Frat email trains frosh on how to treat women

Edit: yes, this is from March. It is still relevant though, and it was news to me.

I just read the purest example of unbelievable fuckwittery that enablers of rape culture — the substrate of society that deals with everything to do with sex as a commodity and with women as objects and obstacles to that commodity who must be conquered or overcome — considers a “joke”. It’s this kind of pick-up artist bullshit that basically tells men in general that it’s perfectly acceptable to forget that women are people as long as you’re tricking as many of them to jump on your bone as humanly possible. Letting one another know who you banged is just good courtesy, so others know who pokes and who they don’t have to waste their time on. This is all need-to-know stuff if you’re a college freshman!

“By the end of this memo,” this douchebag exhorts, “you will not only gain a greater understanding of what it means to live, but you will have embraced a lifestyle.”

Oh, I’m sure I will.

However, in order for this to happen you first must know a couple key terms.

*grabs notepad, licks pen tip*

GO ONNNN.

Note: I will refer to females as “targets”. They aren’t actual people like us men. Consequently, giving them a certain name or distinction is pointless.

Aren’t… actual… people. Got it.

Pie: A target’s vagina. Some of you may have heard phrases such as, twat, cooter, muff, snatch, poontang, cock pocket, DNA dumpster, fun hatch, cock sock, the fish flap, spunk-pot, whisker biscuit, or the rarely used, wizard’s sleeve. All these terms are interchangeable and fine to use. However, for the purpose of this memo, I will refer to a target’s vagina as pie.

Gullet: Usually refers to a target’s mouth and throat. Most often pertains to a target’s throat capacity and it’s ability to gobble cock. If a target is known to have a good gullet, it can deep-throat dick extremely well. My advice is to seek out this target early in the night. Good Gullet Girls (GGG) are always scooped up well before last call.

Slow down there hoss, you’re going too fast! All those fancy acronyms have gotten my head all in a spin! Possibly because all my blood rushed to my penis when you said “gobble cock”.

Also, your’ inabil’ity to us’e apostroph’es is ab’horrent.

Good thing there’s ever so much more for us to point at and mock.

Hey misogynists and howler monkeys in the community, I’m doing you a favour by linking this. Go learn how we’re supposed to treat women. Don’t worry, some women have said there is no problem with sexism in our community, and some skeptical leaders think the complainers are just being divisive, so you can feel perfectly justified in learning from a True Cocksman in how to manipulate those dumb bitches in our community into sex. The email even helpfully includes a scale on which you can score your “targets” objectively, so as to be sure you’re not being subjective about your objectification!

Be sure not to miss this important rule, while you’re at it.

Additional Rules for a Cocksman

1.) Non-consent and rape are two different things. There is a fine line, so make sure not to cross it.

Seriously, you can’t make this bullshit up. Well, obviously you can, you just have to have absolutely no empathy for women is all.

Comments

  1. says

    I really think we should build giant roach motels, and slap some greek letters on the side. For bait there can be silhouettes of girls in the windows, basting crappy hip-hop and the smell of cheap beer.

  2. Captaintripps says

    I predict this will try to be excused by the old “it was a stupid joke taken out of context” canard…

  3. says

    Yeah, I saw that thing a long time ago. The racism is also noteworthy.

    When I saw it before, though, I recall thinking: are we quite sure this isn’t satire? I realize that there are a lot of men with this type of attitude towards women, and they tend to view us as something other than people, but they don’t actually put it into those words.

  4. says

    I’m certain the excuse-explanation is on the launch-pad and ready to go, three, two, one …

    “It’s a joke. I was only kidding! Sheesh! Don’t people have a sense of humor anymore?!”

    Because, you see, when you accidentally reveal too much of your inner misogynist, you need to be ready to tamp it back down and look all innocent-like. No doubt he’ll act all mock-offended, too.

  5. says

    Alyson: I admit there’s a possibility that it is satire. However, the end result is identical. If you can’t tell the difference between satire and genuine belief as far as the end result of your actions are concerned, does it really matter what your intent was?

  6. says

    Jason Thibeault – That’s what a poe is. The entire problem is satirising a group of people such as misogynists makes you sound like them.

    It’s the same rules that apply to creationism, it’s very hard to differentiate the Landover Baptist Church (Poe) or Christwire (also Poe) from real churches that believe in equally crazy things.

