By the end(at Duke), if I saw one more poster for an on-campus frat party with a “pimps and hoes”, I would lose my mind.

While I do agree that misogyny is quite prevalent at american universities and colleges, I must say that the problems of privileged white women receive far too much attention compared to those of impoverished minorities. If you're a straight white woman from the middle class or above then frankly you don't have it that bad. No one is discriminating against you and no one is going to hold you back.

PeterC wrote:

I don't understand how anyone can counter what she is saying. We all know it's true; not just at Duke, but most Universities across the US. Frat life is huge and widely encouraged to "enhance" your college experience. When you think of frats, the main things that come to mind are drinking beer and hooking up with women; objectifying and sexualising women. This is the issue Kate is talking about, not the fact that these posters were up around the campus. She's talking about what happened on the evening of the date printed on the poster. Men walking around in suites being "CEO's" - people in charge - while women were expected to show up in next to nothing and be their "Office Hoes".

This is an issue in itself, that people can't look past the poster and see what it represents.

But that's their choice to advertise those preferences. Some men want that lifestyle and image. Some women want to be a part of that, or want those men enough that they're willing to put up with being a part of that, even if they don't like it; their desire for those men outweighs their desire to not be a part of that culture. And that's okay. If you don't want to be a part of that culture, ignore the posters. I was often inundated with posters on my college campus for gay culture events, and the images were fairly explicit (though not pornographic). And that's okay! It's a great thing that they have the ability to advertise an event. But it's not for me. It's not something I am interested in, and I don't judge them for what they are naturally inclined to want. Through accident of their genetics and environment and upbringing, these adult men and women have these desires. Who are you/we to be offended by them? All sexual preferences are valid, provided that they are consensual and do not cause harm. Just because there is a power dynamic in place in that favors one group over another does make participation in that function involuntary. If this were a FemDom party, nobody would care, but because it plays into popular male/female dom/sub (respectively) archetypes, people lose their minds.

I think it's perfectly appropriate for someone to express how they feel and generate discussion. The reactions are amusing. I did not see any request for government censorship yet that is how her words are characterized. If some of the posters here want to put their name to their views on LGBT activity or pro-minority posts, they are free to do so. No one will censor you. You may just find that people disagree with you. Apparently you equate that with state censorship. Please note: you can disagree with her without denigrating her or other groups.

This line below is hilarious. I love how some conservatives here pretend not to have anyone in their ranks responsible for societal ills. Apparently conservatives don't do cocaine, conservatives don't drink too much, conservatives don't gamble, etc. And, if they somehow do, it's the fault of a society created by liberals, not the conservative himself.

The poster writing about poverty is interesting. He / she seems put off by her peer group connections and views.

And it was created by liberals and leftists.[/quote]

Women use the word "slut" to demean each other more often than men use it to demean women. By the way, I thought there was a female movement to take pride in the word. Whatever happened to that?

Additionally, women are the ones who reward men for being "players." The guy who sleeps with a lot of attractive women, attracts more women to him for that reason. Many women won't go out with a guy if he's a virgin; however, most guys are fine with -- even prefer -- virgin women. That's why the 3 big monotheisms (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) consider virgin women as a prized possession.

It's the way things are and always have been. Men don't want women who have slept around, and women don't want men who haven't slept around. Some would say there are evolutionary reasons for this. I say it's simple math. To maximize the creation of fit offspring, the women should share the most desirable guy. Indeed, women seem content to do this. They would rather be Brad Pitt's Wednesday night lay than be monogamous with a guy who's decently attractive.

Why is this thread turning into a debate about politics and free speech? Kate Van Buskirk, who appears to be a classy young lady and a damn good runner, expressed discontent with university-affiliated social clubs that promote derogatory behavior. She's entitled to her opinion (free speech, right?).

Kate, thanks for speaking up about this on a (semi?) national platform. Letsrun is a harsh environment to defend unorthodox views, and FWIW, the hostility you've encountered here is probably more about the medium than either what you have to say or the audience.

My 2c: This is not local to Duke. Back when we were choosing schools in 2006, a friend visited Williams during open house, liked it, and then was just SO turned off when the main social event being advertised to pre-frosh was entitled "CEOs and Corporate Hos" with dress code according. Where I went was relatively progressive with regards to this --rarely anything so overt as big parties emphasizing male power and female availability--but the same nonsense was always lurking beneath. It hit the fan this year with a big Title IX complaint that the school was basically complicit in the systematic underreporting and mishandling of sexual assault cases. Once you get a sense of just how widespread assault is on campus it's hard to think of this as just "liberal whining" or "PC language controlling" or whatever.

