Anyone who attended the forum between Tufts Feminist Alliance (TFA) and Delta Tau Delta (DTD) should have been able to listen to what both sides were saying. TFA explicitly wanted to avoid censorship and did not even want to make it a first amendment issue.
In fact, TFA recognized it was indeed DTD's right of expression to make a degrading poster. No one is trying to claim that DTD's posters were in violation of any constitutional privilege. The purpose of the forum and TFA's complaint was to explain how these posters contribute to an atmosphere of discomfort and insecurity. The point was to help students see how when women are used or objectified to sell a product or event, they become dehumanized and are taken less seriously. Can anyone be surprised at the perpetuation of restrictive gender stereotypes when all you need to sell a product is a pretty face and a nearly bare body?
In his Nov. 27, viewpoint, "The Tufts Feminist Alliance picked the wrong fight," Mr. Dainoff says: "The more often people use the word 'rape' in situations as these, where it is clearly inappropriate, the less seriously it will be taken in a time of serious need... mere offense does not warrant the claim that these posters contributed to 'rape culture.'"
However, Mr. Dainoff, the word rape is not only appropriate here, it is rape's crucial relevance to the poster which must be made clear. It is important that the serious idea of rape and a rape culture be associated with these images so that people can understand the consequences of using these representations of women in this way.
When women are used as clever marketing techniques, they require less respect and less recognition. They become usable objects, selling pleasurable products, most often for male consumers.
One of those products is their own sexual submission, as suggested by images similar to those used by the Thai Club and DTD in advertisements for club events. A woman using her body - or moreover, a male group deciding to use that body - to sell a product or event is degrading and creates an atmosphere where women's appearances are constantly scrutinized and criticized. Women become mere tools and products themselves.
This contributes to a culture of rape, a culture where abuse and objectification become more acceptable. The fact that so many people think TFA's argument is ludicrous shows how accepted this culture of objectification has become.
To quote Mr. Dainoff again, "Perhaps if advertising is an issue that TFA would like to take up, why not hold a forum on the abundance of alcohol, cigarette, and clothing ads that use sex and sexual references to sell products?"
Well Mr. Dainoff, TFA did hold that forum. It was held on Oct. 30, 2001 and it was called "The Naked Truth." National expert Jean Kilborne came and spoke for over an hour about how women's bodies are used in mainstream media to sell everything from alcohol to cigarettes to clothing to fitness equipment.
Or Mr. Dainoff, if you missed it, I would recommend checking out Kilborne's video, "Killing Us Softly 3," as it communicates the same message that she brought to Tufts just a month ago. TFA was not trying to deny the presence of these ads in popular culture. But, as Ms. Kilborne said, challenging the entire advertising industry is quite a paramount task.
Her efforts, as well as the efforts of TFA, were intended to educate people about the underlying messages these advertisements send. Furthermore, since it was DTD that used these images, to whom else should TFA have brought this complaint? Should TFA have protested Maxim magazine, whose copyright restrictions were probably violated by DTD's rush poster?
These posters were not in violation of the first amendment's protection of free speech, and TFA never made that claim. The only people to bring up the free speech issue has been you, Mr. Dainoff, and other students at the forum not representing TFA's position.
Of course there are those who will ask, "Who can decide what is offensive?" I understand that if any person who was offended by any poster could immediately take that poster down, we would soon end up on a bare campus.
I would not want this and I know that is not what TFA wants. However, the same free speech that protects a person's right to make an offensive poster also protects a person's right to voice her complaints. The point was just to communicate the sexually demeaning message that these posters send. No one is accusing DTD of violating free speech. No one is calling DTD bothers rapists.
Finally, Mr. Dainoff asserts that TFA should "reprioritize its goals...rather than continue attempting to fight un-winnable battles." Mr. Dainoff, do you expect TFA to consult you on the winnablity of the battles it fights? Some of the most implausible victories for many groups in history have been considered "un-winnable battles" by some cynic in the crowd.
For the TFA, this has been a battle of education. Hopefully, the TFA has been able to raise at least one person's awareness about this issue. Whether or not the TFA changed anyone's mind or convinced anyone is not an indicator of victory or defeat. The only un-winnable battles are the ones we choose not to fight.
Emily Rhodes is a sophomore intending to major in psychology and minor in urban studies.
