Meet Chris Surette.
This may take the cake for the worst college newspaper column of all time — and that is an extremely high (or low?) bar (trigger warning on that link, and on the rest of this post).
Chris Surette is a student at Fairfield University. Chris Surette* has written what a column so bad that Fairfield University has charged the newspaper with harassment and threatened to pull their funding. The Connecticut Post characterizes the column thusly:
The controversy erupted over a satirical column in the Sept. 30 edition of The Mirror that poked fun at female students who agree to one-night stands. The “He Said” column described a female’s “walk of shame” leaving a male’s dorm, and used words like “pounding” and “hood rat” to talk guys through the morning after consensual sex.
Except Chris Surette’s column is actually worse than that — it’s basically a pro-rape manual. The point of Chris Surette’s column is that men bond over sexually humiliating women, and it’s a “victory” when everyone else sees your “victim” doing the walk of shame back to her dorm.
I’m pretty sure we don’t use words like “victim” to talk about women who engage in consenual sex. Women who are sexual victims have had something other than enthusiastic, consensual intercourse. Here’s what Chris Surette writes:
So after flirting with a young swan at a party, you invite her back to your place and she accepts. The road to pleasure town begins and as Johnny Drama would say, VICTORY! Congrats boys, not only did you get laid, but you have a great story for the rest of your life.
Not only is it a story for you and your boys, but others will soon realize what happened when they see your victim walking back to the dorms in her dress from last night, with a disgraceful look on her face as if she was robbed of her dignity.
But girls, even though many may consider you a slut after witnessing your glorious Walk of Shame, just realize that you have given this lucky guy a story he can share with others at the Grape for the rest of the year. We ought to thank you for that. And hopefully you got something out of this to … actually, we don’t really care.
Still unsure that Chris Surette is one of the worst people in the world? Allow him to continue:
Now if you follow these tips, the next time you do work, you’ll have a tale to tell your buds for years. Remember to be ruthless and have no shame.
We are relying on each other for an entertaining story that is both hilarious and humiliating. Just remember one thing; her walk of shame is an induction into your hall of fame.
That’s right: Sex should be a humiliating, “ruthless” experience for women in order to be pleasurable for men. Now what in the world could that be code for?
If I were an administrator at Chris Surette’s university, his call to victimize and sexually humiliate female students — to rob them of their dignity, as he puts it — would raise major red flags. I can’t imagine what the editors of the student newspaper were thinking when they published this column. Free speech and press rights are paramount, but that doesn’t mean that the paper is obligated to publish every turd a student submits.
And this column is one stinking turd. Beyond that, Chris Surette has incited other male students to do harm to female students. I don’t know what Fairfield University’s student conduct and anti-harassment policies look like, but if I were them I would consider bringing the hammer down on Chris Surette. There’s no reason why, after writing a column like that, the university should tolerate his presence on campus. The university’s decision to go after the student newspaper is a little murkier, in my opinion, but the paper’s editors should nonetheless be ashamed — and whoever let this column through should probably be fired (not just for their total lack of judgment, but also for their inability to properly edit. Semi-colons have a purpose, people).
So, Chris Surette: I’m glad your university is taking note of what a total jerk you are. I’m sure your female colleagues will avoid you like the plague, because who wants to hang out with a rape-promoter, or a guy who sees sex as something that should “victimize” and humiliate women? And I hope any of your potential future employers know the magic of the Google.
Thanks to Nicholas for the link.
__________________________
*Repetitive? Yes. Remember, kids, Google is forever.
{ 92 comments }
It never ceases to amaze me how women are degraded for the mere act of having sex. It just goes to show how warped people in this society are. Men can bang a million women without any harm to their reputation.
If woman dares to want to enjoy sex she has to “walk the walk of shame”
What utter nonsense this is. Typical male arrogance on display.
I have come to see that most men are like this fool.
The saddest thing, ala Stupak, will be explaining to supposedly progressive guys why this is infuriating.
Wow. What an asshat. I wonder how the school/newspaper would have responded if he wrote the same column but suggested that men victimize and humiliate other men. My guess is that being a rape promoter would not go over well if the intended target(s) were other men.
There are times when I start to wonder if there really is a rape culture and then some dickwad like this shows up and just blows me away. I really hope that the university sends a message that rape and/or the promotion of rape/sexual harassment will not be tolerated. And I hope that Chris receives some type of counseling – there must be a treatment program or a Misogynists Anonymous chapter nearby that can help him get over his hatred of women.
While I agree this guy is an a$$ I’d like to believe we can have a conversation without hating on all the other men. Statements like “Typical male arrogance” and generalizing “most men” into the same category as this guy do nothing to further our cause.
Nikita I didnt mean to come across like that.
I should have used different wording.
But I do however know a lot of men who are like that.
They just assume that females are their to fullfill their wishes.
It is sad that people still have these attitudes.
Jesus H. Christ. Fetch me my knives. The big FUCK-OFF shiny ones.
Dana
I don’t agree that mens reputations are not affected by that level of promiscuity or that most men are like that. But then again I live in a fairly conservative state. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I wouldn’t want to have anything to do with a manslut. Anyone else feel the same?
I’m actually reasonably mollified by the myriad male names in the comments calling this guy out on his shit. It’s like Opposite Day on teh Internets.
Going after the newspaper is important. Surette is a stool for sure, but the editors made the call to publish it.
I don’t believe all guys are like this. But with each passing year, I’m more and more dismayed by how many guys I come across who ARE like this. It’s way more than I naively believed in my early 20’s, when I was a much more vociferous feminist than now.
@RKMK I’m a male who finds this appalling. I would not spend my time with any men who don’t.
Also, I think the first red flag was the “Entourage” quote. Really, Chris? Aren’t you enough of an asshole?
Kiki, men are not shamed anywhere NEAR the level women are for having sex or being sexual. Maybe you wouldn’t have anything to do with a “man-slut,” but that’s not the point. The fact that you had to qualify slut by putting “man” in front of it speaks volumes about the sexual double-standard, and the viciousness sexual women are treated with.
