(Original Work)
Fraternity rape culture continues to be an unattended and mystical issue among
universities nationwide. In the journal article “Wales Tales, Dog piles, and
Beer Goggles: An Ethnographic Case Study of Fraternity Life” Rhoads reminds us
that “half of all reported acquaintance rapes were committed by fraternity
members and athletes” (307). Patricia Yancy Martin and Robert Hummer push
further that “over 90 percent of all gang rapes on college campuses involve
fraternity men” (458) While the statistics are clear the reasons are not.
Elizabeth Armstrong and colleagues speculate that the use of alcohol as a
scarce resource creates an environment where fraternity brothers have leverage
over women and can dictate the party atmosphere (489-490). Paula Nurius and
colleagues point the finger at the gap between perceived risk and actual risk
at fraternity parties and ultimately women’s inability to accurately pick out
danger cues.* Patricia Yancy Martin and Robert Hummer explain that fraternities
prefer a litany of “stereotypical and narrowly masculine attributes and
behaviors” thus the selection process of fraternity brothers is what creates
such a high probability of acquaintance rape (460).
This paper intends to address what factors contribute to higher acquaintance
and gang rape at fraternities among universities nationwide. While there is no
doubt that rape occurs in many other places besides fraternities, I will not
address rape issues outside of the fraternity atmosphere. Also there are some
studies and solutions which mainly focus on what women can do to protect
themselves from rape. Since this does not address the very culture which breeds
the risk of rape to begin with I will be minimally addressing these solutions
since I feel that they are not substantial enough and tend to blame the victim.
Instead this paper focuses on analyzing what aspects of fraternity life
contribute to fraternity rape culture. Based on that analysis I will put forth
solutions intended to change the culture as a whole in a way that makes college
campuses across the nation a safer place for women.
The Issue of Fraternity Rape on Campus
In the book “Fraternity Gang
rape” by Peggy Sanday, a victim of a fraternity gang rape was interviewed about
her experience.
This guy was on top of me, and there was intercourse going on. Then, the other
guys in the room would either come over and one would be like touching me while
the another was having intercourse or whatever. There was somebody leaning on
me most of the time, which made me feel like I was being held down. One person
sat on the bed and the other person would sit on my chest with their penis in
my mouth or something…At various times, I said “that hurts, please stop doing
it, please leave me alone” All I heard them saying was, “that doesn’t hurt, you
like that you don’t want to leave now” At one point there was some anal
penetration which was really painful. I was crying and somebody held my hand. I
said “this really hurts.”
It is saddening to hear such
awful stories, and yet it seems they are quickly dismissed. Although the issue
of fraternity rape has been evident for decades, institutions have failed to
provide substantial solutions and punishments for such criminal activity.
Nurius and colleagues remind us that “College women are at roughly three times
greater risk for sexual victimization than are women in the general population”
(1). Armstrong furthers that despite colleges’ awareness of fraternity rape and
their and programs to stop rape on campus “rates of sexual assault, however,
have not declined over the last five decades” (484). Obviously the solutions
provided so far have not been effective, all the while tens of thousands of
women across the nation are still being victimized.
The Stranger Myth
Women perceive their risk of
assault by a stranger as greater than by an acquaintance (Nurius et al 1). Many
women are afraid of the stranger on the streets, in the woods, or under their
cars. Women are prepared for such encounters, and most women would not be
afraid to self-defend in such situations. However Sanday explains that “97
percent [of female rape victims] knew their attackers” (54). When the victim
knows her attacker it does not fit her definition of rape and in such cases the
woman “may not view themselves as having been raped at all” (Ehrhart, Sandler
6). While the woman knows she had sex against her will, it does not fit her
connotation of rape and it may leave her feeling confused about what happened,
especially if alcohol is involved. Acquaintance rape leaves many women
unprepared to defend themselves because they were not expecting rape to occur
in a familiar environment. Women are socialized to be nice and have a hard time
defending physically against an attacker that they know. This discrepancy
between the common connotation of rape and the actual reality of rape increases
women’s risk by leaving them naive and unprepared to defend themselves.
Moreover when there is no evidence of physical defense, it is more likely to be
assumed that the act was consensual.
