palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32683
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-04-16 12:18 PM - Post#212511
https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/harvard-soccer -team-r...
|
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts: 3765
Loc: Westfield, New Jersey
Reg: 11-23-04
|
11-04-16 12:30 PM - Post#212514
In response to palestra38
I'm just going to say that I'm really glad I'm not in college now.
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4894
Reg: 02-04-06
|
11-04-16 01:04 PM - Post#212515
In response to Silver Maple
Careful SM, the board's thought police may get you.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32683
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-04-16 01:17 PM - Post#212517
In response to SRP
Who is that? I certainly would have had trouble based on my 1970s behavior if this is the standard as well. I had Playboy centerfolds lining my living room above the molding---and had a girlfriend too (she didn't mind). It seems to me that something more should be necessary for this drastic action.
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4894
Reg: 02-04-06
|
11-05-16 11:49 PM - Post#212575
In response to palestra38
I was threatened with banning here when we discussed whether the Penn AD might have had a leg up in hiring because of her gender. Some topics are apparently too sensitive to broach.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6391
Reg: 11-22-04
|
11-06-16 03:39 PM - Post#212588
In response to palestra38
Thought police here. Some of the articles on this suggest that part of the problem was the response from the team. So in addition to the bad behavior, there appears to have been a misrepresentation as to whether the behavior was isolated or ongoing. So that is something more.
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4894
Reg: 02-04-06
|
11-06-16 03:57 PM - Post#212590
In response to SomeGuy
If they didn't try to minimize their participation in this activity, given the climate on campus, then they would either be brave defenders of free speech or naive idiots. In general, lying about doing something legal but embarrassing that arguably is nobody else's business would be expected behavior
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6391
Reg: 11-22-04
|
11-06-16 11:48 PM - Post#212602
In response to SRP
An understandable reaction, perhaps, but also not the reaction you want to have if you want to avoid something like getting your season cancelled.
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
11-07-16 10:58 AM - Post#212616
In response to SomeGuy
I think if this was at the beginning of the season, the whole season may not have been canceled. The kids acted like buttholes, they deserved some punishment.
It makes me wince when we go from this to slippery slope to Brock Turner or whatever. That feels too far. Boys and Girls have been rating each others' looks since college started.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-07-16 11:59 AM - Post#212619
In response to Jeff2sf
When I was in college, Mark Zuckerberg created FaceMash or something similarly titled that compared two female co-eds house facebook photos (back when facebook didn't mean The Facebook but a bunch of webpages of a directory with photos).
Mark wasn't expelled, only given some form of probation by the ad board (I forget the specifics) and frankly IIRC I think the sexism side of what he did was less an issue than the security breaches.
I'm okay with the season being cancelled, as I believe that the treatment of women as objects in such a detailed and systematic way is deserving of such a harsh punishment. I will be dismayed however, if this begins and ends with sports teams, as if the campus culture is still the same as when I was there over a decade ago, this type of objectification spans far beyond sports.
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4894
Reg: 02-04-06
|
11-07-16 07:18 PM - Post#212651
In response to mrjames
The meta-language in the original report suggested that this was some sort of team tradition assigned to a newer member as a rite of passage. The prevalence of various such "bonding rituals" is one reason I was never remotely attracted to participating in team sports.
That said, this is a ridiculous and sanctimonious reaction by the administration. "Objectification" (and sometimes wanting to be "objectified") are a normal part of human social behavior. Was this expression crass and crude and embarrassing? Yes, which is why they were idiots to leave it accessible online, but clearly the team had no intent of publicizing this material in a way that would "harass" anyone. (The embarrassing nature of it is probably part of why it was an "inside" team ritual.)
Does anyone think that women don't also engage in raunchy "objectifying" talk about men? Including women on athletic teams? And is the issue that the team wrote it down, instead of leaving it for oral banter that would go unrecorded?
Or is the alleged evil that they even thought about the relative attractiveness of these women?
Perhaps from now on Harvard women should wear narrow red sashes wound around their waists a few times.
|
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts: 3765
Loc: Westfield, New Jersey
Reg: 11-23-04
|
11-07-16 08:58 PM - Post#212661
In response to SRP
Does anyone think that women don't also engage in raunchy "objectifying" talk about men? I
I certainly hope so.
|
Old Bear
Postdoc
Posts: 3988
Reg: 11-23-04
|
11-08-16 08:44 PM - Post#212736
In response to Silver Maple
Agreed, Mapes. And well played.
|