Men who fuck around are called players, or they’re just. . .men. Women who have sex are whores, sluts, skanks, ho’s, . . .the list goes on. Women are berated for not having self-respect if they have sex. Our virginity/purity is fetishized and the way we dress is scrutinized in this regard. Men are not treated to endless lectures and moral panics about their virginity, about their supposed lack of self-respect for fucking around or for the way they dress and conduct themselves. In fact, I’m willing to bet a round of drinks for the Feministe mods that this dude’s column, and the behavior of dudes like him, will be blamed on the “feminists” who are all into “that hook-up culture,” because the boyz just totes can’t help themselves.
Of course all men arent like this. But many of them are and it is sad to see it. Old attitudes NEVER seem to die peacefully.
I tend to take a hardcore stance againt men who DO think like this Surette character. They get no slack me from me at all.
I’m always amazed at those who think when they slap the word “satirical” on stinking garbage which promotes violence and harassment that it will magically excuse that garbage.
“The controversy erupted over a satirical column ”
Uh…what was he satirizing? I mean, usually with Satire you are mocking an idea/attitude/opinion/event/whatever. And yeah, a solid satire might have you thinking at first it is serious, but by the end it is clear that the author does not agree with what they wrote-they are mocking a topic. But what was he supposedly mocking? Glad to see the University is not pretending this is no big deal.
Sheelzebub
I usually just use slut for men too. I wanted it to be absolutely clear I was talking about men. But yeah, I see what you mean. There is a double standard but I don’t think it is as bad as you say it is.
One more thing (huge generalizations…) Conservatives say that women who HAVE sex don’t have any self respect, self esteem, yada yada. Liberals say that women who DONT HAVE sex don’t have any self respect, self esteem, yada yada. Our sexuality will be judged no matter what we do. The whole world needs to chill the fuck out and let people be people.
Every time I see someone whine about “satire” I feel like an English teacher. Satire, really? What feelings or ideas about the issue is the author mocking? Where are the sly phrases or moments of irony that indicate the author disagrees with them?
Right now, it looks like Surette’s column was pretty firmly mocking the idea that men should treat women like equals.
Great satire, there. Revolutionary challenge to society’s deeply-entrenched ideas. *golf clap*
omg- I think this guy is delusional ! Look at him . I don’t think anyone wants to go to bed with him , no matter how drunk they might be . And wow, his mother must be so proud.
As an editor at a college newspaper who has personally quashed similar columns like this* , I am not surprised that it exists –somewhere–. What I _am_ surprised about is that it got through.
I don’t know how this particular student newspaper is set up, but at ours, there are multiple lines of editors (one section editor, at least three copy editors, the copy chief, two managing editors and the editor in chief) who read everything before it gets .pdf’ed and sent to the printer, and the appropriateness issue would have been raised by the copy chief at the very latest. Now, there are a lot of girls on my college newspaper staff, which may be unusual (though since women make up something like 2/3rds of all college students I would think it wouldn’t be that weird), and it also may be unusually large and have more people available as a line of defense against this sort of thing (I go to a large state school). But though I am the only self-identified feminist on our staff, I _guarantee_ that the other female editors in that lineup would have been troubled and at least discussed editing out the “bad” parts…heck, the male editors may have mentioned it too.
Glancing at the staff list of the Fairfield Mirror shows (apparently) female executive editor, both “commentary” editors (asst. and main editor), online managing editor and even an apparently female ADVISOR!!! It’s really astonishing to me that something with such a hateful tone toward women and such blatant rape overtones would be published. Guys are often oblivious to this kind of thing, but women are usually more aware of it, and I am very surprised that it raised no red flags for the female executive editor and the female advisor (usually college newspapers that have advisors –require– the paper to be read by the advisor before publishing!).
They need to seriously re-evaluate their editing process.
Oh, and Chris Surette is an a$$.
* Said quashing usually proceeds with a “HOW much pot did you smoke to make you think there was a snowball’s chance in hell of me publishing this?” followed by bitching about “censorship!!!!!” and “You’re just afraid of printing THE TRUUUUTH” and “No sense of humor, don’t understand satire!!!” followed by me correcting their understandings of “censorship,” “truth,” and “satire” (and thus apparently destroying their self-esteem based on their reaction, though I wouldn’t have previously guessed literary literacy to be a big deal for these guys), topped off with “Too bad, so sad, go start a LiveJournal if you are so worried about your opinion getting out there. I am not sacrificing valuable trees to your idiocy.” It starts out fun but after the fourth or fifth time it just becomes depressing.
Kiki, liberals engage in quite a lot of slut-shaming. Witness the sniggering and misogyny in response to the “release” of Carrie Prejean’s sex tape. Yes, her opinions are vile, but note the slut-shaming on “our” side WRT to a tape made as a private thing to her then-boyfriend. There is very little noise being made about what a shitty thing he did.
Also, I disagree that the double standard isn’t as bad as I say it is–it hasn’t been my personal experience, or the experience of a lot of women out there. Any rape trial will show you that isn’t the case (see: the OC Rape case for a real winning display of that). Spreading rumors about a woman or girl’s sexual behavior is the best and most effective way to attack her.
Clearly this is much more that just a man being a typical man. In fact, I would argue that he is extremely atypical. I am a man and I have tons of male friends and NONE of them behave in this way…not even when we were in college. However, we are all socialized to believe that this is just how men typically behave. When society buys into this stereotype, even more pressure is put on men to behave more like a man. Personally, I feel like most guys are just trying to feel like we fit in somewhere. Th conscious, responsible guys just haven’t done a very good job of connecting with each other. We are all assuming that we don’t fit in to male culture when in reality, it is the hyper-masculine, misogynistic, a-holes who are hijacking male culture and the rest of society (particularly men) are allowing that to happen.
