<p>I was aware of the recent Lizzy Seeburg case - it’s absolutely awful, and really scared me. And the author’s perspective that the same sort of stuff goes down at Barnard was kind of startling. I know people have posted here that that did not reflect their Barnard experience, but I have a hard time believing that this is a problem that could simple evaporate in a few years.</p>
<p>Yes, I’ve read/heard about his as well. I asked some Barnard and Columbia girls (seperately) how they felt about it and they said it was most apparent on anonymous websites (like this) and that most of the tension dissipated after freshman year.</p>
<p>I think it’s also dangerous to assume that two things that appear to be related definitely are related. It is a sad fact that many incidents of rape–the unreported and the reported ones–go without investigation and prosecution. This outrageous and tragic. But this is true of EVERYWHERE in the WORLD. Is there any evidence this event is specific to Notre Dame and its sister school? Or that it’s more likely to happen to students at sister schools of major universities? Plus a vague joke about Barnard girls is hardly evidence of a concrete cultural mindset which permits rape. Thinking Barnard girls are hot pieces of ass does not equate “rape culture.” Even having irresponsible sex with several Barnard girls doesn’t mean there is a “rape culture.”</p>
<p>This problem is much worse on traditional co-ed campuses, although it does exist everywhere. I am utterly shocked that anyone would suggest that Barnard has a rape culture.</p>
<p>Phedre, are you familiar with what the author means by rape culture? It’s a big part of modern feminism. It doesn’t mean “ahaha let’s go grab girls in alleys and molest them, kay guys?”. It more refers to a pattern of victim-blaming and general objectification (and viewing of women as there for guys - or “hot pieces of ass” rather than normal people - this could also refer to catcalling or other similar occurrences). And having ‘irresponsible sex’ - by which I think you mean drunk/high sex - is more often than not done when one or both parties are unable to give consent (legally, any alcohol means you can’t give consent. I wouldn’t go that far but I would say there is a point where you are simply too drunk.), which does equal rape. Rape is more than back alleys and creepy pedophiles - it also applies to any situation in which someone has sex with someone else without their consent.</p>
<p>…feminist rant over.</p>
<p>I recognize this is a world-wide problem, I was just interested in the perspective offered in the article that in sister school situations, too often the people of the all-girls school are seen as second class for reasons other than academic.</p>
<p>As a parent of a recent Barnard grad, I really don’t think that accurately reflects the “culture” of the two campuses. I do think that there is a lot of typical drunken behavior from <em>some</em> of the frats at Columbia (definitely not all) – and frat parties where there is a lot of drinking going on and drunk college boys take advantage of drunk college girls. My d. told me about this her first year, but it wasn’t an issue for her because she didn’t attend those parties – her comment to me was something along the lines of not the women who did attend being stupid to put themselves in risky situations with their heavy drinking. </p>
<p>But there certainly was NOT any culture at Barnard leaving women feeling demeaned or inferior. I can see the end result of 4 years at Barnard, and my d. certainly emerged feeling more confident and empowered than ever before. </p>
<p>The phrase “Barnard to bed, Columbia to wed” is taken as a joke these days at Barnard, given that the idea of getting married straight out of college has fallen out of favor. So the phrase gets turned on its head, implying that Barnard women have serious career aspirations, while Columbia women are looking for their Mrs. degree. Which is NOT true at all – but is what the phrase implies – back in the 40’s when my mom dropped out of Smith at age 19 to marry my dad, the culture probably discouraged premarital sex and heavily favored marriage; but by the time Columbia when co-ed in the 80’s, that attitude was already pass</p>
<p>Raspberi, in response to your post #5, the reason there is not a “rape culture” at Barnard is that there is a very strong feminist culture. I saw those changes in my daughter right away, from the first semester on – very quickly she became hyper-attuned to anything that was demeaning toward women, and very quick to call people on it. So a guy who made the mistake of using politically-incorrect language in describing a woman or talking about his sex
life would very quickly get lectured & corrected on his insensitivity. </p>
<p>(My son experienced that from the other side when attending a aco-ed but predominantly female LAC… guys learn quickly to watch what they say if they are trying to get a woman to go out with them, and to focus on complimenting women for their intellect and not their looks, unless the compliment about appearance has the word “slim” in it).</p>