The Expectations of College Life
There are many expectations
about college life that contribute the generalized rape culture on campus.
These expectations are exacerbated at fraternities and inhibit women from
accurately defining danger cues. A focus group participant from the journal
article “Sexual Assault on Campus: A Multilevel Integrative Approach to Party
Rape” describes her feelings going to college. “You see these images of college
that you’re supposed to go out and have fun and drink, drink lots, party and
meet guys. [You are] supposed to hook up with guys, and both men and women try
to live up to that” (Armstrong et al 487). With such an emphasis on partying,
drinking and casual hookups, the college culture itself creates danger for
women. Nurius and colleagues explain “Emphasis on college experience as a last
bash before entering responsible adulthood …may impede women’s efforts to
screen for early stage warning signals of sexual coercion or aggression. These
social expectations may also impede men’s likelihood of detecting early stage
resistance cues” (Nurius et al 2) Women attending parties are often too caught
up in having fun that they forget to look for danger cues. College men on the
other hand can get so caught up in the fun, that they don’t realize that their
seductions are non-consensual. Partying norms further put women in a vulnerable
position by promoting that partiers should “drink, display and upbeat mood,
evoke revelry in others…[and] like and trust partymates” (Armstrong et al 490).
Party norms create an atmosphere where partiers drink heavily, make friends,
trust partymates, and potentially hookup. The combination of women wanting to
be nice and likable, the norm of trusting partymates, and the norm to drink
heavily puts women in vulnerable positions where acquaintance rape is more
probable to occur.
Fraternity Peer Culture
The process of pledging not
only weeds out effeminate men but creates a sense of distinctive loyalty among
fraternity brothers. The pledging process is centered on trust and loyalty in
the fraternity. The pledge process is often humiliating and creates a sense of
secrecy. Brothers often would never want anyone else to know about what
happened during the pledge process. This humiliation process to be accepted
creates an eerie loyalty and trust in the fraternity. After being recruited
members of an anonymous fraternity were told “You, in return, must show the
fraternity that it can trust you, that you are loyal to it. You must be willing
to die for it” (Sanday 181). Ehrhart and Sandler further that “Often the bonds
of brotherhood prohibit getting their brothers into trouble…no matter how
sleazy your actions there is always the fraternity to hide behind”(8) This sets
up part of the stage for the fraternity rape culture. With such a strong sense
of group loyalty individuals who commit crimes, even gang rape, are seldom
persecuting as harshly as the general public. This is in part because of the
fraternity’s unwillingness to cooperate. Such crimes are also more likely to
occur because stereotypical masculinity is the ‘end all and the be all’ in
fraternities. This in turn creates increased hostility towards women.
The recruitment process and
selection standards typically only allow men who have traditionally masculine
attributes and are therefore are more likely to engage in sexist behavior. In
the article “Correlates of Sexual Aggression Among Male University
Students” Lackie and Man note that “sexually aggressive men tend to score high
on masculinity” and “the higher men scored on masculinity the less they
reported feelings of disgust, contempt and guilt, when asked to imagine
committing sexual assault” (2)
In the journal article
“Fraternities and Rape on Campus” Martin and Hummer describe this weeding out
of effeminate men; “Narrowly masculine attributes and behaviors was recited and
feminine or woman-associated qualities and behaviors were expressly
denounced”(460). Fraternities seek men who are “athletic”, “big guys” that are
“good in intramural competition”, those “who can talk college sports”, are
“willing to drink alcohol” and “can hold their liquor” (460). Masculinity in
fraternities is defined in a narrow and stereotypical fashion. Men in
fraternities ought to be tough, strong, macho men. Those who do not exhibit
such qualities are out casted and are labeled as “gay” and “wimpy”. Men in
majoring in art, music, humanities or traditionally women’s’ fields such as
nursing are usually rejected. (460)
The very notion of traditional
masculinity has a strong rooting in anti-femininity. Masculinity is what
Femininity is not. A man who is not “strong” and “tough” is instead “wimpy”, a
“fag”, a “bitch”, a “little girl” or a “sissy”. Even these words like “bitch”
and “sissy” used to describe men who do not fit the masculine stereotype are
derogatory towards females in their very nature. In this context a real man is
not a woman; it is clear that a woman is less than a man and a man should avoid
being like a woman at all costs. And if he is effeminate he will be socially
rejected. This is particularly true in fraternities. This antifeminism shows
itself in most fraternal pledges. In the book “Fraternity Gang Rape” Sanday
details such a pledge process. During a hazing process the recruits were shouted
at. “Look at you all, you’re nothing but a bunch of girls …pussies! …You don’t
belong here. If you girls want to stay, fine, but do something useful and clean
up all this shit, this house is a mess! But do it quietly. We don’t need to
hear any bitching” (167). Clearly these “pussies” were to be made into
fraternity “men”. Meanwhile in their “girl” state they were degraded and made
to do subordinate tasks and clean up the other fraternity brother’s garbage. It
is implied in traditional masculinity that girls are subordinate and of a lower
standing. This creates an atmosphere were rape seems more acceptable.