Also – as bad as Chris Surette’s behavior is, remember he learned it from somewhere. Also consider that he might also be the victim of some sort of abuse or violence himself. His actions certainly appear to be in line with that. I am not excusing what he has done but I think it is easy to condemn him rather than condemning his behavior and finding out why he feels the way he does. This guy wasn’t born hating women. That is likely the product of something very personal and profoundly tragic in his life. He needs help.
@Ruthie–OMG I KWYM. I remember when I was in college I had to deal with that crap at the paper all. the. time. AND if someone wrote something critical of a local blowhard, he’d call me and threaten to sue the paper/me for libel. I finally pulled out the dictionary and read him the actual definition of libel, which didn’t include “Anyone who writes something critical of an edgy d00d.”
The guy is clearly an idiot. Most likely he has little luck with women, and will have even less going forward. Guys who talk like this rarely do. He just does not understand women, men, healthy relationships or even good healthy sex. He has no respect, not for women, not for men, not for himself, not for anyone.
There is indeed a clear failure, both on his part and on the part of the paper, as well as on the university. The attitude portrayed really is among the worst behavior by young guys, outside of illegal behavior. He deserves a huge smack-down and a total overhaul of his humor and perceptions.
However, having said all that, worst person in the world? Worse than a Fox News anchor? Worse than a fundamentalist blogger who thinks all women should wear burkas? Worse than the example I saw yesterday where a neo-nazi was complaining about Buford Furrow who shot 70 rounds into a Jewish daycare center, not because he failed to kill any kids, but because 70 rounds should have meant 70 bodies. Seems to me any of these would be a better candidate. I guess you’re copying Keith Olbermann, but even then, I feel much of your piece is overstated.
This guy is just an ass who said stupid things and whose words need to be publicly challenged, countered and condemned. He does not represent most men, he represents a little fringe group of sad pathetic little men. And playing the idiot is not limited to guys; Ann Coulter seems a far better candidate for worst person in the world than this little man will ever be.
Even then, he’s an ass, not a monster. I seriously doubt he intentionally meant to promote rape, nor that other guys would even see it that way. Seriously, do you think so little of guys that you think we collectively are that stupid, that we’d see an article like that as funny, let alone inciting us to rape? It’s like he’s talking in 70s action-movie cliches… but again, fringe, not typical. I see no intent, let alone resulting incitement. It may be that there is some, but you need much more evidence to substantiate any of that.
I do like provocative blogging and I like blogs like yours, folks who take the time to tackle the issues. However, I don’t like to see someone overstate the argument. I believe that discredits the argument. I feel that sensationalist overreactions, even (and especially) when popular with your readership, take an easy road and dodge the real substance of the matter. Worse, they often close the door to real discussion and debate.
Why are they only going after the paper? Murky indeed. There should be disciplinary measures taken against Surette as well, IMHO. This guy writes a column promoting rape and sexual harassment, and then nothing happens to him? Give me a break. There should be repercussions for the paper — what were they thinking? — but come on. The administration should be doing something legitimate about this. It’s a college newspaper, not the New York Times. (And I would hope that the Times would fire the columnist who wrote that drivel anyway.) Completely ridiculous. If I were the Dean of Students, I would expel Surette before he could open his mouth to tell me it was satire. I wouldn’t want rapists on my campus, thank you very much.
“Worst Person in the World” was hyperbole. Was that really not obvious?
it was fine.
I see. Since that is the extent of your reply, I assume the whole article is hyperbole? Because I feel the title and article both exaggerate.
“However, I don’t like to see someone overstate the argument. I believe that discredits the argument. I feel that sensationalist overreactions, even (and especially) when popular with your readership, take an easy road and dodge the real substance of the matter. Worse, they often close the door to real discussion and debate.”
So, wait, what did you think the real substance of the matter was? The fact that Neo-Nazi murderers are worse than this guy? Yeah, that’s a real doorway to meaningful discussion and debate.
You’re the one trying to close off discussion. The substance here is that this guy isn’t just some fringe. Many women and plenty of men have noticed how common this guy’s attitude is. Many of us realize how these attitudes shape and perpetuate the current rape culture.
I’m tired and don’t feel at the moment like trying to engage you enough that you might actually come around to seeing those connections, but rest assured that many people here already do, and that’s the real, substantive discussion they’re having.
The title is hyperbole. The substance of the post is not. He didn’t mean to promote rape? Then why is he writing an article about sexually victimizing women?
I don’t really care what he meant to do. He clearly meant to write an article that was demeaning and insulting to women, and that tells other men to demean and insult women. He tells other men to be “ruthless” in their sexual encounters with women, and to turn them into “victims.” I don’t see how it’s exaggerating to suggest that such comments promote sexual assault.
“I don’t agree that mens reputations are not affected by that level of promiscuity or that most men are like that. But then again I live in a fairly conservative state.”
It’s odd that you say that. So far, I’ve found conservative circles to be more congratulatory towards and laudatory of male promiscuity than liberal circles. Not that liberal men were less sexually active, certainly, but there seemed to be a far less celebratory attitude attached to it.
And of course, he followed up with a lame apology…
http://fairfieldmirror.com/2009/10/06/a-note-from-he-said/
and the best part—
“but i was in a women’s studies class last semester! i love women! i hate rape!” headdesk
Grant, I think you are substantially understating the problem here. It’s easy to view this as a problem of a “little fringe group of sad pathetic little men” but the sheer volume of sexual assault survivors suggests that there either has to be a correspondingly large group of perpetrators or the fringe group is getting away with a whole bunch of assaults.
Surette’s column doesn’t merely seek to make some dodgy humour, but intentionally or not it legitimates sexual assault and seeks to draw masculine communities around the perpetration of misogyny and assault. To be honest, it’s Surette’s view of men that disgusts me, not the views of feminist commentators who are legitimately taking Surette and the rape culture this column perpetuates to task.