<p>There is a frat party scene that involves heavy drinking and careless and insensitive attitudes about sex, but it is not a dominant part of campus life and it certainly has no relationship to the fact that Barnard is a women’s college. I’d assume that Columbia women who attend those parties and get falling-down drunk are treated in the same way as Barnard women who engage in the same behavior. While you are right about the women being unable to truly consent in such situations, the men are equally drunk and certainly unable to exercise good judgment – so I’d still label that a drinking culture and not a rape culture. Usually more rural or insular schools tend to have the bigger drinking cultures – its a combination of being relatively isolated from the surrounding community and having nothing better to do. Geographically, Columbia & Barnard students don’t really have the same insulation from law enforcement, either as to excess drinking or issues like rape. It’s highly likely that they are doing much of their socializing outside the campus boundaries, and will deal with the NYPD for the consequences of their acts. (The article you linked to also dealt with the fairly common issue of a university handling a charge of rape internally rather than reporting it to local law enforcement).</p>
<p>Raspberi, I am familiar with the term rape culture and its broader connotations. I was actually just talking with this with one of my friends, who’s involved with Take Back the Night, and the complicated personal and political meanings of the word “consent.” What I meant to say that even the examples I cited, which were suggested in the article, were not clear-cut evidence of a rape culture. I didn’t mean to criticize your need for discussion. My response was aimed more at the author of the article, not you or your curiosity. I should’ve elaborated further: I do not think a rape culture exists at Columbia and Barnard. I think the author gave a very vague and unsubstantiated claim that the prejudice she experienced at Barnard was indicative of a rape culture. Her individual experience does not convince me. I have never felt discrimination or felt objectified here–my experience isn’t proper evidence either, but it does present the other side of the issue. </p>
<p>P.S.: Your reply wasn’t a rant or necessarily feminist. Just an honest statement of what you meant. No need to apologize.</p>
<p>The author of the article confuses a culture which allegedly gives license to demeaning of students from another college, along several different lines of seemingly institutionally- sanctioned insult, with a culture that demeans women in general. She did not assert that this behavior is extrapolated to women who attend Columbia, nor does anyone else. Just to Barnard students. And the offenders are potentially as likely, or more likely, to be Columbia women as Columbia men. Being accused of “not being smart enough” has nothing to do with gender. If there were guys attending, but the same admissions profiles pertained, a significant subset of the same alleged comments would still have been made, presumably.</p>
<p>The “ism” the author says she experienced is more institutional egotism than sexism. And has very little to do with that St. Mary’s case of assault, for which no analog here has been provided. IMO.</p>
<p>Even being accused of being “easy” or sexually desparate is not sexist, it follows from attending a single sex school. All the women’s colleges get handed that label, to greater or lesser extents. If there were more men’s colleges still around, their students would probably get labeled with “having ony one thing on their mind”, for the same reason. But as it happens, there aren’t. Again, women attending the coed schools are as likely to be themselves doing that labeling, and the labeling is a function of the alleged characteristics of one’s school, not merely one’s gender in and of itself.</p>
<p>just wondering, why are the women at Barnard (going to an all girls school, obviously not too concerned with guys) labeled as sluts? and since it is hard to get into, why doesn’t Columbia just respect that? obviously they’re not Columbia students, so what’s with the animosity? I really don’t get why they’d think independent women are sluts…anyone?</p>
<p>^^^I think you are taking this way too seriously and trying to find a rational explanation for irrational behavior. People deliver misogynistic slurs because they disrespect women and enjoy it. It doesn’t have to make sense.</p>
<p>However, this is a problem that arises on these boards and not so much on campus. You really don’t have to worry about it.</p>
<p>They don’t think Barnard women are sluts, and there isn’t much animosity. Columbia does respect Barnard. The problem exists with a small number of students. I would compare this to the situation experienced by some physicians: after years of practice many Ophthalmologists feel that almost all diabetics go blind when in fact many don’t. It’s just that no Diabetic patient stops into the Ophthalmologist’s office to tell him/her that they have good vision. The same is true for Orthopaedic Surgeons who feel that all diabetics have foot amputations. News media suffer from the same bad news bias. Who would tune in to CNN to hear about 16 million Iraqi citizens going to work today. Not many students write in say how wonderful life is except to react to someone else’s irrational negative post.</p>