This isn't to say it's easy to establish the link between generally pervasive attitudes of female weakness/purity/temptation and gender-based crimes, including sexual assault; for instance Norway is pretty progressive w.r.t. these issues and they have really high sexual assault rates. (It might just be that their reporting is better). But if you listened to what those Steubenville boys had to say on tape -- and about whether non-penetrative sex counted as rape if the girl was unconscious -- I think it's hard to argue that a rape culture doesn't exist and that it doesn't at least contribute to a serious problem.

Thanks for sharing, Katie.

I think Van Buskirk is fully justified in speaking out about these college culture issues.

However, I think she is mistaken if she thinks this problem is somehow special to Duke or worse there than at other colleges.

ho hum wrote:

Why is this thread turning into a debate about politics and free speech? Kate Van Buskirk, who appears to be a classy young lady and a damn good runner, expressed discontent with university-affiliated social clubs that promote derogatory behavior. She's entitled to her opinion (free speech, right?).

Exactly--the neanderthals who populate this site get in a tizzy and start shouting "free speech" whenever someone criticizes their disgusting or demeaning behavior. She has not expressed any desire for government censorship and they certainly haven't been able to respond to her on the merits of her argument. Given that a significant proportion of posters to this site are male college students, the responses this has provoked almost confirm her point.

[quote]Montesquieu wrote:

KVB- I was gladdened by your articulate remarks and wish you nothing but the best of luck in your running career. You have a fan in this quarter.[quote]Kate VB wrote:

And another KVB fan in Montana. Your interview is one of the most interesting I've seen from any athlete in a long time. Keep up the good work!

ho hum wrote:

Why is this thread turning into a debate about politics and free speech? Kate Van Buskirk, who appears to be a classy young lady and a damn good runner, expressed discontent with university-affiliated social clubs that promote derogatory behavior. She's entitled to her opinion (free speech, right?).

And people are entitled to criticize her opinion that she voices on a very public forum. These are both free speech. Criticism of her views does not mean that people think she is not entitled to express them.

And yet she took thier money and set records and won titles on their behalf, thus propogating the culture she condemns. When I have athletes being recruited, the first thing we do is eliminate Duke. I've done this for ten years now. Her statement would have seemed a lot less self serving if she had said it a few years ago when explaining why she was willing to eat a year and transfer.

hugo45 wrote:

And people are entitled to criticize her opinion that she voices on a very public forum. These are both free speech. Criticism of her views does not mean that people think she is not entitled to express them.

The problem is I don't see much actual criticism of her views, i.e. actually taking on the substance of her claims and trying to refute them. Instead, there are just a lot of claims that she is trying to censor people, which is patently false.

I would be interested in hearing how Kate's former teammates feel about her posting about something that is not unique to Duke at all and not about running at all on a running forum where the only possible result is damaging recruiting to her former school.

Joel Pulliam wrote:

Try walking a mile in a white male's shoes on a college campus. Especially if you don't subscribe to the liberal orthodoxy. You are reminded every day in every way that you are not welcome.

As a white male who walks on a college campus every day, I can attest that your claim is laughable. You also seem to equate pro-LGBT with sexist and demeaning material. They are not at all the same thing, unless you find something that promotes someone else's identity a threat to your own.

Lots of outraged fratboys with time on their hands. Go train, and maybe you'll be able to keep Van Buskirk from lapping you. But probably not.

I'd like to praise this young woman for taking a stand and speaking candidly about her experiences at Duke. She doesn't need to prove to me that there is any link between the flyers she describes and incidents of sexual violence. It's enough to point out that such flyers, and I'm sure many other manifestations of Greek "culture," if we could call it that, are highly offensive.

As for the man-- I will not call him a "gentleman"-- who talks about "political correctness" and "the PC police," I have long observed that such terms are frequently resorted to by angry white men when they are incapable of expressing a thoughtful viewpoint. "Political correctness" is what we once called being polite or respectful. Is referring to Duke students as "hos" some noble cause that this poster wishes to defend? Duke is a private university, and its administration has the authority, should it choose to exercise it, to ensure that certain standards of conduct are upheld on campus, and that publicly expressed hatred of students is not tolerated. Perhaps the angry white man might try to organize a "pimps and hos" theme lunch at the cafeteria where he works and see how long he keeps his job.

I don't feel sorry for Kate VB or the women she's trying to defend.

The sexist behaviors being alluded to are encouraged by women even beyond campus life. Instead of having this discussion with a predominantly male audience on LetsRun, she should be talking to women and teaching them about self-respect.

There are plenty of men out there who know how to treat a lady but those are the same ones who get no love in return.

Montesquieu wrote:

typically southern,

Hard to imagine what it would be doing at Duke then.

I went to Georgia Tech. What are these "on-campus frat parties" that everyone is talking about?