Rates of sexual assault on college campuses today remain high, and are thus viewed as one of the many consequences and social problems resulting from our country’s prominent and particularly controversial issues of sexism and gender inequality. In the 1997 National Institute of Justice study referenced by Armstrong (2006), it was estimated that between one-fifth and one-quarter of women are victims of completed or attempted rape while in college (Fisher, Cullen and Turner 2000). Additionally, the startling statement is made that college women are at greater risk for rape and other forms of sexual assault than woman in the general population or in a comparable age group” (Armstrong 2006; Fisher et al. 2000:iii). Sexism runs rampant through our
…show more content…
These processes are discussed and studied at length by Armstrong, Hamilton and Sweeney (2006). On an individual level, not all the characteristics that lead to a higher probability of sexual assault are gendered. As stated by the authors in the article (2006:494) “party rape occurs at high rates in places that cluster young, single, party-oriented people concerned about social status.” This seems like a situation that could be anywhere on a typical college campus. However, here is where the university itself participates in and creates a gendered issue on the organizational level. Even though policies of not allowing alcohol use in residence halls are technically gender-neutral, the expectation that these policies will stop underage students from drinking is frankly ignorant, and almost pious. These policies only encourage these vulnerable, first year students to search for other places to obtain alcohol, which fraternities near campus are just so willing to provide. This quickly changes the university’s supposedly gender-neutral policy into a dangerous gendered-consequence, as this directly hands over the control to fraternity members who are able to choose who can party at their house, usually strictly being women, and control how much alcohol is distributed. The interactional level is discussed in the article by pointing out how typically gender-neutral party expectations to have fun and lose control are contradictory to our society’s sexist perspective. Women just cannot physically “lose control” while also be expected defer to men and play the role of the “gatekeeper” of sex (Armstrong
These processes are discussed and studied at length by Armstrong, Hamilton and Sweeney (2006). On an individual level, not all the characteristics that lead to a higher probability of sexual assault are gendered. As stated by the authors in the article (2006:494) “party rape occurs at high rates in places that cluster young, single, party-oriented people concerned about social status.” This seems like a situation that could be anywhere on a typical college campus. However, here is where the university itself participates in and creates a gendered issue on the organizational level. Even though policies of not allowing alcohol use in residence halls are technically gender-neutral, the expectation that these policies will stop underage students from drinking is frankly ignorant, and almost pious. These policies only encourage these vulnerable, first year students to search for other places to obtain alcohol, which fraternities near campus are just so willing to provide. This quickly changes the university’s supposedly gender-neutral policy into a dangerous gendered-consequence, as this directly hands over the control to fraternity members who are able to choose who can party at their house, usually strictly being women, and control how much alcohol is distributed. The interactional level is discussed in the article by pointing out how typically gender-neutral party expectations to have fun and lose control are contradictory to our society’s sexist perspective. Women just cannot physically “lose control” while also be expected defer to men and play the role of the “gatekeeper” of sex (Armstrong