The pledge process is not the
only place where hostile representations of woman take place. Fraternity
culture itself is very centered on being degrading and hostile towards women in
subtle and even explicit manners. Ehrhart and Sandler quote Andrew Merton from
the University of New Hampshire.
For many males the transition
to college represents a first step in a struggle for a kind of ‘manhood’ from which
woman are viewed as objects of conquest—worthy but decidedly inferior. The idea
of woman as equals is strange and inconvenient at best, terrifying at worst.
Unfortunately, most colleges and universities provide refuges ideally suited to
enforce these prejudices. Fraternities (5).
It is very common in fraternity
culture to joke and mock that a member is being a woman. While playing the
drinking game “Whales Tales” a player messed up and was to drink. Rhoads
describes the experience. “The other brothers stand up around the table and
mockingly grab their shirts with both hands, chest high…to signify imaginary
breasts. Then all the brothers, except for the accused sing a song…[which]
basically consists of the phrase “you’re a woman” over and over” Another common
practice is called chatter. Chatter is when an unknown woman sleeps over at the
house and the brothers yell degrading remarks out the window as she leaves.
Common phrases include “fuck that bitch” and “who is that slut?” (Boswell,
Spade 142).
Some levels of explicit
hostility from fraternities are shocking. A woman who was gang raped at a
fraternity was “dumped in the hallway of a neighboring fraternity house. The
victim was found in a comatose state with crude words and a fraternity symbol
written on her thighs” (Rhoads 308). Recently a Yale fraternity was called into
question when a video was captured of the members walking and chanting “No
means yes! Yes means anal!” (Times). To a woman walking on the streets, it
could be a terrifying and vulnerable experience to hear a group of men chanting
about their lack of concern for her consent.
It is this implicit and
explicit hostility which often sets the stage for rape in fraternity
environments. Lackie and Man report that “Sexually coercive men commonly are
hostile toward women…tend to hold rape supportive beliefs and accept violence
towards women”.(2) Fraternities only accept men who already hold a
stereotypical view of masculinity, that masculinity is exacerbated by group
norms and a norm of hostility towards women. This hostility and masculinity
breed to create an environment that is sexually coercive and degrading towards
women.
Fraternities are often hostile
towards woman but also use them as a sexual goal. Fraternity members aim to
have sex with many women in order to gain status within the group. An Associate
Professor at a liberal arts college is quoted in the article “Campus Gang Rape:
Party Games?”. He describes fraternities this way; “Fraternities are sporting
clubs, and their game is women” (Ehrhart Sandler 8). A fraternity member from
the article “Fraternities and Rape on Campus admits “having sex with prim and
proper sorority girls is definitely a goal” (465).
Alcohol is a common tool used
by fraternities to get woman in bed with them. Martin and Hummer describe the
use of alcohol as “a weapon against sexual reluctance”. Women often provided
with drinks that are strong and made with “overproof alcohol” to get them drunk
(464-465). Sanday explains fraternity members connotation of rape; “The brothers
believe that when a man initiates sexual activity with a woman her state of
mind is irrelevant. It does not matter if she is drunk or high on drugs. If she
does not resist sexual advances, her lack of resistance is interpreted as
willing acquiescence.” (87). Many also believe that women who drink are doing
so because they are interested in sex. A fraternity member from the book
“Fraternity gang rape” explained why a girl was not raped by his brothers. “She
was responsible for her condition, and that just leaves her wide open…so to
speak”. (134).
