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.

The Brojos plan is working. They posted a frivolous quote on the main page to bring in a bunch of traffic from Kate's friends and other random Dukies. This place reminds me of the anonymous college gossip board CollegeACB, if anyone remembers that site.

Bro,

chill

alanson wrote:

If women show up at these parties, I would say they are complicit in perpetuating that style of posting

Exactly. Anyone who doesn't see this is an idiot.

What intention do fraternities have in mind when they pick a theme for their party? They want girls to attend. And what events do a lot of girls want to attend? Evidently, ones where they get to dress up like a slutty secretaries and hoes and whatnot.

Since many people here speak English, including almost every Duke student and graduate, I'm going to translate the above material into that language.

Oh, this one is rich.

Let's think about it: Thousands of 18- and 19-year-olds are away from parental supervision for the first time in their lives and have ample access to alcohol, and "Former Runner" expects them to all be little Mother Theresas. Perhaps she was contemplating life in a convent at that point in her life; at any rate, don't impose your beliefs on others.

I appreciate the earlier poster saying something about educating females who go to these events. I mean, what happens at these parties when there aren't any "secretary hoes"?

As to jamin's point about human nature: There are plenty of guys -- probably the majority -- on these campuses who don't go to these events and as a result are overlooked because they aren't deemed dominant enough or sexually active enough or "alpha-male" enough. Women may say that they don't like these events or behaviors, but someone is attending them.

Ladies, when you represent half of the equation, you're responsible for half of the outcome.

You're welcome. This doesn't change the fact that the content of the post is a mirthless joke, but now it's at least readable.

First of all, way to prove she's not wrong about pervasive sexism guys

secondly,

ANY DAY NOW BROJOS AND YOUR MASTER PLAN OF BEING BOUGHT OUT BY BREITBART.COM WILL COME TO FRUITION!

Also Good Job collecting all of the dregs of running society in one place.

p.s. Burn it with fire.

Thank you for that translation. Can you please ask Mr. Kremlin whether it's his contention that the majority of men at Duke are overlooked, and by "overlooked," that he does mean that these men aren't sexually active?

I'm curious how someone could be so misinformed as to think that there are a large segment of men campuse who aren't having sex despite wanting to do so. Is this a case of a bitter virgin projecting his own experiences?

Van Buskirk sounds like a conservative freak to me. I don't see a problem with what the Duke kids are doing.

Thank you Kate for sharing your voice, especially in the volatile environment that is the LRC. There are plenty of male and female runners who read but do not post and who appreciate your opinion. I am glad the BroJos are tackling this issue (as also seen in their brief commentary and re-posting of the female collegiate coach topic).

Any defense from messageboard posters that drives a spike of division between what is deemed masculine and what is deemed feminine comes from a stance of male-privilege. This privilege leads to the "get over it", "PC police" comments and the instructions for other readers and for yourself to disregard your opinion and voice. This privilege is also responsible for the angry tone of voice in which these comments are written. By labeling you as "liberal", "feminist", and a "PC police", you as an individual are being labeled as "non-masculine" and "as long as we imagine that there is "masculinity" and "femininity" and these things are in opposition, then men are going to be under relentless pressure at all points in time to prove that they're not somehow turning into women."

This is the problem with "Pimps and Ho's". It is not about about liberalism, though it may be annoying to those of privilege who are not negatively affected by the constraints of being labeled a "Ho" or the weaker sex. Masculinity "instills men with financial, political and symbolic gains, and the politics of masculinity [being instilled on campuses as your reference at Duke] is therefore not only a personal matter of identity, but also one which relates to questions of social justice... and the ideology of patriarchy legitimizes violence towards women and subordinated forms of masculinity as a result of the hegemonic masculinity's superiority over them."

The culture which Kate is speaking out against is the basis of gender inequity within organizations, the basis of rape-culture that blames women and condemns female sexuality while undermining women's voices while calling them "bitches and ho's".

Applying these labels while attempting to mount a critical argument in opposition to Kate's comments effectively undermine's her character and her person by alluding to the coded superiority of masculinity and the inferiority of liberalism, equality, feminism, and PC behavior. Address the situation Kate has criticized while not attacking the identity you have given her that may or may not be accurate. There is always the chance that a well written critical argument could be critical in the understanding of the 'liberal/PC' audience on this message board.

Harvard at Law, MD wrote:

Thank you for that translation. Can you please ask Mr. Kremlin whether it's his contention that the majority of men at Duke are overlooked, and by "overlooked," that he does mean that these men aren't sexually active?

I'm curious how someone could be so misinformed as to think that there are a large segment of men campuse who aren't having sex despite wanting to do so. Is this a case of a bitter virgin projecting his own experiences?

