Fraternities and Rape on Campus Essays

Fraternities and Rape on Campus Essays Fraternities and Rape on Campus Essay Fraternities and Rape on Campus Essay a fraternity’s of nity man, success in attractingwomen] is a big status symbol for fraternities. † One Martin, Hummer/ FRATERNITIES AND RAPE 467 universityofficial commented that the use of women as a recruitingtool is that so well entrenchedthat fraternities mightbe willing to forgo it say they cannot afford to unless other fraternitiesdo so as well. One fraternityman said, â€Å"Look, if we don’t have Little Sisters, the fraternitiesthat do will get all the good pledges. Another said, â€Å"We won’t have as good a rush [the period duringwhich new membersare assessed and selected] if we don’t have these women around. † In displaying good-looking, attractive,skimpily dressed, nubile women to potentialmembers,fraternities implicitly,andsometimesexplicitly,promise sexualaccess to women. One fraternity mancommentedthat†part what of being in a fraternityis all about is the sex† and explainedhow his fraternity uses Little Sisters to r ecruitnew members: We’ll tell the sweetheart termfor Little Sister],†You’re [the fraternity’s We’lltell herto fakea scamandshe’llgo hang you gorgeous; canget him. all over him duringa rushparty,kiss him, and he thinkshe’s done wonderful and wants to join. The girls thinkit’s great too. It’s flatteringfor them. Women as servers. The use of women as servers is exemplified in the LittleSisterprogram. LittleSistersareundergraduate women who arerushed and selected in a mannerparallelto the recruitment fraternitymen. They of are affiliatedwith the fraternityin a formalbut unofficialway and are able, indeed required,to wear the fraternity’s Greek letters. Little Sisters are not nationaloffices and members,however;andfraternity full-fledgedfraternity most universities do not register or regulate them. Each fraternityhas an officer called Little Sister Chairmanwho oversees their organizationand activities. The Little Sisters elect officers among themselves, pay monthly dues to the fraternity, have well-defined roles. Theirdues areused to pay and for the fraternity’s social events, andLittle Sistersareexpected to attendand hostess fraternity partiesand hang aroundthe house to make it a â€Å"nice place to be. One fraternity man, a senior, described Little Sisters this way: â€Å"They are very social girls, willing to join in, be affiliated with the group, devoted to the fraternity. † Anothermember,a sophomore,said: â€Å"Theirsole purpose is social- attendparties,attractnew members,and ‘take care’ of the guys. † Our observations and interviews suggested that women selected by fra- ternitiesas LittleSist ers are physicallyattractive,possess good social skills, and are willing to devote time and energy to the fraternity its members. nd One undergraduate woman gave the following job description for Little Sisters to a campus newspaper: It’s not just making appearancesat all the parties but entails many more responsibilities. You’regoing to be expected to go to all the intramural games 468 GENDER SOCIETY / December 1989 to cheerthe brothers supportandencouragethepledges,andjust be around on, to bringsome extra life to the house. [As a Little Sister] you have to agree to take on a new responsibilityother thanstudyingto maintainyour grades and managingto keep your checkbook frombouncing. You have to make time to be a part of the fraternityand support the brothers in all they do. (The Tomahawk, 1988) The title of Little Sister reflects women’s subordinate status; fraternity men in a parallel role are called Big Brothers. Big Brothers assist a sorority primarily with the physical work of sorority rushes, which, compared to fraternity rushes, are more formal, structured, and intensive. Sorority rushes take place in the daytime and fraternity rushes at night so fraternity men are free to help. According to one fraternity member, Little Sister status is a benefit