What’s really problematic about the “he’s not talking about sexual assault” defence though is the way in which it pulls the whole rape-rape bullshit up again. What Surette is talking about, what his column is all about, IS sexual assault. If it isn’t intentional, it’s because he doesn’t really get what sexual assault is, what enthusiastic consent is. And if other guys aren’t seeing it that way, it’s because THEY don’t really get what sexual assault is. And that puts them at massive risk of becoming perpetrators.
Oh, ugh — the “satire” defense. Whenever I see someone trying to pass off a ghastly and offensive student newspaper article as “satire”, I find myself compelled to ask them if they would ever seriously consider eating Irish babies. No? Well that’s why Swift’s essay was satirical — because it provoked that all-important cognitive dissonance. Satire is a logically-presented and completely illogical argument refuted by the very words that profess to support it. Unless people come away from the article ashamed for ever considering humiliating a woman for having sex, then it is not satire. Satire isn’t about being funny in a political way as being political in a (somewhat) funny way. Satire is NOT just being controversial or provocative or offensive. (Clearly I am preaching to the choir here, but DAMN IT I hate the way this word is used to cover bad behaviour.)
My own former university student newspaper penned some real gems of so-called “satire”, including one article titled “Labia Majora Carnage”. I’ll let you use your own imagination about what they were “satirizing” there.
Once more for good measure: Chris Surette.
Lukovka, I’m sorry if my comments annoyed you, or Jill, or anyone. This was not my intent. I’m not remotely interested in cutting off discussion, the exact opposite in fact. I’m interested in a balanced, well-reasoned discussion, but generally I’ll take a little of everything. I may be in the wrong place for that, might have misread the openness of this forum, and if so I regret the intrusion and shall simply move along.
As to coming over to your side, if you reread what I said, I’m already on your side. I kinda hate guys like this, though to be fair, I’ve also seen many change (though that’s another discussion entirely). I count none like him as friends, and I never have. I disagree with the conclusions above because, to my way of looking at things, they represent one the harshest readings of the facts, based mostly on subjective analysis. In my experience the truth is rarely on the fringes. This is all I’m saying. It does not mean that I’m insensitive to the issue or that I disagree with the underlying arguments, or that I’m trying to shut the conversation down.
Further, anecdotal evidence is at best an indicator, at worst completely fallacious. Many wrongful ways of thinking, including the thinking of this guy we’re discussion, are based on subjective and anecdotal information. It often leads to misunderstandings and wrongful assumptions of fact. If we take subjective observations as fact we’d all end up with our own little realities. In my case, I live in a progressive city full of compassion and sweetness. Most of the men I know are nothing like this guy. In my extended circle are many different mindsets, but by and large very few of the men or women I know feel that most me are like this and few would agree with the overall conclusion made here… and if they did it would be for more in-depth reasons. So my subjective reality conflicts with yours. When I lived in the US South my own past subjective reality would starkly conflict with my current one. In fact, since most thinking people continue to grow as people, most of us will have a different subjective reality in 5 years time, hell, maybe tomorrow. If we can’t even agree with ourselves, by assume it’s fact?
How do we meet in the middle? Well, I think we do so by keeping the debate factual and reasonable, by not being ruled by anger, by seeking common ground (which I offered up right from the start, possibly ineffectively so) and by not starting from the harshest assumptions. Of course opinions are needed to stimulate the discussion and bring new perspectives… but they are not fact. This is why I asked only that the subjective be replaced by substance. Perception is rarely reality, and the worst assumptions are almost never reality and are very often personal prejudices that thinking people should want to confront and discuss. YMMV
As Chris Surette — or Christopher Surette (perhaps he might prefer his full name, Chrisopher Surette, or who knows, maybe he simply likes to go by Chris Surette) writes in his apology, “My goal is to write about the ideas that your typical 18-22 year old college male thinks and speaks with putting a humorous twist on it.”
So you see, when these “typical” dudes talk about women with contempt, that’s TOTALLY DIFFERENT from Chris Surette writing about women with contempt, OBVIOUSLY, because he is not typical, and furthermore, he is adding a humorous twist.
I never thought I could actually find myself saying this, but: Read the comments. A selection:
“You are a horrible writer and a horrible person. Grow up and try to get through college without raping anyone.”
“Forget about how offensive the column is, its just so triple U, unfunny, uninspired and unreadable. Congrats you wrote the perfect anti-column.”
“I can’t see how, given the publication of this column, any woman will ever come within 15 feet of this guy. Everyone deserves happiness, and I’m sure Chris will come to regret writing this, as the blogosphere pulls off the cockblock to end all cockblocks. Congrats on being picked up by Deadspin Chris, looks like you’re a famous colu- no wait, just a sexist pig.”
“This is the greatest article I’ve read in ages. If the ‘morality police’ would get a grip you’d see he’s touching on the finrer points of college and sex. I mean a girl who would sleep with you on the first night OBVIOUSLY deserves the ‘Walk of Shame’.
“Oh who am I kidding, this has to be the best piece of self-sabotage I’ve seen in ages. Jump in front of a truck.”
A substantial fraction of the comments — and all that I’ve quoted here — are from men. This pleases me.
Amazing. Is it 2012?
I don’t like the harassment charge. If it were a public university the charge would be unconstitutional and private universities should try to maintain the greatest amount of freedom possible.
But more importantly, it strikes me as a condescending form of sexism (since it implies a power difference that I don’t concede is there) that leftists often engage in. I’ve seen worse, like the university that charged a student with racial harassment for reading book about the KKK (an anti-KKK book, if it makes a difference to anyone), and this is more defensible since the speech in question is not serious, but its vaguely Orwellian nonetheless. the students a misogynist, no doubt, but less obviously, the admin is too.
“I’m sure Chris will come to regret writing this, as the blogosphere pulls off the cockblock to end all cockblocks.”
Heh, heh, heh.
“Beyond that, Chris Surette has incited other male students to do harm to female students.”