Fraternities enjoy the
privilege of having an unfair share of alcohol. Alcohol can be regarded as a
scarce resource among underclass college students. Fraternities are privately
owned and thus have more access to alcohol than sorority members and college
students living in residence halls where alcohol laws are usually strictly
enforced. Armstrong and colleagues explain “Fraternities offer the most
reliable and private source of alcohol for first-year students excluded from
bars and house parties because of age and social networks” (489) This
unequal distribution of alcohol allows fraternity men to control many aspects
of the parties they host. The parties are on their terms, their themes, their
turf, with their alcohol. Fraternities can host derogatory party themes because
of their ability to supply alcohol. “Party themes usually require women to wear
scant, sexy clothing and place women in subordinate positions to men” (489).
Some of these party themes included “pimps and Hos”, “Victoria Secret”,
and “CEO/Secretary Ho”. (489) Armstrong and colleagues further that “women are
supposed to wear revealing outfits, while men typically are not. As guests,
women cede control of turf, transportation, and liquor. Women are also expected
to be grateful for men’s hospitality, and as others have noted, to generally be
“nice” in ways that men are not” (490).
One vulnerability of ceding
control of the party atmosphere is ceding control of transportation. Without
adequate ways of getting around women have to rely on fraternity members to
drive them. This puts women in vulnerable positions. Fraternity men
driving woman could easily take them someplace secluded, or could not drive
them at all, forcing them to spend the night at a frat house or find another
way home. In the journal article “Sexual Assault on Campus: A Multilevel,
Integrative Approach to Party Rape” Armstrong and Colleagues exemplify this
with Amanda’s experience. “Mike promised a sober friend of his would drive her home.
Once they got in the car Mike’s friend refused to take her home and instead
dropped her at Mike’s place. Amanda’s concerns were heightened by the driver’s
disrespect. He was like, so are you into ménage a trios?” (Armstrong et al 492)
This creates a higher vulnerability of getting caught in a dangerous situation.
When a rape situation does arise, it is usually due to a variety of rape myths.
Rape myths refer to “ideas
about the nature of men, women, sexuality, and consent that create an
environment conducive to rape” (Armstrong et al 485). Three of these ideas are
men’s uncontrollable sexuality, women as a gatekeeper to sex, and working a yes
out of women through seduction. In our culture a man’s sexuality is seen as
wild and somewhat uncontainable. Men are seen as sexual creatures and women
have to be careful not to “lead them on” or give them “blue balls”. It is
viewed in our culture that if you arouse a man, that is your fault, and he is
uncontrollable in his aroused state. Boswell and Spade explain it this way;
“Men’s sexuality is seen as more natural, acceptable, and uncontrollable than
women’s sexuality, many men and women excuse acquaintance rape by affirming
that men cannot control their natural urges” (134).
Women are viewed as gatekeepers
to sex. They can be “passive partners or active resisters, preventing men from
touching their bodies” (Boswell and Spade 134). This coincides with the notion
that you can seduce a woman and work a yes out of her. It is viewed that women
don’t easily give up their bodies for sex and so it needs to be worked out of
them via seduction and alcohol. One fraternity member put it this way “She
really wanted it; she just said no because she didn’t want me to think she was
a bad girl” (134). Pornography exacerbates this issue by providing countless
images of women being seduced into sex, depicting them as objects, and making
it appear as though “women are always willing participants” (Ehrhart, Sandler
9). The idea that women say no when they mean yes is very detrimental to
womens’ sexual safety.
Men in fraternities put a lot
of effort into seducing women into sex; their status in the fraternity and in
essence their masculinity depends on it. Men expect that women will say no at
first, but their goal is to seduce them into wanting it. This expectation for
sex can create aggression and hostility. Ehrhart and Sandler dissect male
hostility in these situations.
Some men assume that if a women
is modern and sexually liberated, she’ll automatically want to have sex, and if
she doesn’t they may feel cheated or used. Often they personalize the
rejection, based on their own insecurities regarding maleness. They become
threatened and angry and aggressive in an attempt to regain or achieve feelings
of adequacy and control (6).
