July 12, 2006

JUST A TYPICAL DAY AT PORN U

Bad girls on campus (Barbara Kay, National Post, July 12th, 2006)

But before they blithely commit the approximately $60,000 it takes to send the average young woman off to reside for four years at one of Canada's "sacred groves of academe," parents should buy the University Student Issue of Maclean's (June 26, but available on newsstands until Aug. 31).

Skip the articles with all the graphs. Go directly to pp 51-54, where you'll find the chronology of a typical campus day through the eyes of a woman student. Nineteen-year old Hailey Wojcik from Guelph is supposedly "studying" Sociology and Communications at Toronto's York University. But mostly she's trying to find a public space where she doesn't feel sensorially or territorially besieged.

She begins her day with the pre-shower "towel dance" in the co-ed bathroom. Sometimes in the neighbouring shower stall, there's "that couple that has to ruin it for everyone...'What the hell is that noise?' And then, 'Ew, awkward.'"

Later Hailey wants to study, but her residence room is too distracting -- MSN, TV, phone, constant visitors. In the library, even in the stacks, the chatter of cell phone users chases her away. (Cell phones are banned in theatres and concert halls, but not in university libraries?) There's a nice study room in the basement of her residence, but sadly "There's this couple that comes in and hard-core makes out..."

Never mind, it's now mid-afternoon and time for pot, literally at 4:20 p.m. every day. Pot isn't Hailey's thing -- she prefers booze -- but anyway all drugs are readily available, to those of legal age or not. Thursdays it's karaoke in her room, then serious puke-level party time. Finally, after a techno-intense day of surfing Facebook.com, text-messaging in 500-strong classes (those she attends -- notes are available online, so...) and partying, Hailey is naturally exhausted: "Collapsing into bed, [Hailey] has a direct view of her roommate's enormous collection of empty liquor bottles." Later she awakens to the roommate having sex with a guy ("Whatever.") But when they get into "X-rated activities" and the guy suggests the roommate ask Hailey to join in a threesome, Hailey bolts from the room "and I just hid in the stairwell."

Hailey doesn't use the word, but she has been "sexiled," the neologism coined in I Am Charlotte Simmons, Tom Wolfe's extravagant satire of campus life in the U.S. The novel was assumed to have been wildly exaggerated, but if Hailey is a "typical" freshie, then Wolfe's assessment seems spot on target. As Wolfe correctly observed, it isn't actually women who rule on campus, it's ideologically ramped-up sexual brinksmanship that rules women. Girls are behaving in ways that run counter to their instincts and self-interest to prove they are men's equals.

Since men of any era are always eager to "get lucky," but take their cues as to acceptable levels of sexual aggression and wantonness from women, today's campus men are in promiscuity heaven. But women? The pattern that emerges is -- exactly as laid out in Wolfe's novel -- one of male delight, female anxiety.

Hailey Wojcik never seems confident or even cognizant of her right to personal dignity and modesty. Why, in spite of her discomfort, does she meekly tolerate shower sex 10 inches away? Why does she displace herself from her own bed and room to accommodate her roommate's noisy hook-up? (Why for that matter cede the library to the cell-phone users?) Hailey's experience is a depressing gloss on women's vaunted "empowerment": She has the "power" to join in the social campus norm of promiscuity and indecency or slink off into voluntary sexile. Some power. Some feminist triumph.

The charm of all this is that the men have all convinced themselves they are firm believers in the equality of women, ready to drop all to fight for their rights at a moment’s notice.

Posted by Peter Burnet at July 12, 2006 2:12 PM
Comments

Any environment where women outnumber men is going to have looser sexual mores than a balanced or male-dominant environment. The women have to compete for the men on the men's terms.

Posted by: Brandon at July 12, 2006 3:08 PM

So Tom Wolfe does brisk sales with I Am Charlotte Simmons, despite the fact that critics weren't impressed, and the National Post figures coeds in the shower can't be bad for circulation either, and right on cue here comes Peter. What was that about Baptists and bootleggers again?

Posted by: joe shropshire at July 12, 2006 5:08 PM

I only graduated 4 years ago, and when I read these stories I realize that I either went to the wrong school or that its time to go back for a second degree.

Posted by: Shelton at July 12, 2006 5:21 PM

Relax, Shelton, it's not like that for most of the men either. But it's party time for dirtbags! Bill Clinton gets his again and again and again, and you get to deal with the emotional wreckage he leaves behind. What fun!

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at July 12, 2006 5:33 PM

joe:

Orrin read the riot act to us all. Said we all had to work hard to get the numbers up. David got assigned American exceptionalism and SCOTUS decisions and I grabbed sex and soccer.

Robert:

Undoubtedly true, but that minority seems to rule the roost. There is no policing, of course, but also no way for dissenters to protest. My daughter changed universities over this stuff.

Posted by: Peter B at July 12, 2006 9:34 PM

HA HA HAH! This is great!

I cede ground to no one as a big US supporter, but in the spirit of friendly Australian rivalry I find myself perversely delighted to find out young American women are bunch of (term deleted to prevent me being banned).

I did 3 years of Uni here in .au and the kind of wanton sexual behavior here described was and is inconceivable on an Australian campus. Moreover, that sexual aloofness carries over to the young adult world. Many’s the time I’ve been out in Bondi with young Canadian, Californian or UK backpackers or friends only to see them hit a bewildering wall of sexual indifference from the Australian girls. It really made me wonder what they were used to back in their own countries because I could have told them in advance they had no chance. And these were fairly good-looking and confident young guys, Australian nightlife was very bad for their self-esteem.

Why do I find this so funny? I dunno but I do.

Ha ha! BURN!

Posted by: Amos at July 12, 2006 10:37 PM

Mr. Peter B., why wouldn't they rule the roost? What social code is left to stop them? All the walls have been torn down and all that is left is personal charisma and power. Just remember that all men are pigs.....

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at July 13, 2006 12:16 AM
« WHITHER THE NETROOTS? (Via Mickey Kaus): | Main | GERHARD WHO?: »