I’m no lawyer, but I’m pretty sure this is constitutionally protected speech, whereas incitement is not. You need some clear and imminent danger or something to trigger that exception.
Gary, you are not a woman and deal with the slut-shaming and the general bashing we get if we are remotely sexual. You do not have to deal with the threat of rape, or the victim blaming that happens if you are raped. I don’t give a fuck that he probably can’t “get” women–plenty of men who can do think and act this way. And even those who don’t, and society at large, tacitly approves this attitude to some extent. This douche got raked over the coals because he was very, very obvious about it.
But seriously–with the tone argument? Have a nice, hot cup of STFU. I have had to deal with attitudes like his for far too fucking long; attitudes have a very direct consequence and negative affect on the lives of women. Every woman here has every. goddamn. right. to. be. angry.
Here’s a tip: If you want to engage, don’t fucking mansplain to the ladies about how we should feel or react to attitudes or issues that affect us. Drop the tone argument. And LURK MOAR.
FFS.
Me too. It’s like finding an unexpected stash of candy.
My favorite is on the second page of comments, from some guy who just wrote, “There’s a lot wrong with you.” Love a dude who keeps it simple. But there are a ton of gems like that. Cheering!
Li, thank you for your reasoned reply and kudos to Jill for not censoring my comments. I now see where I may have annoyed some here. Text lacks too many of the subtleties of in-person discussion, but to be clear, while we could debate the nuances at depth, I do not think the issue is trivial at all. I have never heard of any place on this earth where this is not a substantial problem. I also think we need to tackle it head on. Further, I believe I largely agree with most here, and that is basically my point. I believe this issue will only be solved by men and women working together. Articles can be of two kinds, those that preach to the choir and those that try to be a part of the solution by reaching out to the other side (no, not the fringe like this guy, but your regular Joe… and guys like me). The former article can be more angry and unreasonable, the latter must be more measured and accurate. I think this one is the former and does little to advance the cause because, as a man who has never so much as threatened a woman, and who is mostly in agreement on the core issues, I can still be alienated. Bitterness and exaggeration coupled with erroneous generalities, are rarely effective.
Clearly I have much to learn on how to communicate all this effectively, but equally clearly I’m not the only one whose communication could be more effective. I think we need to find that common ground, find out how to talk to each other so that we can understand each other and work together. With that, I believe I have overstayed my welcome, so I shall not test Jill any further. Thanks again.
Wow, I’m really glad that Grant mansplained to the ladies how we’re being irrational and overstating our case. Also that we need to communicate more effectively to find “common ground” with him.
Gary, the mansplaining? The condenscation about our tone? Pretty damn alienating to a lot of women, who deal with attitudes like Surrete’s.
If you want to work “together with women,” I suggest you listen to us, refrain from preaching to us about The Way It Should Be Done, and deal with your own defensiveness if we get angry about this. That you start making this all about you and the feelings of men is not helping your case. Just sayin’.
If you really gave two shits, you’d spend your energy explaining to guys like Surrette why these attitudes are not okay. It’s telling that instead, you chose to come here and get defensive because we’re pissed off over something that–did we mention a hundred times already?–we (NOT men) have to deal with all the time, and that negatively impacts our lives.
Gary, the mansplaining? The condenscation about our tone? Pretty damn alienating to a lot of women, who deal with attitudes like Surrete’s.
If you want to work “together with women,” I suggest you listen to us, refrain from preaching to us about The Way It Should Be Done, and deal with your own defensiveness if we get angry about this. That you start making this all about you and the feelings of men is not helping your case. Just sayin’.
If you really gave two shits, you’d spend your energy explaining to guys like Surrette why these attitudes are not okay. It’s telling that instead, you chose to come here and get defensive because we’re pissed off over something that–did we mention a hundred times already?–we (NOT men) have to deal with all the time, and that negatively impacts our lives. We have every right to be angry. If you are so concerned about convincing guys like Surrette, why aren’t YOU talking to them? Why are you lecturing us and patronizing us?
And I got your name wrong, twice. I meant Grant.
That’s the only thing I retract from my posts though. Tone arguments from someone with privilege go over like a fart in a spacesuit. Do refrain from making them.
Hey, Grant cracked the code. People talking with each other on a feminist blog don’t want to have to cajole folks along into believing sexism is a pervasive problem.
I just feel bad he had to type up so many hundreds of words when he could have just waved a bingo card. Perhaps that wouldn’t have looked well-reasoned enough.
Manju, re: incitement — Surette’s speech is Constitutionally protected. I was using “incitement” conversationally, not as a legal term.
After reading the comments, it seems to me that people like Grant are more problematic than Surette.
Surette’s very open and extreme about his misogyny and thus hopefully, can be rehabilitated. When you act that obvious, it’s easier to get clubbed over the head with a clue bus.
It’s people like Grant who think they’re “average Joe”s that really do more damage in the long term. The ones who whine about how us girls just don’t understand men and are oh so happy to play the victim and run off when we react with y’know, logic and reality. Guys like that are going to think they’re in the right until the day they die.
Sheelzebub
I wont deny that liberals can slut shame like conservatives do. But I wasn’t talking about that. I was making a generalization of contrasting attitudes between conservatives and liberals that have the exact same reasons to support them. Women will be judged by someone whether or not they choose to have sex.
“Mansplaining.” Heh. I can actually see that, believe it or not.
Look at him . I don’t think anyone wants to go to bed with him , no matter how drunk they might be .
Meh.
Isn’t there enough wrong with what dude wrote already? Do we have to start pulling the “ugly people will never have sex!” deal, too? I mean, I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m not exactly Brad Pitt running around here, so when you start attacking people because of what they look like, you’re sort of hitting me, too.
His non-apology is… well, I guess it’s slightly better than most, in that he at least actually apologizes for a few things–although he mostly seems to attribute it to poor language choice, rather than the hateful and disgusting attitude that was the underlying foundation of the article.
