It’s an all-too-familiar story — a campus newspaper publishes an opinion piece by a male student that jokes about date rape. Feminists react with outrage. The story’s author claims “satire.”
But this story has a twist.
The November 24 edition of the University of North Dakota’s Dakota Student carried a piece by undergrad Josh Brorby called “One-night Standing: The Method.” In it, Brorby offered readers “a highly specific technique” for “the man’s one-night stand.” (Trigger warning — what followed was repulsive.)
After you select your target, he said — “someone you know really well, like a girl from your high school or someone you have class with” — you should
Get her something to drink – maybe a nice little Sex on the Beach, or some straight mouthwash. If you have the means you could just inject her with some Sodium Pentobarbitone (if this is the case, have a futon or mattress handy, she might drop to the floor).
She’s good and buzzed now, right? Maybe a little unconscious? Whatever, bro, it’s a one-night stand. This is where you drop the line, something funny yet titillating to let her know your intentions. Try this one on for size: “Let’s have sex,” and if that doesn’t work, drop this bomb on her: “Hey I’m going to have sex with you now.” If you’re a real dare devil just pull down your pants and get to it.
Ugly. And the response was just what you’d expect. More than a hundred negative comments on the newspaper’s website, ongoing coverage in the local media, cogent statements of protest from feminists. “Brorby’s article,” one columnist wrote, “perpetuates and supports the idea that it’s okay to drug someone … and rape them.”
The Dakota Student response to the response followed the script you’d expect as well. Brobry’s essay was, they wrote, “a piece that attempted to satire the predatory nature of some men.” Though they regretted that it was misinterpreted, they continued to believe that “the merits of the article outweighed its demerits.”
It’s true that Brorby’s piece contained more direct criticism of predatory sexual behavior than one usually sees in such essays. Early on, he warned his readers that following his technique required a disregard for “what we know as ‘the law,’ and … a complete lack of respect for not only the person you plan to involve, but yourself.” At the essay’s close he let them know that if the technique worked, they would have “lost a great friend, divided all of your acquaintances, defiled a neighbor’s home, lost the trust of everyone close to you, and cried yourself to sleep the following evening,” before closing with the punchline “who cares, dude, YOU JUST HAD SEX!”
So yes, the piece was written from the anti-rape perspective that the editors claimed. But though they defended Brorby, he — when he published his own response to his critics yesterday — did not defend himself.
He had attempted, he said, “to get predatory men across our University to take a long, hard look at themselves and their behavior,” but he had failed:
I did not consider that in writing a satirical piece on such a personal issue, I was taking my position as a man for granted, ignoring the fact that such humorous overtones allow men who may think like the satirical character created to feel okay with their behavior, or to joke about deep sexual issues. The approach I took (I now know) did not address the issue in a way that could help; it only propagated the intense and still-existent rape/predatory culture that pervades our society.
For this, I am truly sorry, and I apologize to all readers of the Dakota Student.
And he didn’t end there. He went on to write the serious anti-rape essay that he should have written in the first place:
Rapists aren’t monsters in dark alleyways, true; they are the person walking across the street, that guy in Spanish class, the man you saw fist-pumping at a party last week. And these men aren’t born rapists, monsters within waiting to pounce out. No, they are created by the notion that it is okay to view women as nothing more than an achievement, a challenge, or an object to be used during a one-night stand. Rape is the logical conclusion of this mode of thinking. When a man begins to view sex simply as an arena in which to attain power – to get pats-on-the-back or a personal feeling of accomplishment – the proverbial seed has already sprouted. Rape is a showing of power, a grasping for control over somebody. When a man dehumanizes a woman in his own mind, he is already crossing the line.
This problem stems directly from a failure to point out this attitude in other men. I failed to do so in my latest article – my greatest fear is that some predatory man out there read it and felt okay to continue his behavior – but I hope this clarifies just how big the problem is. Males, we often take it for granted that we live in a society where it is not only considered by some “okay” to view women merely as objects for sexual gratification, but promoted. In all this, the best way to stop the problem is to support and encourage your female friends to come forward with any accounts of rape they have experienced, and to call out your male friends on their prejudices. Prejudices, after all, are often unperceived by those who have them.