to women because it gives them a social outlet and â€Å"the protection of the brothers. † The gender-stereotypic conceptions and obligations of these Little Sister and Big Brother statuses indicate that fraternities and sororities promote a gender hierarchy on campus that fosters subordination and dependence in women, thus encouraging sexual exploitation and the belief that it is acceptable. Women as sexual prey. Little Sisters are a sexual utility. Many Little Sisters do not belong to sororitiesand lack peer supportfor refrainingfrom unwanted sexual relations. One fraternityman (whose fraternityhas 65 â€Å"wholesale†in the membersand 85 Little Sisters) told us they hadrecruited access to women that prioryear to â€Å"get lots of new women. â€Å"The structural the Little Sisterprogramprovidesand the absenceof normativesupportsfor refusing fraternitymembers’ sexual advances may make women in this susceptible to coerced sexual encounterswith fraterprogramparticularly nity men. Access to women for sexual gratificationis a presumedbenefit of fraternity membership, promised in recruitment materials and strategies and man said: conversationswith new recruits. One fraternity throughbrothers’ â€Å"We always tell the guys that you get sex all the time, there’salways new girls†¦. AfterI became a Greek,I foundout I could be with females at will. † A universityofficial told us that, based on his observations,†no one [i. e. , Theyjust want fraternity men] on this campuswants to have ‘relationships. ‘ men plan and execute strategiesaimed at to have fun [i. e. , sex]. † Fraternity obtaining sexual gratification, and this occurs at both individual and collective levels. Individualstrategiesincludegetting a woman drunkandspendinga great deal of money on her. As for collective strategies,most of our undergraduate interviewees agreed that fraternity parties often culminatein sex and that this Martin, Hummer / FRATERNITIES AND RAPE 469 outcome is planned. One fraternity man said fraternity partiesoften involve sex andnudityandcan â€Å"turninto orgies. â€Å"Orgiesmay be plannedin advance, such as the Bowery Ball party held by one fraternity. formerfraternity A membersaid of this party: The entireideabehindthis is sex. Bothmenandwomencometo the party Thereare pornographic wearinglittleor nothing. pinupson the walls and usuallypornomovies playingon the TV. The musiccarriessexualovertones†¦. Theyjustget schnockered and, [drunk] in mostcases,theyalsoget laid. When asked about the women who come to such a party,he said: â€Å"Some Little Sistersjust won’t go†¦. The girls who do are looking for a good time, girls who don’t know what it is, things like that. † Otherrespondents deniedthatfraternity partiesareorgies butsaid thatsex is always talkedaboutamongthe brothers they all know†whoeach other and is doing it with. â€Å"One membersaid thatmost of the time, guys have sex with theirgirlfriends†butwith socials, girlfriendsaren’tallowed to come and it’s their [members’] big chance [to have sex with other women]. The use of alcohol to help them get women into bed is a routinestrategyat fraternity parties. CONCLUSIONS In general, our researchindicatedthat the organizationand membership of fraternities contributeheavily to coercive andoften violent sex. Fraternity houses are occupied by same-sex (all men) and same-age ( late teens, early twenties) peers whose maturityand judgment is often less than ideal. Yet houses areprivatedwellings thatare mostlyoff-limitsto, andaway fraternity from scrutinyof, universityand communityrepresentatives, with the result that fraternity house events seldom come to the attention of outsiders. Practices associated with the social constructionof fraternitybrotherhood emphasize a macho conception of men and masculinity,a narrow,stereoof typed conception of women and femininity,and the treatment women as commodities. Otherpractices contributingto coercive sexual relationsand the cover-upof rapesincludeexcessive