Grant is obviously a much more advanced being than the rest of us, because he speaks in words containing several syllables. I’ve noticed a tendency for men on feminist blogs to write like this in order to appear “calm and rational” compared to those ugly, blunt, angry bitches.
And then he’ll come out and say, “But you must forgive me, gentle ladies, for my native tongue is not English.” It ups the ante of condescension.
Just an observation. My honors English teacher was a cranky old man who hated people who used “big” words to sound s-m-r-t. He may have been onto something, even if he was a cranky old lemonturd.
RE: Satire, yeah, the article is totally satire. Just the way that guys tell me things like, “I want to pound your pu55y and f you in the a,” and when I react in a really unfavorable way (no, they really think they’re hitting on me) they say, “Hey, I was JOKING. Can’t you take a JOKE?”
Writing about eating babies = satire.
Colbert = satire.
Encouraging sexual assault = douchebaggery.
The thing that bothers me the most about this guy’s article? I just graduated from university. In the last year, when i was working as a volunteer with first-years living in halls (dorms), I heard of two rapes happening in one 400-room building. I have my suspicions about a third, and there was an attempted rape just outside a campus entrance. This kind of thinking is clearly not some guy in a minority. There are so many young guys that think it’s okay do things that women don’t want them to. Articles like this being printed just shows how pervasive it is and how it’s seen as normal.
There is no way that kind of behaviour should be normal.
The worst thing is, it took reading about this guy for me to realise how disgustingly common attitudes like his are. I knew it was bad, but not this bad.
Agreed Roy, I had to do a double take when I saw that comment.
Thanks to Sheelzebub and others for trying to get through to grant. I mean really? We shouldn’t be angry about this shit that happens every god damn day of our lives because it will hurt all the grants out there? ugh. One more thing, Grant. This guy’s views are NOT fringe. They’re depressingly common place.
Agree with Jill, K and CactusWren: well done all the men who commented that this guy is a tool.
Did anyone read the news article the OP links to?
There’s a collection of quotes from men about how we shouldn’t be that harsh on Chris Surette and the newspaper because it would stifle passionate debate. (Not too many quotes from women, or women who were adversely affected by that horrible column. Huh.)
So what’s the passionate debate being stifled? “Is it, or is it not, okay to sexually assault women?” Is that really the level Chris Surette and the Fairfield Mirror are at?
Example quote from a man (a Fairfield Journalism Professor called Jim Simon: “Campus news organizations, when they do their job, are places where passionate debate on the issues of the day can take place.”
If this article had incited violence against a different group… say the Fairfield administration, white college-aged men, or promoted sexually assaulting babies, or promoted violence in the name of “jihad”, would so many male students and men in the administration be up in arms about not stifling “passionate debate”?
Or is this “passionate debate” allowable (from men’s perspective) because it simply encourages violence against an already oppressed group, and, incidentally, a group that men are not members of?
To Grant: thanks for being the voice of calm, multi-syllabled reason in this blog simply overflowing with emotional, irrational women. We ladies really rely on men like you to step in from time to time to put us in our place. My woman-brain just isn’t as reliable as your man-brain!
I guess I come from a such a narrow perspective. The sheer hatred – I guess the technical term is misogyny – reflected in that column is pretty horrifying.
Presumably – to a fool like me – one would want a sexual experience with someone to reflect warmth, kindness, pleasure – a good time? Something worth repeating? Something that one would wish upon friends? This just sounds horrifying to me.
I am trying to imagine how he would discuss such a column with his sister-in-law, his aunt, his business partner. I am trying to imagine his mother reading this column, or having her co-workers read it to her or forward it to her.
I can usually generate some robust viciousness towards an asshole like Surette but really, I am just to horrified to “bring the hate.”
Horrifying.
Wow. The comments section of the article is really, really encouraging; it’s as though, for any given asshat like this Chris Surrette, there’s an army of people (men included!) who are ready to explain to him how he’s the God of FAIL. So, for that, a thousand thanks, Cactus Wren.
Also, I’m suddenly feeling really bad for any unfortunate creature that shares his name. I do hope the article stays up, with the picture, so no one else loses out on a job or such because of this turd’s infamy.
It’s a Student Conduct Board proceeding at a private university, not a prosecution by the state. The Constitution doesn’t even enter into the picture here.
Ahem! Jill, you *are* a lawyer. How soon you forget your Con Law. Woe.
Leaving aside the misogyny, and the rape culture, and the slut-shaming, which have been admirably covered by various and sundry commenters — let’s look at the douchebaggery. The whole premise of this “column,” if you can call it that, is that bagging your victim makes for a great story. Good heavens, why? Is getting laid such a rare occurrence for Chris Surette that he feels the need to share with his buddies each time it happens?
Grant, too much of this comment thread has been devoted to you already but due to a wonky scrollbar I started reading your comment @22 in the middle and I could tell it was written by a man. You might want to think about that, and contemplate what gave it away, if you’re genuinely interested in discussion and engagement.
One hint: it was very, very obvious that you’ve never weighed the pros and cons of sleeping with a guy and had to wonder if he’d rape or assault you if you went home with him. If you had, then you might have a different view of how serious a problem this “fringe” attitude that some men have is. Even if it’s only a small percentage of men, it impacts all women, one way or another.
“Mansplain” is my new favorite word. :)
just so you know fairfield university is a catholic university. icing on the cake
Ha. This is what happens when you respond to comments and aren’t really paying attention. I meant it probably wasn’t “incitement” in a legal sense, not that the school couldn’t shut him down.
Oh My Cats! I hate this excuse so much. Here’s a hint to all mansplainin’ douchebags out there: The uproar you are seeing over this is PASSIONATE DEBATE.