In fraternities there is a ton
of pressure to be sexually promiscuous and masculine. When fraternity brothers
feel they are failing at such behaviors they may feel insecure and inadequate
to the group. This may lead to aggression and lead to sexual coercion that they
may have never done outside of the group.
Group conformity is strict with regards to sexuality. Some fraternities even
engage in a process called “beaching” where a frat brother watches another frat
brother have sex. “Usually, the male knows that he is being watched; indeed, he
may communicate his intention to the brothers and leave the light on to make it
easier for brothers to watch him from the beach” (Sanday 60). This extreme
scrutiny makes the pressure for sexual conquest all the more intense. This can
blur the lines of consent and create feelings of hostility, inadequacy,
insecurity, and ultimately aggression.
Big Brothers and Little Sisters
Many fraternities have programs where sororities can sport fraternity symbols
and have “pseudo-membership” though a little sisters program (Martin and Hummer
462). As the names entail, the program is dominated by fraternities and the
“little sisters” do little more than provide a sexual value to the fraternity
for recruitment. Rhoads puts it this way; “Little sisters were merely a tool
used to attract new fraternity members” (313). Fraternity members seek to
obtain attractive, charming females though their little sisters program to get
more pledges. A fraternity member details “if you have a bunch of
undesirable looking creatures or a bunch of people wearing your letters that
you know you wouldn’t normally hang around with, that’s bad” (314)
Once part of the little sisters program they “pay monthly dues to the
fraternity, and have well-defined roles” (Martin, Hummer 467). These roles
include “attending hostess fraternity parties”, “hang[ing] around the house to
make it a “nice place” to be” and to “take care” of the fraternity members.
(467) This subordination and objectification can create sexually hostile
environments for the little sisters.
The overall subordination and degradation of women is apparent and flourishing
in modern fraternities. There have been efforts to reduce sexual violence
towards women in college, but many of these efforts are individual focused and
largely ignore the dominate college and fraternity.
How to Change Inadequate Solutions and a Failure to Respond
Appropriately
Universities have attempted to
reduce acquaintance rape on campus mainly by focusing on individual students.
Many focus on educating students on risk reduction and consent (Sanday 201).
These models have not focused on the culture that contributes to an overall
rape atmosphere. To reduce rape on campus focused efforts need to be made to
change the overall college culture that breeds hostility towards women in the
first place.
Women who are raped on campus usually receive intense criticism. There is an
extreme tendency to blame the victim, to find reasons why she in some way
deserved what happened to her. One woman accounts “my past was brought up like
I was an alcoholic nymphomaniac…I was the victim and I was made to feel like
the guilty person” (Ehrhart, Sandler 6). This creates an uncomfortable and
sometimes hostile environment for rape victims and decreases their likelihood
of reporting a rape. Institutions should work to reduce victim blame though
advertising and education. Institutions should provide adequate outlets and
counselors for rape victims, as well as adequate legal solutions to remedy the
problem including full information on the victim’s legal rights.
Institutional responses to rape are weak. Erhart and Sandler explain “One
problem institutions may have is that many fraternities have an agreement with
institutions whereby fraternities are obligated to accept collective
responsibility” When a rape occurs the institution is reluctant to punish all
fraternity members and so creates a lesser punishment like “social probation”
or no more parties for a certain length of time. The punishment often doesn’t
fit the crime. Universities need to focus on the individuals involved in the
crime not the whole fraternity. These agreements with fraternities for group
punishment need to be broken and acquaintance rape and gang rape cases should
be handled by a local police department. When a rape does occur punishment
needs to be swift and severe to be effective. Universities may be leery to
enact such policies since publicizing such crimes can ruin their reputation;
however it is an extremely important step to reduce sexual assault on campus
and is necessary to bring those guilty to justice.
Fraternities need to be scrutinized just as harshly for underage drinking and
alcohol as any other residency hall. This will level the playing fields so a
fraternity is no more likely to have more alcohol than any other hall. This
would create fewer incentives to attend fraternity parties and give
fraternities less control over the parties. A woman might not choose to go to a
frat party with derogatory themes if she can just as easily go to a more
friendly party somewhere else.