alcoholuse, competitiveness, norand mative supportfor deviance and secrecy (cf. Bogal-Allbritten Allbritten and 1985; Kanin 1967). Some fraternity norms require practices exacerbateothers. Brotherhood â€Å"sticking together† regardless of right or wrong; thus rape episodes are unlikely to be stoppedor reportedto outsiders,even when witnesses disap- 470 GENDER SOCIETY / December 1989 and prove. The abilityto use alcoholwithoutscrutinyby authorities alcohol’s frequentassociationwithviolence, includingsexualcoercion,facilitatesrape in fraternityhouses. Fraternity normsthatemphasizethe value of maleness and masculinityover femaleness and femininityand that elevate the status of men and lower the statusof women in members’eyes underminepercepand tions andtreatment women as personswho deserveconsideration care of Merton1985). nd (cf. Ehrhart Sandler1985; Androgynousmen and men with a broadrangeof interestsand attributes are lost to fraternitiesthroughtheir recruitment practices. Masculinityof a createattitudes, andstereotypical narrow norms,andpracticesthat type helps men to coerce women sexually, both individuallyand predisposefraternity collectively (Allgeier 1986; Hood 1989; Sanday 1981, 1986). Male athletes on campus may be similarly disposed for the same reasons (Kirshenbaum 1989; Telanderand Sullivan 1989). Researchinto the social contextsin which rapecrimesoccurandthesocial constructions associated with these contexts illumine rape dynamics on campus. Blanchard(1959) found that group rapes almost always have a leaderwho pushesothersintothe crime. He also foundthatthe leader’slatent homosexuality,desire to show off to his peers, or fear of failing to prove himself a man are frequentlyan impetus. Fraternitynorms and practices contributeto the approvalanduse of sexual coercion as an acceptedtactic in relationswith women. Alcohol-inducedcomplianceis normative,whereas, use presumably, of a knife,gun,or threatof bodilyharmwould notbe because the woman who â€Å"drinkstoo much† is viewed as â€Å"causing her own rape† and (cf. Ehrhart Sandler1985). Our research led us to conclude that fraternitynorms and practices influence membersto view the sexual coercionof women, which is a felony crime, as sport,a contest,or a game (cf. Sato 1988). This sportis playednot between men and women but between men and men. Womenare the pawns or prey in the interfraternity rivalry game; they prove that a fraterity is successfulor prestigious. The use of women in thisway encouragesfraternity men to see women as objects and sexual coercion as sport. Today’ssocietal normssupportyoung women’s rightto engage in sex at theirdiscretion,and coercion is unnecessaryin a mutuallydesired encounter. However, nubile to young women say they preferto be â€Å"in a relationship† have sex while men say they preferto â€Å"getlaid†withouta commitment(Muehlenhard young and Linton 1987). These differencesmay reflect, in part,Americanpuritanism and men’s fears of sexual intimacyor perhapsintimacyof any kind. In a fraternitycontext, getting sex without giving emotionally demonstrates â€Å"cool† masculinity. More important,it poses no threatto the bonding and Martin, Hummer / FRATERNITIES AND RAPE 471 brotherhood Farr1988). Drinkinglargequantities loyalty of the fraternity (cf. of alcohol before having sex suggests that â€Å"scoring†ratherthan ntrinsic sexual pleasureis a primaryconcernof fraternity men. Unless fraternities’composition, goals, structures,and practiceschange in fundamental ways, women on campuswill continue to be sexual prey for fraternity men. As all-male enclaves dedicated to opposing faculty and and to cementing in-groupties, f raternitymemberseschew administration women, any hint of homosexuality. Their version of masculinitytransforms and men with womanly characteristics, the out-group. â€Å"Womanly into men† are ostracized;feminine women are used to demonstratemembers’mascurenewedemphasison theirfoundingvalues (Longinoand linity. Encouraging Kart 1973), service