“It’s a Student Conduct Board proceeding at a private university, not a prosecution by the state. The Constitution doesn’t even enter into the picture here.”
i acknowledge that in comment 37. i bought up the constitution only to demonstrate its not incitement, not top imply the university is bound by the first amendment. i believe in property rights. if Jill was using the term colloquially, i have no problem with that.
You should realize that these attributes that C.Surette, like a little boy, brags about, needs to justify his bad behavior by camaraderie. You should know that this and similar behaviors are on the rise. This is not just a male behavior!
Check out what happens to males who refuse to participate in these behaviors.
A Clue! Check out the higher incidence of rape going on world wide.
I’d say this about almost all the of the “He doesn’t get much sex” type comments. (There are lots of assholish types who do have a lot of sex, and lots of reasons people might not be having as much, so throwing those sorts of comments around gets overly insulting in a lot of ways.)
Agreed. The amount of sex you have has very little to do with how conventionally physically attractive you are.
Noting all the comments about future googling by employers, I just googled him for curiosity. This Feministe article has two links to it on the first page, beating the original article, which is on p2, accompanied by 7 links to feminist articles about what a douchebag he is (the other 2 are about some poor guy in LA who shares Surette’s name). What an amazing feat of googlery. Well done.
I’m not writing in defence of Grant (I’m sure he’s more than capable of looking after himself) but rather to say that I didn’t feel mansplained at. I don’t agree with everything he wrote and I get why so many others feel he was talking down to women.
(I’m not sure how to word this because I don’t want to be attacked. I’m also really fragile now because the umpteenth SSRI I’m on isn’t working anymore – not looking for pity, just ’splainin’ my emotional state.)
Any way, I’ve always responded positively to the “logical” approach. Even as a kid, I hated obeying instructions from adults unless they could lay out reasons why they wanted me to do something or do something in a certain way. So I understand what Grant was getting at. I know you all did too but I guess I just wanted to say that I didn’t have the same reaction as those who commented before me and I wanted to offer another perspective.
I suppose I simply wanted to extract from his comment what made sense to me and the rest I put aside. That’s something that’s worked for me over the years. And I stress…this is my personal approach. I’m only explaining myself, not generalising on behalf of anyone else.
@Jill:
The point was to apply this to more than the “physically attractive” part (to different sorts of personalities as well). It does seem that a lot of the time, these sorts of people will attract a lot of “He must have no success with women” type comments (which may or may not reference physical attractiveness), which are all pretty insulting.
Ishtar, if I saw the same reaction to Atrios’s posts on the worst person in the world, or Keith Olberman’s segment “Worst Person,” that would be one thing. But we seem to get these lectures when it’s the ladeez doing it. And that’s BS. As is the assumption that we’re just plain not being logical.
Again, Grant came off as patronizing and arrogant. He also came off as royally entitled with his whining about how we shouldn’t alienate men (who apparently have every right to feel alienated and angry by our anger) while ignoring the fact that WE have every right to feel alienated and angry. IOW: It’s not all about him, or the menz, and his/their fee-fee’s.
This isn’t a Feminism 101 blog, and from my experience, people who think Surrette’s brand of humor is okay (or who think mansplaining is OK) aren’t actually moved by logic–when confronted with logic that puts their privilege at stake, they get terribly emotional.
It’s also pretty classic that Grant ended his contributions here with a sad & familiar lament about how we feminists are never going to help society at large reach the happy green lawn of “middle ground” given our intransigence. “middle ground”, of course, in relation to these two positions:
side 1: woo rape yay! also, super funny!
side 2: ugh rape bad. also, not so matchy-matchy with the laffs.
re: the ‘mansplaining
I think that it’s also worth saying that Grant’s intentions (whatever they might have been) are outweighed by the context in which he was commenting; which is to say a social context in which oppressed people (in this case women) are frequently talked down to by those in a position of privilege (in this case men). By not understanding that context, even the most thoughtful and well-intentioned comment was going to risk falling flat, because it can’t take into account that vital information.
I wasn’t thrilled by Grant’s comments (in fact, re-reading them again I kinda want to apply a little head to desk once more, ’cause YEESH), but now that he’s extracted himself, I hope he’s still reading and getting a better idea of why people responded to him negatively. When you come into a situation from a privileged point of view, reading and listening to the myriad views of those who are not privileged in your way is essential. There is simply no way to understand these things otherwise (and I say this based on myself as a person with many privileges who has had to learn this way; a social echo chamber just does not cut it). It is possible to express *some* of the ideas he expressed in a way that doesn’t perpetuate a system of privilege and oppression, but it’s going to take some more awareness and learning to do so. If someone isn’t going to put the time in to read and listen and do their research, then I’m not terribly interested in what they have to say, especially when the topic challenges societal privilege.
To all my fellow lurkers out there, keep doing what you’re doing!
Nikita, et al…
When I read this asshat’s column and the article that calls it “satire,” you know the thing that concerns me the least? In the entirety of the universe? Anti-male prejudice or “misandry.”
I think this one is the former and does little to advance the cause because, as a man who has never so much as threatened a woman, and who is mostly in agreement on the core issues, I can still be alienated. Bitterness and exaggeration coupled with erroneous generalities, are rarely effective.
Grant, in order for there to be common ground, there needs to be respect first. The guy who wrote this PoS of an article obviously does not have any respect towards women or else he wouldn’t have written it.
Hey.
I’m late to comment on this. My 2 ct. What this guy has written is clearly despicable. But, to be honest, reading even only the quoted parts, I don’t get the feeling that he’s writing this being completely honest. There’s probably an intent to be sartirical, which doesn’t really work out, but mostly, I get a feeling this is a case of an angry guy who can’t get laid. No man who’s ever been successful with women would ever come close to writing about his and her sexual encounters in this way. All this indicates is that Chris really has no idea what he’s talking about. He’s looking for male approval by pounding his chest because he doesn’t have it – and he’d have male approval if he had female approval – which he clearly doesn’t have.