  7. Kimz says

    Hmm, so based on the final paragraph (stating that the e-mail shouldn’t be reproduced or allowed to move beyond the realm of a particular audience) the author clearly knew that the ‘humor’ of this article would be offensive to a non-specialized crowd.

    So the question is – was the point of the joke to make fun of the frat brother stereotype of misogynistic, rape-culture, neanderthals, or was the point of the joke the objectification of women?

    The first type of humor is nominally acceptable (in the same sort of a way that a Newfoundlander might do a Newfi impression and it would be funny because everyone in the room knows that the Newfoundlander != imbecile) Just because we can’t detect the joke doesn’t mean it’s not funny because it was ripped away from it’s intended audience and removed from context, and context matters.

    Or, was the humor in this to be found in the objectifying of women? (and it falls under the category of ‘funny because we think it’s true in some respects’). I strongly suspect (by the length of the diatribe) that this is more a case of the latter. The intended audience thinks it’s funny because of the objectification of women. In this case, I absolutely agree, it doesn’t matter that it’s a joke, and not what he actually believes, because it’s horrible.

  8. julian says

    Whatever happened to those douchebags? Last I heard the school was looking into the frat and had suspended it. (Which was the right move, imo.)

  9. kreativekaos says

    (Just for accuracy PZ, it’s more like euphemisms that he’s using, not acronyms. You know, in the interest of descriptive accuracy.
    Regardless, it’s still REALLY juvenile, middle school mentality.)

  10. Classical Cipher, Murmur Muris, OM says

    When I saw it before, though, I recall thinking: are we quite sure this isn’t satire? I realize that there are a lot of men with this type of attitude towards women, and they tend to view us as something other than people, but they don’t actually put it into those words.

    No, yes, they do. Many of them do. And really, only one of them needs to – then the rest can just “find it funny”.

  11. niftyatheist says

    Jason, your sarcastic humour at the expense of this freak is the only thing which allowed me to read about this without throwing up. I am the mother of two daughters attending college in the US (and one fine son also in college). Men like this frat boy deserve nothing but contemptuous ridicule (fine example above). Thanks.

  12. tort says

    He’s using his apostrophes correctly, you use an apostrophe to show possession. I sincerely hope this was supposed to be satire but judging by the fact that it has become a viral email in a frat house it clearly isn’t being regarded as such.

  13. Julien Rousseau says

    1.) Non-consent and rape are two different things. There is a fine line, so make sure not to cross it.

    The only way that non-consent is not rape is if non-consent goes hand in hand with no-sex (non-sex??) with the non-consenting person.

    It’s a bit like saying “as long as they don’t tell you ‘you can’t have my car’ then it is not grand theft auto, it’s just non-consent to taking their car”.

    A line so fine it is smaller than planck length (i.e. non-existent, just like the consent).

  14. cyberCMDR says

    Ack! Change that to neutered. These are guys; although perhaps the more invasive the better, in this case.

  15. Brian Macker says

    “Don’t worry, some women have said there is no problem with sexism in our community,”
    Jason,

    I’m not a member of Sigma Kappa. Considering that it is a male only frat I also doubt that “some women” you refer to, Mallorie Nasrallah, is a member of that frat community either. Apparently you are. Also apparently you never heard of satire or sarcasm. like that last sentence.

    There is something called the pick up community. Their methods actually seem to be effective. I presume because loose women are attracted to douche bags, unlike say my wife. One way to bed them is to train yourself to act like a douche. I know someone who has used these methods to great success. The point isn’t to believe but to know how a douche thinks and to imitate that behavior.

    Personally I don’t think this is possible. I think you are what you do.

    This is a parody of those methods. Like all parody it does strike at the truth. The point of this parody is probably to mock those who have certain stereotypes about frat members.

    People like Mallorie and me don’t take people like Watson and you seriously because unfrankly your conclusions are, well I’ll be polite, non sequiturs.

    Next you’ll be telling me that burying women up to their neck in Iraian soil and stoning them is a problem with the atheist community. Worse, that someone in Denmark mocking others by writing a Poe about how everyone has the munches there shows a problem with condoning drug abuse at skeptIc conferences.

    Yes, you both come off as not the brightest bulbs, and that is why someone intelligent like Dawkin’s will mock you. You and your paraniod concerns are eminently mockable.