First, thank you "Washington Post" for the translation; English is not my strong suit.

Harvard: my comment about "overlooked" was not specific to Duke as I referenced "campuses" to imply general university social life. Any insinuation from your statement is your own.

Your second comment is also inaccurate and I'm having trouble defending a perspective that I did not make. There are plenty of people that don't attend "bosses/hoes" parties thus creating ample opportunities for people not interested in the social-dynamics of these events. The general idea to this is that if you don't like it, don't go to it.

Gee, I know Kate. One can certainly see how using an 'aggressive tone' could lead to say...putting up flyers about frat parties on campus. And we all know where that slippery slope leads..

Intertestingly, I looked up Duke crims stats for 2009 & the crime rate - based just on reported incidents - not convictions - was 0.61%.. I dunno. Kate - doesn't seem like the seemy undergrad culture & 'gender inequality' actually resulted in much more than...not much.

What I would like to know is how many of the 13 rapes reported in 2009 turned in to convictions? And how many were actually committed by Duke students - or worse, those awful Duke frat boys?

Further, the crime rate in Raleigh NC in 2009 was 311.3.

Now I didn't graduate from Duke, but maybe someone who did can explain the likelihood of being the victim of a crime on campus in 2009 vs. the likelihood of being the victim of a crime in nearby Raleigh in 2009, given the reported crime rates of 0.61 vs 311.3 per 100,000 people..

Given the actual FACTS (i know liberals hate that word - sorry!), maybe the city of Raleigh should put up 'pimps & hoes' frat party flyers all over town in an attempt to reduce crime..

furthermore, society doesn't leave it to you to declare you're a mature adult - that's sort of like deciding if a runner is fast simply by asking the runner's opinion..

Actual Logician wrote:

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.

Exactly. I would have a lot more respect for her point of view if she had transferred out of Duke while she still had eligibility and explained why she did so. Instead she "took their money" and kept the this hated culture going. I'm calling Hypocrite on this one.

Jeffrey D. Boomhauer wrote:

Given the actual FACTS (i know liberals hate that word - sorry!), maybe the city of Raleigh should put up 'pimps & hoes' frat party flyers all over town in an attempt to reduce crime..

Correlation vs. causation.

right - that explains liberal politician's persistent attempts to silence talk radio through legislation and other means over the last couple decades..

Also explains the belligerent hostility toward conservative speakers on the rare occasions they're still invited to speak on college campuses today..

krispy kremlin wrote:

Please quit forcing your beliefs on others.

In what way is "expressing beliefs' equal to "forcing them" upon others? By your reasoning, you're forcing your beliefs on us simply by writing them.

"..This is NOT to say that every student at Duke (or anywhere, for that matter) is a sexist jerk..."

what a huge relief to the Duke student body! Thankfully, I understand that colleges are increasingly encouraging their students to renounce characteristics as sexist as 'gender' by selecting 'gender queer' or 'queer' for gender...or checking the 'none of the above' box...or just declaring themselves 'genderless'.

How encouraging to see institutions of higher learning at which the total cost to attend over 4 years approaches $200k becoming so wise, sensible & enlightened!

Jeffrey D. Boomhauer wrote:

right - that explains liberal politician's persistent attempts to silence talk radio through legislation and other means over the last couple decades..

Also explains the belligerent hostility toward conservative speakers on the rare occasions they're still invited to speak on college campuses today..

Without addressing the examples you didn't give, right-wing flag bearer Sarah L. Palin is quoted as saying:

Well, that calling for the boycott is a real—has a chilling effect on our First Amendment rights. And the owner of the Chick-fil-A business had merely voiced his personal opinion about supporting traditional definition of marriage, one boy, one girl, falling in love, getting married. And having voiced support for kind of that cornerstone of all civilization and all religions since the beginning of time, he's then basically getting crucified.

In short, assuming your unnamed examples are factually based: there are idiots on either side of the aisle.

Welcome to the south! :) we're about 30 years behind the rest of the country.

just sayin people wrote:

Van Buskirk sounds like a conservative freak to me. I don't see a problem with what the Duke kids are doing.

You have no idea how funny that statement is. Kate is the very opposite of a "conservative freak". She is a "flaming liberal" all the way.

Liberals have promoted sex with anyone, anywhere, anytime for years. Not sure why they are surprised men have taken them up on their offer.

Unfortunately, psychologists stay very busy at universities dealing with the mental health issues many young women develop from participating in such behavior. Mimicking the current culture/media, these women mistakenly believe they will find true love by dressing trashy, getting drunk, and sleeping around. However, often times, not only does that not happen, but their "slutty, drunken" behavior leaves them with both low self esteem and a loss of confidence.

Women need to refuse to be complicit in these parties or accept the role and message their participation in such events sends.