orientationand activities (Lemire 1979), or members’ moral development(Marlowe and Auvenshine 1982) will have little effect on fraternities’ treatment women. A case for or againstfraternities of cannot be made by studying individual members. The fraternityqua group and organization is at issue. Located on campus along with many vulnerable women, embedded in a sexist society, and caught up in masculinistgoals, practices, and values, fraternities’violation of women-including forcible rape- should come as no surprise. NOTE 1. Recent bans by some universitieson open-keg partiesat fraternity houses have resulted in heavy drinkingbefore coming to a partyand an increase in drunkennessamong those who attend. This may aggravate,ratherthan improve,the treatmentof women by fraternity men at parties. REFERENCES G. Allgeier, Elizabeth. 1986. â€Å"CoerciveVersusConsensualSexual Interactions. † Stanley Hall Lectureto AmericanPsychologicalAssociationAnnualMeeting,Washington, DC, August. Adams, Aileen and Gail Abarbanel. 1988. SexualAssault on Campus:WhatColleges Can Do. Santa Monica, CA: RapeTreatmentCenter. Blanchard,W. H. 1959. â€Å"The Group Process in Gang Rape. Journal of Social Psychology 49:259-66. Bogal-Allbritten,RosemarieB. and William L. Allbritten. 1985. â€Å"The HiddenVictims:CourtJournal of College StudentPersonnel43:201-4. ship Violence Among College Students. † and Bohrnstedt,George W. 1969. â€Å"Conservatism,Authoritarianism Religiosity of Fraternity Pledges. â€Å"Journal of Coll ege StudentPersonnel 27:36-43. BusinessInsurance Bradford,Michael. 1986. â€Å"TightMarketDries Up Nightlife at University. † (March2): 2, 6. 472 GENDER SOCIETY / December 1989 Burkhart,Barry. 1989. Comments in Seminar on Acquaintance/DateRape Prevention: A NationalVideo Teleconference,February 2. RelationBurkhart, BarryR. andAnnetteL. Stanton. 1985. â€Å"SexualAggressionin Acquaintance ships. † Pp. 43-65 in Violencein IntimateRelationships,edited by G. Russell. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Spectrum. Byington,Diane B. and KarenW. Keeter. 1988. â€Å"AssessingNeeds of SexualAssaultVictimson a UniversityCampus. † 23-31 in StudentServices:Responding Issues and Challenges. to Pp. ChapelHill: Universityof NorthCarolinaPress. Chancer,Lynn S. 1987. â€Å"New Bedford, Massachusetts,March6, 1983-March22, 1984: The ‘Before and After’ of a GroupRape. Gender Society 1:239-60. Julie K. andBerniceR. Sandler. 1985. CampusGangRape:PartyGames? Washington, Ehrhart, DC: Associationof AmericanColleges. Sex Farr,K. A. 1988. â€Å"DominanceBondingThroughthe Good Old Boys SociabilityNetwork. † Roles 18:259-77. Florida Flambeau. 1988. â€Å"Pike MembersIndictedin Rape. â€Å"(May 19):1, 5. of Fox, Elaine,CharlesHodge,andWalterWard. 1987. â€Å"A Comparison AttitudesHeld by Black and White Fraternity Members. † Journal of Negro Education56:521-34. Geis, Gilbert. 1971. â€Å"GroupSexual Assaults. â€Å"MedicalAspects of HumanSexuality5:101-13. Glaser, Barney G. 1978. TheoreticalSensitivity:Advances in the Methodologyof Grounded Theory. Mill Valley,CA: Sociology Press. New YorkTimes,May 16. Hood, Jane. 1989. â€Å"WhyOurSociety Is Rape-Prone. † Hughes, Michael J. and Roger B. Winston, Jr. 1987. â€Å"Effects of FraternityMembershipon Journal of College StudentPersonnel45:405-11. Values. † Interpersonal The Kanin,EugeneJ. 1967. â€Å"Reference GroupsandSex ConductNormViolations. † Sociological Quarterly8:495-504. Kimmel, Michael, ed. 1987. Changing Men: New Directions in Researchon Men and Masculinity. NewburyPark,CA: Sage. Kirshenbaum, Jerry. 1989. â€Å"Special Report,An AmericanDisgrace:A Violent and UnprecedentedLawlessnessHas ArisenAmong College Athletesin all Partsof the Country. Sports Illustrated(February 27): 16-19. and Lemire, David. 