A Column for the Politically Incorrect

Coeditors: Peter Hanus & Joseph Murphy

How Can I] Oppress Thee, Let Me Count the Ways Are you, or have you ever been, sexually harassed? ° According to a study done by Professors Beth Percival and Don Mazer (1988) there isa good chance you have been. They found that 89% of women and 85% of men on this campus had been sexually har- assed at least once in their life. Many may now be wondering ‘*‘ What have I been missing?’’ or ‘“My, how times have changed (since 1988)!’’ Well, not — really. A closer look at this study reveals why. Included among the 34 different manners of sexual - harassment were ‘‘Sexual ‘looks’ fromotherstu- dents’’ and ‘‘Social ‘teasing/jokes’ from other stu- | dents.’’ One then may wonder how the numbers came out to be so low. Well, Professor Mujeeb Rahman | noted this and some other problems with the survey | and expressed these views in the March 10, 1988 issue of The Gem. But rather than opening up debate concerning the study, Prof. Rahman came under attack and what then resulted was a barrage of charges and: defences in the following editions of the Gem. One notable letter to the editor in the March 24, 1988 Gem began ‘*The article which was published in this paper on March 10th by Mujeeb Rahman was a clear exam- ple of asmear campaign....’’ It was signed by Professor Vaughn Jelliffe (some may now want to refer back to a letter to the editor by Prof. Jelliffe in the January 16, 1992 edition of The X-Press). It? fairly easy to banter about ad hominems (feminein;) and red herrings when somebody has something t» lose with the advent of critical analysis concerning a certain topic. These tend to have the effect of deflect- ing debate from the topic at hand and turning it into a **name-calling contest.’’ Print, when used properly, is the fairest manner in which debate can occur | (though this doesn’t exclude the possibility of public debate). Don’t take this article as a belittling ofthe seriousness of sexual harassment, this is a serious problem--when it occurs. As Prof. Rahman noted, ‘*Harassment of any kind begins only when there are elements of relentless pressure and coercion which | carry a threat or evidence of actual exploitation or deprivation ofa person’s benefits and rightful earn-: ings (in cash orcredits)’? (The Gem, March10, 1988). We must reiterate that we don’t believe that | there is no violence or harassment committed against

UPEI X-P RESS

- become clear that we are in the presence here of

_ person said yes please, yes hurry, yes more.... _ occupied women [are] more base in their collaboratio

pleasure in their own inferiority, calling intercourse.

February 20, 1992

some women by some men (a minority ) nor that nothing should be done about it. We believe that regulations should be put in place to curb its occur- rence against women and men. We don’t believe tha going to ridiculous extremes and directing all the criticism at an entire social group (males) is condu- cive to good, open critical evaluation of the problem at hand. And we are sick of the use of emotional testimonies of individual women being used to indict all men. Which brings us to two other social problen (or at least one) that have come under the scrutinisation of feminist criticism: rape and romanti love. The intention here is not to belittle this (these} problem(s?) but to point out how they have been take| to ridiculous extremes by radical feminists. Rape is | usually viewed as when a man, stranger or not, uses | weapon and/or physical violence or the threat of it to} force awomen into sex. For radical feminists, rape | means much more. Bechhoferand Parrot pointout | that ‘‘Assailants are more likely to use verbal or psychological coercion to overpower theirvictims | than guns orknives.’’ Radical feminists often speak) of trying to transcend the ‘‘false dualities’’(e.g., | between ‘‘ends’’ and “‘means’’ or ‘“‘emotion’’ and ‘‘reason’’) imposed on women... oops, womyn by | patriarchal society--apparently here they are trying tc; transcend what they view as the false duality betweer| ‘trape’’ and ‘‘seduction’’. AsNormanPodhoretz | notes, when we realise this ‘‘it will immediately

nothing less than a brazen campaign to redefine se- | duction as a form of rape, and more slyly to identify | practically all men as rapists.’’ Susan Brownmiller | notes that ‘‘[rape] 1s nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women ina state of fear’’ (emphasis in original). Is itany wonder that radical feminists continuously come up with rather insane ideas when | they are so paranoid? Andrea Dworkin, however, take the cake as far as the definition of rape is concerned.) For her rape ‘‘precedes marriage, engagement, be- | trothal, and courtship as sanctioned social behaviour,! . itembodies sexuality as the culture defines it.”’ | Apparently, at least from what we can surmise from | Dworkin, men have been raping the humanrace into | existence forcenturies. Herrather dark view of | heterosexual intercourse is as follows: ‘‘Physically, | the woman in intercourse is a space inhabited, a liter territory occupied literally: occupied even if there ha; been no resistance, no force; even if the occupied

than other collaborators have ever been: experiencing

Page 2!