  16. says

    Pugachev and Brian Macker: If you had any sort of reading comprehension skills whatsoever, you’d understand that the entire paragraph to which you both refer, is aimed at those people in our community who think there isn’t a sexism problem (e.g. some people are outright misogynist, and others refuse to deal with that fact), and that I was telling them they could use the frat email as a handy guide for learning how best to mistreat the women.

  17. Brian Macker says

    Don’t piss on my shoes and tell me it is raining.

    That paragraph is directed at Mallorie. The Point is to associate her something she never said using evidence that doesn’t even support it.

    Let me demonstrate. Suppose I criticize and link to a racist article in my own article. Then I write this pointing to an article you wrote on how you, being a black man, had never had problems with racism in the National Association of Women. Suppose the racist has zero to do with NOW.

    “Hey racists and howler monkeys in the community, I’m doing you a favour by linking this. Go learn how we’re supposed to treat women. Don’t worry, Jason says there is no problem with racism in NOW”

    This is obviously directed at you. I makes it sound like you’ve got their back. That you support them.

    Furthermore it actually does read as if you think some random pig counts as a member of the atheist community.

    I don’t have reading comprehension skill problems. You have writing skill problems if you did not intend to communicate what you did.

    You communicated that: a) You thought this random piece of Poe actually counted as evidence about atheists. That is because you mocked the idea there was no problem and this is the only evidence you provided there might be. b) That Mallory made a blanket claim when she never did. Which is evidence that it is you who has reading comprehension problems, or at least double standards on interpreting the written word. c) That Mallory is an idiot for not recognizing the obvious problem in the atheist community as evidenced by frat boy. d) That misogynists have a reedy ally in Mallory.

    You’ve communicated all sorts of nasty baloney. This is a standard intellectually dishonest takedown article employing all sorts of tricks. Things like guilty by association, false association, straw man, putting words in others mouths, taking a joke as a serious position, and so forth.

    It is an absolute mess. You owe not only Mallorie but the entire atheist community an apology.

    No one should do this kind of vile takedown. Those who do should be ashamed of themselves.

  18. Brian Macker says

    That was supposed to read:

    “Hey racists and howler monkeys in the community, I’m doing you a favour by linking this. Go learn how we’re supposed to treat blacks. Don’t worry, Jason says there is no problem with racism in NOW”

  19. julian says

    You owe not only Mallorie but the entire atheist community an apology.

    I honestly doubt he owes the people at InMalaFide an apology. Please don’t try to define the atheist community of only being composed of people you agree with it. It isn’t.

    Besides. After that reddit thing it’s obvious a note worthy percentage of us would have fond the whole thing funny and passed it on to other people.

  20. says

    I am associating Mallorie with her own dismissal of rampant misogyny, whether she intended it as dismissal or not. You are telling me that I owe the atheist community an apology? Why not the misogynists who demand that the atheist community be welcoming to their brand of woman-hate?

  21. Brian Macker says

    Yes, I thought that was clear. You owe the entire atheist community an apology for using this Poe as evidence against them. You are playing another intellectually dishonest game in setting up a false dichotomy. You don’t have to wait for some unspecified guilty parties to apologize before you do. It isn’t either/or but can be both.

    Perhaps you can clarify exactly who, name one person, meets the category of being a misogynist and that is demanding that every one accept misogyny? That set, as far as I can tell is the null set.

    On the other hand there are people like Watson (with her “Reddit makes me hate Atheists”) and you (with your frat boys make me see a problem in the atheist community) that are actually demanding they be taken seriously in their non sequiturs. Worse any objection to your illogic is taken as further evidence of misogyny.

    It doesn’t, for example, make me a misogynist if I opposes regarding speech code like solutions. There are all sorts of reasons that is a bad idea. Also, sorry, using the word female doesn’t make you a misogynist , nor does mocking an idiot who brings this up as some valid concern.

  22. julian says

    You owe the entire atheist community an apology for using this Poe as evidence against them.

    This was not used as evidence against the skeptical community. It was used as an example of the sort of thing Mallorie Masrallah and others who find greater fault in feminists like Rebecca Watson than they do in things like the reddit thread would excuse (and possibly encourage.)

    You are playing another intellectually dishonest game in setting up a false dichotomy.

    No, he isn’t. He’s pointing out the hypocrisy and double standard behind demanding he apologize for something he isn’t doing while you’re excusing and dismissing clear cut examples of misogyny (for example, this email).