So, well, obviously, for every individual woman, it now makes perfect sense to avoid this man. But I’m pretty sure that this article is mostly a misguided cry for help. He seems to be one of the guys who need to learn that they don’t need to be complete assholes for women to like them. Helping him improve his social skills with women seems the most effective way to rid the world of such essays.
No man who’s ever been successful with women would ever come close to writing about his and her sexual encounters in this way.
*cough*Tucker Max*cough*, *cough*Levi Strauss*cough*, any number of so-called “PUA”s, successful or not.
You may argue with the definition of “success” as it applies to them, but they’re successful enough to make a living.
There’s an underlying disrespect (exacerbated by homosociality). Helping him be successful will not eliminate that disrespect – it will probably make other men think the same way, because they think it’s the disrespect that got him the success.
Jay,
“There’s an underlying disrespect (exacerbated by homosociality). Helping him be successful will not eliminate that disrespect – it will probably make other men think the same way, because they think it’s the disrespect that got him the success.”
Good point. Although my experience is that people gain perspective with personal growth. To me, this whole thing screams “help me find a girlfriend”. It’s the kind of ugly desperation and rhethorical compensation that some of the PUAs eagerly exploit (but – have you read this? https://webspace.utexas.edu/ejc329/ElanaCliftThesis.pdf?uniq=-wk7fye – A gender student’s take on the phenomenon – there’s the good, the bad, and the ugly, all at the same time) .
Teaching him about the female erogenous zones a bit of bar magic certainly won’t help on its own, agreed. It should start with self-inspection and an openness that may be lacking due to, ah well, privilege. Still, helping this man and the countless others who suffer from this kind of delusions seems the most appropriate way to deal with this kind of essay, in my opinion.
This assumes in the first place that the article has anything to do with “not getting laid”. From what I’ve seen, a lot of groups will reinforce viewpoints like the one mentioned here, whether the people within the group are having a lot of sex or not. (The opinions are more associated with competition than anything else, of any sort.)
As mentioned above, any sort of “He can’t get laid” is quite insulting anyway (As there are a lot of reasons someone might not be having much success.), whether it is used in the sense of “That’s person’s inferior” or “That person just needs help (Which begs the question of where more respectful people who don’t get this sort of attention are supposed ot do.)
Reason enough for an editor to have spiked the column. If you’re going for satire, and you miss, it’s a big FAIL, and shouldn’t be printed. This rule applies regardless of subject matter.
“*cough*Tucker Max*cough*, *cough*Levi Strauss*cough*,”
Perhaps you mean Neil Straus. I don’t think Levi Strauss was too succesful with women, especially after Glorai Vanderbilt arrrived. The jury’s out on Claude Lévi-Strauss however, until we can see a structural pattern. Don’t get me started on Leo straus though–women couldn’t keep their hands off him–no matter what Allan Bloom says.
You very nearly made my day. Kudos.
1) People who consider this satire should learn what the fuck satire actually IS.
2) Surrette and his ilk don’t need girlfriends. Their problem isn’t being awkward around women. Plenty of women are awkward around men and manage not to be hateful. What he wrote was pretty damn misogynist. There’s no excuse for that.
Sheelzebub, I has teh co-thinkin’ crushes on you. I am so very tired of the satire excuse. Newsflash. If your great art is a satire and people aren’t getting it, it doesn’t mean you’re an extra great artist, it means you need to get better at communicating your actual meaning. EITHER, you are doing satire NOT VERY WELL or you are just being a tosspot. Pick a side already.
A quick Google of “Chris Surette” reveals evidence of his assholery as results 3, 5, 6, 7, and 10 on the first page. One can hope that all potential dates and employers will do their diligence before meeting this guy face-to-face.
Here’s some garbage in response to his garbage. I hope he reads it. Maybe he should have an adversary who attempts to give him a dose of his own medicine. :-)
Hey girls. Remember the last time you decided to take a guy a home and were disappointed beyond belief? You thought you had enough to drink to kill his god awful body smell and then the worst, he isn’t even man enough to perform the job. What a waste of time you say (most of the time it is)? Sure it is, but it can be a great learning experience for both of you. Men like this are great target practice and can help you learn to be confrontational.
Make sure you tell him that you didn’t get ‘yours’ and that you actually need for it to last longer than a minute to make that happen. Don’t ever fake it. Its is a disservice to both of you. Make sure you tell him where he stands in the scope of your own knowledge about penis size. The truth may hurt but, the truth is the truth. Stop stroking the egos of men that need serious criticism. Especially if he’s one of those beautiful muscle heads, he may need more criticism than usual because most women won’t give him the criticism he needs and deserves. To make him a better lover, insults work.
The male ego is so fragile he may get angry with you, no worries…… earlier in the night make sure you told him about your hidden handgun, he may think twice about pissing you off or not being open to your helpful advice. He will definitely be more receptive to your advice if you never sleep with him again. This always works. He may even beg for a chance to make it up to you. If you didn’t find him receptive to instruction on the first visit, then why do it again anyway? If he’s receptive, then maybe he’s trainable, and another chance may be acceptable.
Now get out there and make men…better men. You’ll need them in life for little else than personal pleasure. Or sperm of course. Fortunately, they just give the stuff away. So get out there and tell men the truth about how you find them lazy, good for nothing lovers. You’re going to masturbate and fall asleep after he leaves anyway. Make sure he knows that. The next girl he sleeps with may thank you. Happy hunting girls.
Egnu Cledge: errm, you do realise that’s referring to the university’s attempt to exert editorial control over the newspaper? That’s… sensitive territory, mostly because of the long and rather dubious history of university control of student newspapers for political reasons. The mere fact that they can exert censorship of the newspaper is a big deal – while this time around it’s for a good cause, the next time it could be because one of their wealthy donors doesn’t like something published there.
The flip side of that is that as this idiot points out, guys feel as if they HAVE to “bang a million women” in order to not harm their reputation. C’mon now Dana, gender stereotypes help no one.
Comments on this entry are closed.