by Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux
We don’t usually like to call out other campus publications on Equal Writes, but December’s issue of the Tory, Princeton’s “journal of conservative and moderate thought,” contained several articles that were shockingly offensive in their depiction of masculinity, emergency contraception, and campus feminism in general. I disagreed with the first two articles, which were anti-feminist and homophobic, but was actually shocked by the last, which mocked a recent postering campaign that attempted to dispel myths about feminism.
In the “Points and Punts” section of the magazine, the writers observed that they had returned after Thanksgiving to find the campus “littered” with fliers illustrating myths and facts about feminism. They were then “inspired” to write a few of their own, which are incredibly shocking in their mockery of an ideology that I’m assuming many Tory writers – and people in the campus community – ascribe to. In response to the “myth” that “feminists are very defensive about their ideology” (what ideology? That men and women are equal? So radical!), the writers wrote, “[Feminists] do not feel at all threatened by long-term political trends, widespread disagreement with their radicalized message, or benign misconceptions about them and their beliefs.”
I was frankly appalled when I read this, especially in the week after the announcement of the formation of President Tilghman’s committee on women’s leadership. The question of why there are fewer female leaders on this campus seems to be obviously answered, when writers of a prominent campus magazine feel that it’s acceptable, and even funny, to mock activists who are attempting to equalize relations between men and women. I’m sure that conservative writers for this blog would be surprised to hear about feminism’s “radicalized” message, and it really displays an embarrassing ignorance on the part of the Tory staff, who seem to see feminism as a single and profoundly threatening message.
But it actually got worse – the next “myth” was simple: “feminism has an image problem.” The response?
“Why would you say such a thing? If feminists had an image problem, they would likely be engaging in ill-conceived publicity campaigns to improve their perception on campus. Wait…”
Are you kidding me? I am actually embarrassed for the Tory staff – and disappointed in the people who allowed this to be published, many of whom I respect. But the funny thing is that I almost missed this little snippet of sexist bullshit – because of the feature, and editor-in-chief Brandon McGinley’s article about masculinity, in which McGinley attempts to defend the Dockers ad from a few weeks ago (I’ll give him points for bravery, anyway).
In the feature, Toni Alimi and Robert Marsland “expose” Princeton’s “institutional involvement in reproductive politics.” The subject of this rather dramatic article is the website run by the Office for Population Research about emergency contraception. We’ve written about the site before here on EW; the director, Woodrow Wilson School professor James Trussell, is a pioneer for pro-choice activism and one of the preeminent American experts on emergency contraception. The site is simply a great source of information about emergency contraception. Alimi and Marsland, however, attack it for “going beyond merely providing ‘neutral’ information” and encouraging increased use of emergency contraception (the horror!). They also accuse the site of an “overtly pro-choice” agenda, and “withholding or obfuscating crucial information about the continuing controversy over the safety of the drugs and their abortifacient potential.” To which I say: for the last time, emergency contraception does not cause abortion, and providing information does not mean promoting a particular agenda. The site is an accurate source of information, which is important, because emergency contraception is a crucial resource and should be available and affordable to all women. Far from pushing an agenda, the site (and the OPR) provide a public service.
But wait – there’s more. By the time I got to Brandon McGinley’s article, I was ready for anything, or so I thought. But McGinley’s “Reflections on Manliness” managed to be both homophobic and sexist. McGinley reflects on the differences between Princeton and Pittsburgh, and concludes that there is a dearth of manly men in our fair town, “meandering meekly through crowds, hips failing to remain staunchly solitary, toting field greens with raspberry vinaigrette.” He proceeds to call for the return of an old kind of manliness (you guessed it – the one in the Dockers ad!), claiming that he is not homophobic but actually promoting the value of male friendship. But I’ll leave you with one of the last lines of his article, and let you decide:
“If we are to reestablish a healthy, positive and self-respecting understanding of masculinity in society, then homosexual conduct must be viewed as so ignominious, so disgraceful, so shameful that ‘nobody would assume that a good man would engage in it.’ Crucially, this does not imply censure of those who experience same-sex attractions; quite the opposite, it entails love and compassion for those who experience persistent same-sex attraction, that they may overcome this daunting personal challenge.”