    That set, as far as I can tell is the null set.

    You must be ignorant of the outside world, then. Are you honestly arguing there are no misogynists out there or people insisting on a misogynistic world view within the skeptical or atheist community?

    It doesn’t, for example, make me a misogynist if I opposes regarding speech code like solutions.

    How dare people object to sexist or racist slurs.

  23. says

    Misogyny is an attitude that allows sexist behaviour to continue. You are dismissing dozens of women’s valid concerns about sexist behaviour in order to defend one single woman who has declared that not only is there no problem here, but that nobody needs to change, not even those accused of sexist behaviour, slurs against women, or outright hatred.

    I do not see a problem with the atheist community because of these frat boys, and you know that is a strawman argument. I see a problem with the atheist community in that there is a large faction of it telling a small fraction of it (the misogynist trolls and the people at boards like In Mala Fide, r/mensrights, or any other place frequently highlighted at blogs like manboobz.com) to stop behaving like entitled bonobos and treating every woman that crosses their path like nothing more than a potential fucktoy; and another small fraction (like at ERV’s slimepit and Grey Lining) defending against the “evil feminists” and demanding that the skeptic and atheist communities be more tolerant of the sexist assholes than we are of the women who are asking to be left the fuck alone.

    The problem that I see in the atheist community, and what makes Rebecca Watson “hate atheists”, is that there is just so much traction against the idea of treating women like human beings that people like you, who defends misogyny and is therefore a misogynist whether you hate women or not, that the small faction of people defending against the Ebul Feminazis look like the atheist community as a whole. That these ideas are so worthy of attack by drive-by assholes like yourself tells me that you are far more interested in attacking women and the people who defend women than you are in actual dialog. No wonder certain people “hate atheists” if we can’t rout out assholes like you without so damn much pushback.

    I was telling both of those small fractions of the atheist community that they should just be more honest about their feelings against women, that if they want the skeptic and atheist communities to act as dating sites they should just read that frat email and pick up some tips on how to do it a little more honestly.

    For someone who rails against illogic and strawman arguments, you make a lot of them yourself.

  24. Brian Macker says

    “I am associating Mallorie with her own dismissal of rampant misogyny, whether she intended it as dismissal or not.”

    Using the word associate here makes no sense. Are you are claiming to associate her with an article she wrote and signed? Sorry, too late, she already did that.

    Of course, I actually read the article and it did not dismiss rampant misogyny. It gave her experiences and what she was comfortable with. What you intentionally and dubiously read into an article is your problem not hers. You obviously quiet apparently think in a collectivist and in/out group fashion. Just look at the way you tried to make my request for an apology for condemning the atheist community with false charges instead about why I’m not supposedly asking for misogynists to apologize, like I must be with them if I’m not with you.

    I’m against you both where you are wrong.

    How about you actually support these new charges against Mallorie. You might start with defining misogynist because the way you wrote that last comment I’m not sure if you meant to refer to Mallory in that last sentence or not. Also define rampant. Is it rampant misogyny in the atheist community if nothing bad actually happens at a skeptic conference and then some anonymous commenter on you tube later post a comment calling a female presenter a whore who needs some? If no actual problem occurs at the actual conference but some guy later at four in the morning makes a lame pass then is that rampant “woman hating”?

    Do you fathom how ridiculous much of this supposed evidence is. Women don’t like to self identify as atheists nor even show up in large numbers at these groups. That proves that there is rampant woman hate among atheists? Do you imagine there is this enormous crowd of atheist women out there who psychically know before they show up exactly what goes on?

    Really?

  25. says

    You’re done here, Brian, until you can prove that you can read what I actually wrote, and reply to that, instead of whatever the hell it is that your imagination keeps telling you I wrote.

  26. julian says

    Using the word associate here makes no sense. Are you are claiming to associate her with an article she wrote and signed?

    He’s associating her with other examples of the sorts of activities she’s given her approval of. (approval there meaning, not a big deal or worth getting bothered by)

    It gave her experiences and what she was comfortable with.

    It also went on to insist the community never change, stay the same and ignore everyone who wishes it to change (by of way of insisting the community never change for anyone).

    If Rebecca Watson had done anything like that you’d be all over her in an instant.

    like I must be with them if I’m not with you.