The pledge process and hazing needs to be monitored or gotten rid of
entirely. Hazing needs to be punishable. The pledge process is degrading to the
participants, and helps to create an extreme sense of loyalty to the group. If
the pledge process is avoided ideally group loyalty would decrease somewhat.
Fraternities should not be able to have complete control over who their members
are. Letting fraternities have complete control over this process allows the
litany of stereotypical men and masculine views to perpetuate by allowing
fraternity members to weed out men who do not conform to stereotypical and
typically hostile forms of masculinity. Fraternities should be mandated to have
a diversity of members with different majors, social class, race, and
ethnicities. By mandating a diversity of majors and members the social norms of
fraternities can be expected to change. Merely diversifying the fraternity
environment to have a multitude of viewpoints and backgrounds can diminish
fraternity violence by diluting the amount of traditionally masculine and
hostile men in fraternities. In turn the fraternity culture may shift or change
to a more tolerant and less hostile entity. This might be hard to enforce but
it might be one of the most effective ways of reducing fraternity hostility, violence,
and rape.
The little sisters programs need to have more independence from fraternities
and should not be affiliated as a subordinate group to the fraternities. They
should either be equals if dependent, or be independent from the fraternity
entirely.
Lastly and most extreme, fraternities can be eliminated if they have a certain
number of counts against them for sexual assault. Granted this would be a
sticky legal battle since fraternities are partially privately owned but it
might be a battle worth fighting.
The fraternity rape culture is a small focus in the big social picture.
Fraternity rape culture mainly stems from a global hostility towards women.
This paper focuses on fraternity rape culture but also alludes to and can
address larger problems with concepts of masculinity and femininity in American
culture.
This paper should be used to examine and address the culture which induces rape
and hostility towards women. These findings can be used to change and monitor
fraternities on campus to make colleges a safer place for women.
There are many directions future researchers can take to further the material
provided. Future research can focus on other aspects of American society which
have similar cultures and similar rates of acquaintance and gang rape such as
prisons or impoverished cities. This research could focus on the similarities
of these cultures and differences and speculate why those differences or
similarities occurred.
Another focus could be on the effectiveness of different solutions listed. More
information could be used to understand which fraternities are more rape prone
and what makes a campus more or less likely to contain high risk fraternities.
Finally efforts can be made to see if fraternities that have high hostility
towards women also have high hostility and prejudice towards other minority
groups.
References
“Are Colleges Doing Enough to Combat Sexual Violence?
- TIME.” Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech
Reviews - TIME.com. Web. 18 Apr. 2011. <http:>.</http:>
Armstrong, Elizabeth A., Laura Hamilton, and Brian
Sweeney. “Sexual Assault on Campus: A Multilevel, Integrative Approach to Party
Rape.” Social Problems 53.4 (2006): 483-99. Print.
Boswell, A. A., and J. Z. Spade. “FRATERNITIES AND
COLLEGIATE RAPE CULTURE: Why Are Some Fraternities More Dangerous Places for
Women?” Gender & Society 10.2 (1996): 133-47. Print.
Ehrhart, Julie K. Campus Gang Rape: Party Games? Rep.
no. ED267667. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED267667. Web. 4 Apr.
2011.
Lackie, Leandra, and Anton Man. “Correlates of Sexual
Aggression Among Male University Students.” Sex Roles: A Journal of
Research 37.5-6 (1997). Print.
Martin, P. Y., and R. A. Hummer. “Fraternities And
Rape On Campus.” Gender & Society 3.4 (1989): 457-73. Print.
Nurius, Paula S., Jeanette Norris, Linda A. Dimeff,
and Thomas L. Graham. “Expectations regarding Acquaintance Sexual Aggression
among Sorority and Fraternity Members.” Sex Roles 35.7-8
(1996): 427-44. Print.
Rhoads, Robert A. “Whales Tales, Dog Piles, and Beer
Goggles: An Ethnographic Case Study of Fraternity Life.” American Anthropological Association 26.3 (1995):
306-23. Print.
Sanday, Peggy Reeves. Fraternity Gang Rape: Sex, Brotherhood, and Privilege on Campus.
New York: New York UP, 2007. Print.
Comments
Post a Comment