Head to table. I don’t know what the Tory staff was thinking this week, but these articles display a shocking level of intolerance and ignorance. I had hoped that campus discourse had risen above this level, but I guess I was mistaken.
6 Comments
December 19, 2009 at 4:06 pm
It’s funny that the claims “feminists are very defensive about their ideology” and “[Feminists] do not feel at all threatened by long-term political trends, widespread disagreement with their radicalized message, or benign misconceptions about them and their beliefs” are ones that a lot of people would make about conservatives. It seems that they are re-assigning some of their own insecurities to feminism.
Instead of pointing out why they feel that feminism is dangerous, unreasonable, or whatever, the Tory chooses to attack feminism in a petty way. By avoiding a discussion of the issues at hand, they attempt to polarize groups on campus that have different, but not necessarily opposing, points of view. They also ignore the fact that both conservatives and feminists come from a variety of persuasions. While the feminist myths poster campaign did not attack conservatives but rather sought to include them, the Tory has rejected this inclusion in favor of depicting the relationship between conservatism and feminism as antithetical. Not surprisingly, it’s the same move they make against the LGBT community. Shall we call it the fetishization of binaries?
December 19, 2009 at 4:36 pm
not to mention how blatantly disrespectful the tory was to prof. harris-lacewell: “The Tory is deeply saddened and disturbed by her decision, not so much because we will miss her acute insight on American politics, such as calling the 2008 election a “referendum on white supremacy”, but because we are losing a wonderful source of inspiration for the Points & Punts. Thanks for making our job that much easier over the years, Melissa.”
December 20, 2009 at 11:44 am
mcginley’s article is not homophobic.
mcginley’s opposition to homosexual acts is not rooted in fear of homosexuality. mcginley knows homosexuality well. a person irrationally afraid of homosexuality would not invest the time mcginley has in researching the matter. this is clear from article.
what mcginley’s article is, however, is heteronormative. it expects that all men conform to heterosexual behaviour and it arbitrarily values the ‘manly’ culture of pittsburg to the ‘androgynous’ culture of princeton. ultimately, arbitrary aesthetic decisions are being made in the article by mcginlety. the first of the arbitrary aesthetic decision is regarding the value of distinguishing between the sexes — something obviously unnecessary in our society at large. though it be prevalent, it need not be necessary. though it be kind to those fassioned on average of smaller size, it need not be in place. society orgnanises us, even though it need not.
the second of the arbitrary aesthetic decisions is regarding the nature of sex. in naming homosexual sex as he does, relating it even to incest, he speaks to the arbitrary decisions that differing societies have made about sex. didn’t cain, the son of adam and eve take his sister?
December 20, 2009 at 8:35 pm
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobia
Homophobia is defined as an “irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.”
McGinley can only reach the conclusion he reaches through irrational discrimination against homosexuals. He says that we should erase homosexuality to make close male friendships easier, but one could just as easily say that we should completely accept the possibility of homosexuality, which would also make close male friendships unproblematic.
December 21, 2009 at 7:51 pm
I find it most disturbing that McGinley’s call for Princeton men to reclaim their masculinity ignores the effect that restoring this nostalgic concept of manliness would have on females. (Wait…that’s what I find second most disturbing after his blatant homophobia.)
When McGinley emphasizes that men must differentiate themselves from women and then lists “metrics of manliness” including courage, emotional fortitude, strength and toughness, he is in fact saying that women must not possess those traits. This is his argument: Men must be different from women. Men must be strong and courageous. Thus, women must not be those things. Unless women can be those things…but shit!; that would lead to androgyny. Better to judge women against the metrics of femininity he’s not spelling out: docility, cowardice, emotional weakness, physical frailty, etc.
By approving of the Docker’s advertisement, McGinley also shows his approval for the idea that the role of decision-maker is a man’s role. “Wearing the pants” doesn’t merely mean being a courageous, honorable human, or making tough decisions for the greater good—“wearing the pants” is a clearly gendered idiom that refers to who in a relationship or family makes the decisions. And if Dockers and McGinley are suggesting that men are to “wear the pants” again, it’s hard to imagine that they believe women should be doing anything other than wearing skirts and eating salads along with the homosexuals.
December 22, 2009 at 5:45 pm
I used to read – and be annoyed by – that McGinley fellow back when I was a senior and he was a freshman. It appears he has only gotten that much worse. Sigh.