    You only ever criticize one side, insist one side is wrong and chastise one side for presuming to speak for the larger group. What conclusion would anyone draw from that?

    Besides, he’s citing clear examples in this discussion. You are, for example, dismissing the reddit thread and this frat email calling them unworthy of attention despite them being clear cut cases of misogyny.

    Women don’t like to self identify as atheists nor even show up in large numbers at these groups. That proves that there is rampant woman hate among atheists?

    Eh?

    It suggests there’s something keeping them from showing up, doesn’t it? Some have pointed to things like the reddit thread as possible reasons why.

    And please bear in mind there are many women who identify as atheists who also like to avoid larger atheist gatherings. Some, after E-Gate expressed being hesitant with going to large atheist gatherings because they feared if they were accosted or groped the community would laugh it off and tell them it was no big deal.

  27. says

    In moderation: more nonsense about me acting like an ideologue. Perhaps if you actually addressed any of my points, Brian Macker, I would let you try to have this “rational discussion” you claim to want.

  28. Pteryxx says

    Of course, I actually read the article and it did not dismiss rampant misogyny. It gave her experiences and what she was comfortable with. What you intentionally and dubiously read into an article is your problem not hers.

    From Nasram’s open letter:

    Someone will always be offended by jokes, never let them make you believe that you are guilty of something worse simply because of your gender.

    Which is misrepresenting the actual objections in order to dismiss them. Hurtful comments are hurtful comments regardless of the intent, or gender, of the speaker; and it’s not the objecting side who’s conflating men with douchebags.

    Along with:

    You have never been anything but awesome and welcoming. Who made you think you weren’t?

    which dismisses the objections completely, and

    Don’t ever adulterate yourselves in an attempt to try to lure more vagina possessing patrons.

    which again assumes that treating women politely involves an attack on one’s identity.

    Nooo, that letter goes WAY beyond HER experiences and comfort level. “The straw woman of the skeptical movement” indeed, as Jen says:

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/01/the-straw-woman-of-the-skeptical-movement/

  29. SallyStrange, FemBrain in a FemBadge (Bigger on the Inside!) says

    What is the difference between non-consent and rape?

    Rape is when you get arrested. Non-consent is when you get away with it. As over 90% of rapists do.

  30. julian says

    @Giliell

    Yeah, I’ve noticed most of the men defending Mallorie Nasrallah seem to think along similar lines. They also seem incredibly comfortable with using bullying, intimidation and harassment to get phone numbers, addresses and dates. Here Brian even suggests such methods are a good way to get ‘sex’ because it’s a guaranteed way to get ‘sex.’

  31. Pugachev says

    I still cannot see the link between a sexist parody letter from an all male frat and Mallorie Nasrallah, can you post another snide-filled, yet intellectually void comment on why this is so? I highly doubt, I can almost assure you, that if her local Atheist community was run like this Frat letter, that she would not be part of it. She is fond of her community of “normal”, “average” guys, who may make an off color joke, or laugh at something politically incorrect at times. I do not think her, or most, local Atheist or Skeptic communities are dens of scum and villiany on the subject of sexism.

  32. julian says

    She is fond of her community of “normal”, “average” guys, who may make an off color joke, or laugh at something politically incorrect at times.

    What’s the difference between this email an that reddit thread?

  33. Pugachev says

    I dont read Reddit, I can only assume that “that reddit thread” is not an instructional guide, though satirical, sent through email to a fraternity that has since been shut down and disowned by its parent fraternal organization.

  34. Pteryxx says

    I still cannot see the link between a sexist parody letter from an all male frat and Mallorie Nasrallah, can you post another snide-filled, yet intellectually void comment on why this is so?

    1) They are all examples of categorical dismissal of misogynistic remarks or behavior as merely jokes.

    [note: and I badly misspelled Nasrallah above, my apologies. More evidence that I shouldn't be trying to post coherently today...]

  35. Pugachev says

    No, one is a dismissal of the casual, non-intentionally offensive off hand remark, or more importantly, the desire for males to “not walk on eggshells” around very sensitive females (and not to start off a whole new argument, but yes, there are various levels of sensitivities in males and females on a wide range of subjects.) This is very different from an intentionally over the top, exaggerated sexist letter. Very different, I do not know anyone who talks like that in a normal conversation and I’m in the military, for Darwin’s sake.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>