1979. â€Å"One Investigationof the StereotypesAssociated with Fraternities Journal of College StudentPersonnel 37:54-57. Sororities. † Now and in the Future. † Journal of College Student Letchworth,G. E. 1969. â€Å"Fraternities Personnel 10:118-22. An Longino, CharlesF. , Jr. ,and Cary S. Kart. 1973. â€Å"The College Fraternity: Assessment of Journal of College StudentPersonnel31:118-25. Theory and Research. † Its Marlowe, Anne F. and Dwight C. Auvenshine. 1982. â€Å"GreekMembership: Impacton the Journalof College StudentPersonnel40:53-57. MoralDevelopmentof College Freshmen. † Martin, PatriciaYancey and Barry A. Turner. 1986. â€Å"Grounded Theory and Organizational Research. † Journal of AppliedBehavioralScience 22:141-57. Ms. Merton,Andrew. 1985. â€Å"OnCompetitionandClass: Returnto Brotherhood. † (September): 60-65, 121-22. Gender Society 3:71-88. Messner,Michael. 1989. â€Å"Masculinitiesand Athletic Careers. † Chronicleof Higher Meyer, T. J. 1986. â€Å"Fight Against Hazing Rituals Rages on Campuses. † Education(March 12):34-36. Miller, Leonard D. 1973. â€Å"Distinctive Characteristicsof FraternityMembers. Journal of College StudentPersonnel31:126-28. Martin, Hummer / FRATERNITIES AND RAPE 473 CharleneL. and MelaneyA. Linton. 1987. â€Å"DateRapeand Sexual Aggressionin Muehlenhard, Journalof CounselingPsychology 34:186Dating Situations:Incidenceand Risk Factors. † 96. Pressley, Sue Anne. 1987. â€Å"FraternityHell Night Still Endures. â€Å"WashingtonPost (August 11): B1. of Rapaport,Karenand BarryR. Burkhart. 1984. â€Å"Personalityand AttitudinalCharacteristics Sexually Coercive College Males. â€Å"Journal of AbnormalPsychology93:216-21. Violence on College Campuses. † Journal of Counselingand Roark,MaryL. 1987. Preventing Development65:367-70. Study. † Sanday,Peggy Reeves. 1981. â€Å"The Socio-CulturalContextof Rape:A Cross-Cultural Journal of Social Issues 37:5-27. . 1986. â€Å"Rape and the Silencing of the Feminine. † Pp. 84-101 in Rape, edited by S. Tomaselliand R. Porter. Oxford:Basil Blackwell. St. PetersburgTimes. 1988. â€Å"A GreekTragedy. † (May 29): IF, 6F. Sato, Ikuya. 1988. â€Å"Play Theory of Delinquency: Toward a General Theory of ‘Action. ‘† SymbolicInteraction11:191-212. Smith, T. 1964. â€Å"Emergenceand Maintenanceof FraternalSolidarity. â€Å"Pacific Sociological Review 7:29-37. TallahasseeDemocrat. 988a. â€Å"FSU Fraternity BrothersCharged† (April 27):1A, 12A. . 1988b. â€Å"FSU InterviewingStudentsAbout Alleged Rape†(April 24):1D. . 1989. â€Å"WomanSues Stetson in Alleged Rape†(March 19):3B. BrothersChargedin Sexual Assault of FSU Coed. † (April TampaTribune. 1988. â€Å"Fraternity 27):6B. Tash, GaryB. 1988. â€Å"Date Rape. â€Å"TheEmeraldof Sigma Pi Fraternity75(4):1-2. Telander,Rick and RobertSullivan. 1989. â€Å"Special Report,You Reap WhatYou Sow. â€Å"Sports Illustrated(February 27):20-34. The Tomahawk. 1988. â€Å"A Look Back at Rush, A Mixture of Hard Work and Fun† (April/ May):3D. A Walsh,Claire. 1989. Commentsin Seminaron Acquaintance/Date Rape Prevention: National Video Teleconference,February 2. Wilder,David H. , Arlyne E. Hoyt, Dennis M. Doren, William E. Hauck,and RobertD. Zettle. 1978. â€Å"TheImpactof Fraternity SororityMembership ValuesandAttitudes. â€Å"Journal and on of College StudentPersonnel 36:445-49. Wilder, David H. , Arlyne E. Hoyt, Beth Shuster Surbeck, Janet C. Wilder, and Patricia Imperatrice Carney. 1986. â€Å"GreekAffiliation and Attitude Change in College Students. † Journal of College StudentPersonnel44:510-19. Patricia Yancey Martinis Daisy ParkerFlory AlumniProfessor,Departmentof Sociology, Florida State University. Her specialties are the sociology of organizations,work, and gender. She has publishedon theprocessingof rape victimsbyformal organizations and has forthcomingarticles on rape crisis centers,feminist organizations,womenin social welfare work,and gender relations in the South. RobertA. Hummeris a graduate student in the Sociology Departmentand Centerfor the Studyof Populationat FloridaState University. He is workingon his master’sthesis regardingthe causes of Hispanic infantmortality. His researchinterestsinclude social stratificationand infant mortalityand the study of rape by college athletes.