I was called out on my last article. It was tough, it sucked, but I’m glad it happened. I respect everyone who called me out for doing so. Realizing one’s misguided attitudes is eye-opening, and it only helps. But this issue is bigger than me, much bigger.
This isn’t about getting my point across; this article is about getting you, all of you, to get the point across to all of your friends and acquaintances. Violence against women can eventually be stopped, but it has to come from a willingness to think differently, to open a discussion, and ultimately, to change.
I’ve read a lot of creepy campus-paper rape “satires” since I started this blog, and a lot of more-or-less-sincere apologies. But I’ve never seen the author of any of those pieces use the resulting attention to advance a discussion of sexual violence like Brorby did here.
You fucked up, Josh. You fucked up badly. But good for you for getting that, and good for you for trying to make it right.
16 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 9, 2009 at 3:39 pm
BrettR4763
Oh please, “you fucked up, Josh. You fucked up badly.”? He was writing a satire.
Apparently, dark, black humor is no longer allowed in the United States. Damn, and here I thought we still had the First Amendment.
Now, keep in mind, I really, really hate the evil rape and sexism that occurs on our campuses and our world every frigging day. It forms a pit in my stomach whenever I hear about it, and I actually support giving individuals convicted of rape and sexual assault life in prison, but it just pisses me off when self-righteous, sanctimonious people try to suppress people’s First Amendment rights and keep them from writing satire.
I know some moronic males might construe Josh’s piece as an endorsement of their evil acts, but we shouldn’t live in fear of publishing something, especially satire, just because it might be taken seriously. We cannot allow ourselves to be frightened by the dumbest segments of our population. It is THEY who are justifying their evil thoughts, not Josh.
So please stop scapegoating the satirists and start focusing on how to really confront and defeat this evil sexist patriarchal paradigm.
December 9, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Angus Johnston
Brett, he wrote something that made a lot of people he was trying to help really angry and upset. He alienated his friends and allies when he was trying to support them. That counts as fucking up badly, in my book.
There’s nothing wrong with dark humor. There’s nothing wrong with satire. But his dark humor, his satire, didn’t work. It didn’t do what it was intended to do. Yes, some people misinterpreted it, but others — like the commenter I linked to with the word “cogent” above — understood it perfectly and still thought it was way off base.
I didn’t say that Josh had evil thoughts, much less that he was trying to justify them. I didn’t scapegoat him. I didn’t try to suppress his First Amendment rights. I said he fucked up, and I strongly suspect he’d agree.
And if you think that the take-away from my piece is that I dislike Josh as a person, or think he should stop writing, then either I didn’t express myself clearly or you didn’t read carefully. I have a tremendous amount of respect for how he handled this situation, and I think he’s a hell of a mensch.
December 9, 2009 at 4:53 pm
BrettR4763
Angus, while I completely sympathize with Heather Jackson’s points and circumstance, and I seriously, desperately hope her abuser is locked in a cell somewhere rotting away in misery and sorrow, but the First Amendment is clear: we must not suppress free speech, ever. And I just worry that as soon as you use language like “Some things do not need to be joked about,” you are setting a very dangerous precedent.
We may not like it, but nothing should be off-limits, regardless of whether it “shuts down the voice of survivors” and “perpetuates violence.” That is what it means to live in a free and open society.
I mean, I’m a left liberal, anti-sexist, anti-racist, but I have a real problem with this so-called “PC” language, with people trying to impose a “correct” world view, a “correct” language. The images of “1984” will always haunt me, and I keep seeing more signs of Orwell’s vision every day and this, for all its good and noble intentions, is another.
And for some background, I took a trip down to Georgia just this March for this very purpose: fighting against violence against women and patriarchy. So I’m fully on your side. In fact, I’ve given up on my gender. I no longer consider myself a “man.” I’m just a male human being attracted to the female sex.
But I’m just as concerned about First Amendment issues, and I just want to make sure that the side in defense of free speech, free expression and a free press has a voice here.
December 9, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Angus Johnston
Serious question, Brett. Why is Heather Jackson’s criticism of the original piece an attack on free speech, but your criticism of her response a defense of free speech? Surely if it’s a threat to free speech to say that “some things do not need to be joked about,” it’s also a threat to free speech to say that some speech “set[s] a dangerous precedent.”
