‘No More Fun of Any Kind!’

Posted on Comments

 

The Alpha Phi sorority at the University of Alabama put together a recruiting video. The apparent object of the video was to promote the idea that Alpha Phi girls are pretty, popular and fun. This is not a controversial political idea, except for feminists who hate pretty, popular girls having fun:

It’s a parade of white girls and blonde hair dye, coordinated clothing, bikinis and daisy dukes, glitter and kisses, bouncing bodies, euphoric hand-holding and hugging, gratuitous booty shots, and matching aviator sunglasses. It’s all so racially and aesthetically homogeneous and forced, so hyper-feminine, so reductive and objectifying, so Stepford Wives: College Edition. It’s all so . . . unempowering.

That column by A.L. Bailey resulted in a statement by the university condemning the video, which Alpha Phi took offline:

A video promoting the University of Alabama’s chapter of a largely white sorority has been taken down after being widely criticized online for its portrayal of women and for its lack of diversity. . . .
A statement from the school’s associate vice president for university relations, Deborah Lane, said that the video “is not reflective of UA’s expectations for student organizations to be responsible digital citizens.”

Dear God, has it gone this far? Has political correctness reached the point that it’s wrong for Alabama sorority girls to be pretty?

“Is this even America anymore?”

Feminism has gotten completely out of hand. You know damned well that if Alabama had a Muslim sorority where all the girls wore burqas, A.L. Bailey wouldn’t say a word. If Alabama had a pagan lesbian sorority, A.L. Bailey would never complain. But pretty white blonde girls having fun in daisy duke shorts? This is “objectifying”! This is not reflective of the university’s expectations: “No more fun of any kind!”

 

202 comments

  2. There are heretics in all denominations. Not everyone who professes is saved, and I daresay that there is not a single building called a “church” in which every single person in it is saved. Jesus’ letters to the seven churches (types of Christians) in Revelation makes this clear.

  3. Nobody’s holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read Rule 5 posts. Also, I don’t think you understand the purpose of Rule 5. I suggest you LURK MOAR.

  7. I honestly don’t see what all the hootin’ and hollerin’ is about. There’s no part of this that’s even remotely NSFW, and not all that much of it even qualifies as cheesecake.

  8. Thanks fot conveniently linking the vid, because I hadn’t seen it. As I said elsewhere, there’s nothing illegal there, and plenty that is similar to the usual garbage readily available on TV, in movies, and elsewhere on the internet.

    I – who was a Greek in college for awhile – would ask this: if I’m a cute blond devout and born-again Christian girl, and I wear pretty dresses down to my knees that are not tight or low-cut, but are not gunny sacks either, and I wear camp shorts rather than short-shorts, would I even be invited to pledge this sorority? I’m guessing not. I’d guess, based solely upon my limited personal experience, that my “popularity” would be based upon my ability and desire to wear revealing clothes, and my moral “looseness” which would give me a reputation as a “party girl”.

    Of course, not that a devout, born-again Christian girl would even want to pledge Greek, but I’m just sayin’.

    And at the risk of pissing off a bunch of people, I would ask what is the purpose of looking at pictures and videos of pretty and skantily-clad young women? Can we agree that a man would consider them sexually appealing? And if that’s the case, I would add that Jesus said that to look at a woman with lust means that you have already committed adultery with her in your heart. Which violates the 7th commandment.

    Indeed, a girl’s very purpose of wearing revealing clothing is causing men to look at them with lust and to desire them. I know, because I did that all the time before I became a Christian.

    Having said that, is it even physically possible not to look at the opposite sex with lust? I guess it is, but even now I have to admit honestly that it’s hard. When I see a big farm boy in military uniform, I admit, it’s hard not to look with lust. I have to literally avert my eyes. : )

    I’m just sayin’…

  10. I ordered a button with this motto at Balticon and still don’t have it. Going to fire off an irritated e-mail after Worldcon.

  11. I think it’s entirely possible to enjoy the sight of a beautiful young woman/handsome young man without lust. Otherwise quite a few of the great artworks of man would be constantly covered in spooge.

  12. Ilion,

    You said, ‘Leftism
    in general appears merely to be Catholic “social teaching” … just
    without all the “bothersome God-talk”    .’ I would say
    a couple of things to that; first, most Catholics are insufficiently familiar with the Church’s social doctrine to accurately know what it does and does not contain (to say nothing of the familiarity of those outside of Her). Therefore, what most people identify as the “social teaching” is what they’ve overheard in soundbites from Nuns-on-busses who more often than not are Lefties (if not outright Communists or at least Socialists).

    Second, since the Left developed within a culture that was deeply shaped by the teachings of Christianity generally and the Catholic Church particularly (e.g. France) a lot of its avowed goals would be similar to Christian goals but divorced from the God lefties hate. The Heaven on Earth they are trying to create now (instead of at the Eschaton) is not dissimilar to the Christian ideal (lambs laying down with lions, etc.) because they stole it from us. Why is it that the morality “Humanists” always claim to be able to seek after and follow (do unto others, neither Jew nor Greek) without reference to God is a mostly Judeo-Christian one (minus the sex stuff) instead of one more like Hinduism with its caste system? Values are not that different between them and us, it’s a question of method.