<p>Lorraine, in my personal experience, “slut” is generally a term used by women to demean other women … usually because of feelings of jealousy or resentment, often because the woman so labeled is hanging out with the former boyfriend (or former desired boyfriend) of the person doing the labeling. When guys get ticked off at women they usually say b**** (rhymes with witch) or whore – but I don’t think that guys view promiscuity as a bad thing, except possibly if they are upset with their own girlfriend or ex-girlfriend for infidelity.</p>
<p>I really don’t know where you are picking up this perception, as even on these boards most of the Columbia/Barnard animosity tends to center on wannabe Columbians trying to dispute Barnard’s affiliation with Columbia.</p>
<p>There really is very little of that stuff going on at the campus. For one thing, my d. is part of the Facebook generation, and Facebook obliterated the distinction – when she was first meeting people on line before starting school (back in the days when you needed a college email in order to even get onto Facebook), there was no way to figure out whether a female was from Columbia or Barnard. </p>
<p>Some Columbia guys do come over to the Barnard campus to hang out with the idea that it is a good place to meet women. (Logically, they would be right). But it’s kind of demeaning toward guys to paint them all as sexist pigs and would be rapists. In fact, you are more likely to meet guys who are the studious type than Lotharios – it’s one side-effect of Columbia’s rigorous admissions policy. So most of those guys hanging out aren’t looking for “sluts” – they are just interested in meeting new people.</p>
<p>“I really don’t know where you are picking up this perception”
From the linked article, “… I was probably easy”; “Barnard to bed…” </p>
<p>“…in my personal experience, “slut” is generally a term used by women to demean other women … usually because of feelings of jealousy or resentment,…”
Agreed, I meant to add resentment/ “turf wars” as other motivations in my “isms” in #9 above but got timed out. Sort of like the way the head of the pride attacks intruding male lions, to protect his turf. Except the female version.</p>
<p>“There really is very little of that stuff going on at the campus.”
Perhaps so, but D2 heard it said, and it really ticked her off. And the article’s author heard it too, evidently.</p>
<p>“So most of those guys hanging out aren’t looking for “sluts””
More like wishing for. I agree that they are not would-be rapists, etc., but they are guys. Kinda nerdy ones, from what I saw. D2s boyfriend there was entirely unlike anyone she dated before or since.</p>
<p>“just wondering, why are the women at Barnard (going to an all girls school, obviously not too concerned with guys) labeled as sluts?”
It’s precisely because they are going to an all girls school, therefore are likely to be short on male companionship, hence might be more aggressively seeking out same, and might perhaps be more accomodating than otherwise when the stray one comes by, would be the theory. It’s not just Barnard, I have heard the same said of other all girls schools. Particularly Wellesley; The bus the Wellesley girls take to go into MIT frat parties has a really nasty name. The Amherst people had some comments along these lines about the Smith & Mt. Holyoke students who went to their parties.</p>
<p>But that’s why. Not that anyone thinks it has any basis in reality.</p>
<p>“…what’s with the animosity?”
Well the majority of people here say there isn’t really any.
But if there is, I would say, per #9, it is a combination of egotism and turf protection/ resentment. They think other people are unfairly taking benefits that they think are supposed to be reserved for them alone. And they want to preserve their exclusivity, and their turf, as they see it. IMO. Not that they are actually necessarily correct about what is or is not theirs alone, but that’s another matter.</p>
<p>monydad: thanks, I get it now. but I think I’d be just as picky about guys if I went to Barnard haha…and ya I’ve heard about the **** truck. (I think on a board about all girls schools…) gross. and @iglooo I don’t get your comment??</p>
I would agree with the “kinda nerdy” characterization – that’s what I meant by the “studious” type. Yes they are guys and have male fantasies, but I think more guys are hoping to find a woman who will become their girlfriend than hoping to sleep around with a lot of girls. Of course they fantasize that the girl will be gorgeous – but they are going to be very happy in the end if the girl is simply affectionate and attentive to their needs.</p>
<p>@calmom aw you made my day! haha at my school guys don’t give the ungorgeous girls any attention…Columbia guys are fine, I’m sure. the articles just freaked me out b/c it said stuff specifically about Barnard, which freaked me out!</p>