the RWUCR site, thedevildancedlightly.

Here's some of their other celebrations of free speech:

In early March ('03)we held an anti-anti-war rally to trounce the handful of people on campus gathering in protest to speak out against possible U.S. military action in Iraq. The opposition dwindled down to a mere two students, who acknowledged the superiority of our demonstration in terms of the number of participants, energy and enthusiasm, and spectacular signs designed and produced by our designer, James Soares. Humiliated by a crushing defeat, they slinked away, tails between their legs. Needless to say, after our military’s clear and swift victory overseas, we have not heard again from this misguided group of sorry petitioners.

These guys care about free speech the same way David Duke cares about diversity.
posted by warbaby at 8:04 PM on May 3, 2005

warbaby, since when does any band of zealots honestly give a shit about the free speech of their opposition?

The simple fact of the matter is, many of us give a shit about the free speech rights of everyone, because we realize that when somebody takes it upon themselves to decide who (no matter how loathesome they might be) has a right to speak their mind, then you gotta worry about whether they're going to come after you next. It's that fucking simple.
posted by jonmc at 8:32 PM on May 3, 2005

Here's some of their other celebrations of free speech

They saw that their political opponents were going to demonstrate, decided to exercise their free speech rights and counterdemonstrate. Seems perfectly legit.
posted by theorique at 9:24 PM on May 3, 2005

Hmmm. My point was and continues to be that these clowns are on the other side of the speech / conduct divide. In the example above, they are bragging about how their conduct successfully silenced opponents.

The penis trick was just a continuation of the same old shit.

I refuse to shed a tear because they suffered some logical consequences for their conduct. Shutting them down is a successful defense of free speech.

The "First Amendment fundamentalist" stance is seriously flawed and frequently abused. Likewise, the "free speech for our side" argument (which is what the College Republicans were playing) is equally nonsense.
posted by warbaby at 9:26 PM on May 3, 2005

Shutting them down is a successful defense of free speech.

I'm really having trouble thinking of a more Orwellian way to phrase that. The best I can come up with is "Forced silence is free speech, comrade."

how their conduct successfully silenced opponents

The counter-demonstration seems like nothing that doesn't happen every day. Group A and Group B both show up to protest. Group B has more members, is louder. Where's the "silencing their opponents?" They presented an opinion that you disagree with. To my knowledge they didn't remove signs from their oppponents, beat them physically, block people from seeing them, etc. They presented a position that you don't agree with. Where's the "silencing"?

The "First Amendment fundamentalist" stance is seriously flawed and frequently abused

So only speech you agree with? Can't be controversial? Can't present your opinion in a dramatic way? I hope to God that you're never in the minority and this comes back to haunt you.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 9:40 PM on May 3, 2005

I refuse to shed a tear because they suffered some logical consequences for their conduct. Shutting them down is a successful defense of free speech.

You know what, I've realized that you're right. All those activists at the Republican Convention got what they deserved. They were lucky to have been put in "Free Speech Pens" since they were clearly just out to stir up shit. Really, their controversial signs and stupid puppets should have been confiscated at the door. And if they'd dare counter-demonstrate at a pro-troop rally, then they're really trying to silence the other side and they deserve no protection.

Silence is speech, comrade.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 10:02 PM on May 3, 2005

Devildanced: Bullshit.
Let's read along, shall we?

In the first paragraph, the Vagina Monologues are mocked for asking questions like "What does a vagina smell like?" and "What would your vagina say in two words?" No criticism is given, aside from the questions being "mind-bending."
Second graph: Director is mocked for trying to remove the stigma from the word cunt. Criticism? "Can you picture a scenario involving a candlelight dinner in a quaint restaurant overlooking the Potomac River in which the guy takes his girlfriend’s hand, gazes into her eyes, and says, ‘honey, you’re such a cunt’. That’s not exactly recommended prose for scoring points in a relationship." Right. That's a legitimate complaint. 'I don't understand context, so trying to remove the stigma of 'cunt' is bad.'
Next complaint: That the play "lionizes" statutory rape. Well, first off, they misstate the age of the girl who was involved. It's 16 in the play that I've seen, not 13. And 16, in many states, is legal. Further, while they mention the statutory rape, they don't mention that the girl who this happens to was ACTUALLY RAPED by her step-father earlier, and this older woman makes her feel OK with her body again. So yeah, that complaint is a bit disingenuous.
The next paragraph is about how it's wrong to talk about menstrual cycles or six-year-olds having vaginas.
Then you've got a conservative promoting a book (who is, by the way, one of the sponsors of Penis Day), who says that "Our bodies are not ourselves." While this might be a decent argument against biological reductionism, it ignores that the prevelant social message is for women to deny having sexual urges altogether, or at least for their own pleasure. That's the closest you get to any of the points you imagined into this above.
Then, in the next paragraph, they argue that the play encourages sexual confusion, because a young woman has chosen a gender identity that is neither male nor female, which is, frankly, neither positive nor negative and also none of their business.
Then we get a couple graphs about how it uses "grizzly language," which seems to offend the delicate sensibilities of the chuckleheads behind "Testicles." Their views on whether or not this consoles victims of domestic violence would be a little more salient if these people had talked to women who were victims of domestic violence, dontcha think? Further, the idea that something dealing with female sexuality has to a) be all serious in order to achieve any good and b) never be profane, is an extreme example of the male gaze shaping their perceptions. This is about their bias, not the play.
The writer then concludes, based on no evidence, that young women are being somehow duped by radical feminists to think that they're helping domestic violence programs by, you know, donating money and seeing a play that deals with a broad set of themes.
So yeah, I read it. It was bullshit. OH NOES is totally appropriate. Maybe if it supported the points you think it was making, you'd have a stronger case. Until then, you're projecting an articulated view onto a bunch of jackasses who don't like women talking about their cunts.
posted by klangklangston at 9:01 PM on May 4, 2005

thedevildancedlightly, I don't get your point about the travesty of "free speech zones" at the Republican convention. I also don't understand why you are ascribing positions to me that I never had and never would take.

The college republicans were acting as an abusive majority. That's the foundation for my position. It's backed up by their own web site. If you think that isn't the case, fine. But don't go making up nonsense and claiming that's my position.

If push came to shove and you had to choose sides -- and I mean really choose sides with all the attendent risks of being on the losing side -- would you really ally yourself with the College Republicans?

I don't think you would. If I'm wrong about that, then I don't understand the position you are taking. I'm certain that you haven't understood mine.
posted by warbaby at 9:51 PM on May 4, 2005

thedevildancedlightly writes "All those activists at the Republican Convention got what they deserved. They were lucky to have been put in 'Free Speech Pens' since they were clearly just out to stir up shit."

Is he being sarcastic... is he not being sarcastic... only he knows for sure.
posted by clevershark at 9:33 AM on May 5, 2005

After reading klangklangston's cliffnotes, i agree these guiys were dicks, which was their point all along.

Just because these guys were dicks, doesn't mean that p-day has to be inherently misogynistic.
posted by schyler523 at 10:00 AM on May 5, 2005

What schyler523 said, with points to klangklangston for the cogent arguments.
posted by dreamsign at 9:24 PM on May 5, 2005