It seems to me that both you and she are engaging in vigorous debate that’s entirely within the spirit of the First Amendment. What am I missing?
December 9, 2009 at 5:31 pm
BrettR4763
Don’t worry, I considered that as well while writing my reply, and of course Jackson can write whatever she wants, including the line “Some things do not need to be joked about.”
Unlike Jackson and others, I do not wish to have her opinions be deemed “off-limits” and vanish from our landscape. That is the difference.
Obviously, I would rather not have such great activists write such dangerous and counter-productive things, but again, I would rather the teabaggers not be allowed to dress in blackface or neo-Nazis to be allowed to rally, but alas, that can’t be and so I recognize and celebrate this freedom of speech and expression.
So, indeed, Jackson and I are engaging in a vigorous debate entirely within the First Amendment, but I feel, as I said above, Jackson and others seek to banish undesirable speech, which is contrary to the spirit of the First Amendment.
December 9, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Emily
Brett,
Free speech is a legal guarantee, and so far I haven’t seen anyone suggesting that the writer should have been legally barred from publishing the piece. What I’ve seen are people suggesting that decent human beings should take into account the results of certain speech, compare that against the original intent, and then decide for themselves that certain things aren’t worth publishing. Asking people to be thoughtful about their writing and take responsibility for it isn’t counter to the principle of free speech. And if the result of this piece was antithetical to the author’s intended purpose, then the problem isn’t the fact that it was “dark humor,” it’s that the article was ultimately counterproductive.
December 9, 2009 at 6:18 pm
BrettR4763
All fair points.
Maybe if the original argument had been framed in such a way, so favorably to free speech, I wouldn’t have been so offended.
I don’t know…I just don’t want to live in a bland, drab world where nothing’s funny.
December 9, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Angus Johnston
But now we’re back to talking about whether it was funny, and whether it was an effective piece of anti-rape writing. Lots of us think the answers to those questions are “no” and “no.” I don’t think that means we’re humorless, or that it means we want to live in a drab world. It just means we think that the joke — and the serious agenda behind the joke — didn’t work in this instance.
December 9, 2009 at 7:11 pm
BrettR4763
I don’t know. That wasn’t the purpose of my initial comment. Satire is protected speech as found by the Supreme Court, and I wanted to see that it wasn’t suppressed in any way.
I do believe you people are overestimating and overstating the reach and potential consequences of what you write. Those animals will still rape and maim women no matter what an insipid satire in a college newspaper says.
December 9, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Chels
Let’s be clear… I have a huge problem with rape jokes. I have a problem with sexism masked as satire…
(Disclaimer, I only read the excerpts copied here)
But man, it’s extremes the original author walked. All I read while reading the piece was: “Feeding her shots (alcohol) for sex is not all that different from a shot of Sodium Pentobarbitone.” and “You’re now a criminal, you’ve defiled another human being, lost the trust of people who know, et al. For sex. You’re a moron”
I hate to say it, but I don’t find this piece offensive in the least. I think it draws the right parallels. It’s not meant to be funny, though, let’s be clear. It’s meant to be sarcastic and biting under the guise of frat boy humor. It’s not funny at all. It’s dead serious.
And I just want to be clear, this is not a “Aw man, can’t you humorless feminists take a joke”, because that is not my intention. I thought this was really well written and only find it unfortunate that its message got lost amongst some knee-jerk reactions. Subtlety is not always our strong suit.
I understand, some guys might take this literally… but there will always be those people who misread the message, no matter its format. I pride myself in seeing the hate poorly masked under satire, but this just wasn’t it.
December 10, 2009 at 12:02 am
traxus4420
it was a good piece, too bad it got misread (and it was misread). at least the author got to publish on the same subject in two different genres. i hope this doesn’t cause him to abandon his talent for satire, or convince those who want to advance social justice that they can only do so by writing 100% earnest moral statements that are just as easy for some to roll their eyes and ignore as satire is for others to misinterpret. i think everyone should learn something from this situation.
December 10, 2009 at 1:05 am
ForStudentPower
I founded the Satire section of my campus newspaper, and in the years I ran it I would never have run that article – it’s just not funny. You can write very good, effective satire of tough issues like this. And yes, even the best satire will draw furrowed brows, but this piece’s poor execution transformed it into a trivialization of date rape. The negative comments were called for.