    ‘Look,
    does it really matter whether the fellow trying set himself up as having the authority and competence to tell me how much I am entitled to keep and spend as I see fit of the money I earn by my honest labor in free agreement with the fellow who pays me for that labor is called “Commisar” or “Monsignor”?    ’ emphasis added.

    Lots of self-references there, as if one were saying that the individual should be completely autonomous and able to make his own choices without input from anyone else, whether in the form of suggestion or edict. You see, it’s just that sort of radical individualism that Catholicism does reject; Satan is the one who says we should be completely free to make our own choices, “and ye shall be as gods.” It is that emphasis on the individual above all else that many point to as the origin of Leftism amongst the certain “Protestant Sects” that Mr. Belvedere referred to above.

    James G

  13. ‘Objectifying’ has to be the dumbest misnomer ever. Almost no one finds inanimate objects sexually attractive. When you fancy somebody you implicitly acknowledge their humanity: ‘Here is this woman, a female of the species, and I desire her’. There is nothing objectifying about that.

  14. It’s part of the larger war on Greek life on campus — it’s been going on in the media for some time and college administrators are on-board. Fraternities and Sororities are the last bastion of normal on campus they must break them.

  19. I see what you’re saying, but I think it’s personal. I know the difference, for example, between a man who looks at me and thinks “she’s cute”, and one who undresses me with his eyes. It’s the latter situation that is problematic.

    I was just about to make a wombat analogy at this point, but decided that was unwise. 😀

  24. Apparently the uni forced them to take it down, but YouTube’s TOS give everyone else the right to re-post whatever you put up, and someone saved it. (DownloadHelper is handy for things like that.)

  25. Obligatory Fred on Everything:

    Antagonism inevitably ensued. Men said that the ladies didn’t want to be women, and couldn’t be men. Why, they asked each other, did a first-rate woman want to be a second-rate man? The women said men were bigoted. Men said they were just observant. Women, who had always regarded men as commitment objects and pre-med objects, became enraged that men regarded them as sex objects. Men were puzzled. They didn’t know what else to regard as sex objects.

    I was confused myself. I remember a woman screaming at me, “Women don’t want to be objects!” Trying to be conciliatory, I said, “OK, you can be subjects.” That didn’t suit her either.

  28. If someone decides what you can and cannot do with your life, your body, and your property, then it does not matter whether that someone leans left or right.

    Tyranny is tyranny.

  30. “It’s a parade of white girls and blonde hair dye, coordinated clothing, bikinis and daisy dukes, glitter and kisses, bouncing bodies, euphoric hand-holding and hugging, gratuitous booty shots, and…”

    Uh,I’ll be back in a lil’ while…

  34. The university power structure needs to be attacked. They are the ones who carry out the SJW’s bidding. Protests, Sit-Ins, Marches, Alumni letter campaigns and LAWSUITS.

  36. Okay I’m back.
    Jeez, what’s all the hubbub about, it’s not like they were having a pillow fight while wearing things and camisoles (or thongs and no camisoles.
    Perhaps there’ll be a sequel?

  43. I agree, and you missed the point: left-right makes a huge difference at the libertarian end of the spectrum, where Heinlein was, so he was not being entirely honest.

    At minimal state control, left economics might not have much in the way of regulations, but it will still have a social safety net welfare state; and left culture will still endorse pleasure-seeking over self-restraint and responsibility.

    You can have a right-libertarian-traditional society in a small town, next door to a left-libertarian-licentious society in a big city; and they’re both “libertarian,” but otherwise completely different.

  45. Each individual human being is both subject and object, that which can perceive and is also perceivable. I can perceive another individual human being as an object and that other individual human being can perceive me as an object. But I cannot perceive another as a subject nor can another so perceive myself, right?

    If:

    I. Consciousness is like a box or a bowl or some other container;

    and

    II. the things of which we are conscious are like the contents of the box/bowl/container;

    Then

    How is self-consciousness even possible? Isn’t that like filling a box/bowl/container with itself? Self-consciouness, whatever else it is, cannot be a form of perception at all, right? What is it again?

  46. So far – for me at least – Heinlein’s been a bit hard to pin down. Libertarian certainly, but that’s as far as I can tell at this point. He was of the opinion that conscription was a bad thing, but that’s not enough to go on. I did like Starship Troopers, though (but not that bomb of a movie).

  49. I love philosophy, so just so you know, I’m taking this seriously.

    1. “OK, you can be subjects” was a joking double-entrendre.

    2. With empathy, you can look at it from someone else’s point of view; and by analogy to your own experience, you can see your object as his or her own subject.

    3. Your conclusion is determined by your bad analogy. Self-consciousness is the cognitive equivalent of looking in a mirror, and seeing all the other people behind you, staring.

    4. On the other hand, self-awareness is limited by trying to use a finite and flawed organ to analyze its own processes. That is where social interactions come in, so that a lack of social awareness is doubly crippling by also hindering the development of self-awareness.

  50. “Satan is the one who says we should be completely free to make our own choices….”

    That’s a very interesting assertion, especially so since it was God who gave us free will and agency.

    I really don’t think I can go past this point with because based on your post, I don’t think you understand either the theological or philosophical foundations of Christian Theology. Suffice it to say, at this point, you have confused Satan’s desire for us to abuse our free will and agency to choose wrong, with God’s will and design of mankind.

Comments are closed.