I think what both Angus and Josh Brorby are pointing out is that people who rape aren’t born rapists – there’s a tipping point at which they decide to act, and the fewer tipping points we as a society offer, the better. That’s why articles on rape in barely-read student newspapers can make a difference either way. If the objectification and advantage-taking of women by men is made only infinitesimally less socially acceptable by writing an article, or having a conversation, it’s still entirely worth doing.
(And on a rhetorical note, the First Amendment only relates to the government restricting your speech. Individuals can’t trample or suppress your First Amendment rights – only governments can. Individuals can trample on your free speech.)
December 10, 2009 at 1:34 pm
BrettR4763
Thank you Chels and traxus4420. I’m glad I’m not the only one who found Josh’s satire devastatingly effective. Indeed, Chels, it wasn’t meant to be funny. And traxus, you make an excellent point: sometimes only satire can make a much deeper point than just “100% earnest moral statements.”
But to be sure, that doesn’t mean we should accept all “rape jokes.” Some “jokes” should be feverishly discouraged and condemned. Some “jokes” really do perpetuate our paradigm of violence. Just yesterday in the UMass Daily Collegian, there was a cartoon where, before a drunken and unconscious Snow White, the seven dwarfs contemplate who will first rape her. That is NOT FUNNY AT ALL; it’s just an insensitive and mean-spirited joke about rape. That is exactly what Heather Jackson described: giving voice to the rapists while shutting out the voices of the survivors.
THAT wasn’t satire; it was pointless and hateful.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=194889196375
December 10, 2009 at 5:52 pm
BrettR4763
Well, ForStudentPower, you found it poorly executed and I found brilliantly executed. That’s a difference of opinion, and I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree.
But even if we did agree, I would still be defending its right to be published.
Again, what I was trying to say is that men need to take responsibility and by blaming an article in a small student newspaper for their actions, we are letting them off the hook.
Okay…the point is conceded. The First Amendment only applies to Congress. But I hope you realize just how absurd and anti-American you sound by saying “Individuals can trample on your free speech.” Yeah, that’s technically true I suppose, but that doesn’t mean you should encourage that practice. It’s just as bad as the government trampling your free speech.
December 10, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Angus Johnston
There’s nobody here saying that the paper didn’t have a right to publish the piece. Heather Jackson didn’t say the paper didn’t have the right to publish the piece. As far as I’m aware, not a single living human on the face of the planet has said that the paper didn’t have the right to publish the piece. So it’s not at all clear to me why you feel the need to keep defending a position that nobody’s attacking.
December 10, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Angus Johnston
Of course it was meant to be funny. It wasn’t only meant to be funny, but it was clearly meant to be funny. There are jokes in it. I can list them if you like.
But its unfunniness is really beside the point. Even if it had been funny — hell, even if it had been trenchant, which it also wasn’t — it still would have been a misfire, for at least three big reasons.
First, as Brorby himself notes, he didn’t understand that casual joking about rape is itself traumatizing for many people. He didn’t recognize that he would be causing some of his readers pain, and he caused them pain. That’s not something to take lightly.
Second, he wrote the piece in such a way that it could easily be misinterpreted, as demonstrated by the fact that it was so widely misinterpreted. He left a lot of good people believing that he was an asshole, and he may well have left some assholes believing he was on their side. That goes with the territory when you’re writing this kind of piece, to a certain extent, but it’s a reason to be cautious, not a reason to dismiss your critics. He wasn’t cautious, as — again — he himself admits.
Third, and this one is the biggest for me, his piece never really acknowledges the gravity of rape. He says that if you follow his plan you’ll be violating the law, that you’ll be disrespecting yourself and the woman, that you’ll lose friends, that you’ll “defile” someone’s home, but he never mentions — as a commenter at a feminist blog put it — that you’ll violate a human being in the worst way possible.
If I ever wrote something that caused the kind of anguish to my friends and allies that Brorby’s piece caused to his, I’d be appalled. I’d be ashamed and remorseful. And I’d feel that way even if others among my friends and allies thought it was the best thing I’d ever written.