In her Tuesday article, "I'm Not Laughing," Nancy Lai certainly succeeded in making me laugh. I saw the poster to which she refers, and it made me laugh too. The poster is funny because it's not politically correct. It's funny because of the reactions of Nancy and the likeminded, obviously intimidated by the inherent power of such big balls as appear on the poster. It's funny because it's something the man would want to keep down, something he wouldn't want you to see. It's funny because it's subversive. It's funny because it's kind of like an anti-chalking in a way, and much more tastefully done.
But seriously, the fact that Nancy (without a doubt among others) are getting this bent out of shape over the poster says something; people are too damn uptight. For the love of Jebus. From an objective standpoint, the thing is pretty funny. When is the last time you've seen on the bulletin boards balls so big they dwarf Jim Wright's head. Yeah, that's what I thought. Vaginocracy, Dean of heterosexual male students Hercules Rockefeller. Come on, this stuff is solid gold. Even one of the College's most prominent feminists thought the thing was hilarious (she has chosen to remain unnamed for political reasons involving the fear of disownment by the faction of uptight simpletons among her minions).
To her credit, Nancy does raise a valid point in her article. No, really, she does. Stating her realization that the poster is a joke, she writes "I'm not so much offended by the sentiments expressed in the poster as appalled that someone actually bothered to type up such boring and unimaginative shlock." As funny as the poster is, its humor value alone does not seem to be worthy of somebody wasting his time and sacrificing his hard earned laziness to type it up, print it out and put it up. I would hazard that the concerned students of SAPOD, whatever this organization might be, were proffering a political message of sorts, masked behind hilarity and what could be mistaken for sexist rhetoric. Let us examine what is said on the posters.
"REMEMBER WHEN YOU USED TO HAVE BALLS? NO???" Obviously, this statement is not to be taken literally, as there cannot be many students to whom this would apply in a literal sense. However, balls are regularly used as a metaphor for manliness, a symbol of standing up for one's self and taking risks. In light of what has been going on on this campus, I think this less literal interpretation would make the poster apply to many a student, both male and female. It is ball-less for the Greeks to make concessions disguised as compromises and bend over while the administration prevents them from drinking outside and plans to allow the police unfettered access to their houses, instead of calling the administration's bluff and standing their ground. It was ball-less for the CFSC to condemn the wah-hoo-wah non-incident for fear being labeled racist or misogynist if it defended (albeit without condoning) the action as merely offensive without being racist or misogynist (of which it was obviously neither).
If this is what the poster means, the term vaginocracy, although still rather tasteless, is no longer sexist, as it too is used in a metaphorical sense. It would merely be saying that there is a lack of proverbial balls in the way things are run at Dartmouth.
I know not if this is what SAPOD was trying to say with their poster, and perhaps I am reading too deeply into something that is completely devoid of meaning. However, this meaning jumped out at me as pretty clear, and I doubt that somebody would bother putting up a meaningless poster the intent of which was merely to shock, offend and anger the masses with a picture of an abnormally testes and a term like vaginocracy. It is a valid argument that it is the lack of balls on this campus that is allowing the College to take away our freedoms and letting a ridiculous brand of hyper-political-correctness run rampant.
SAPOD, although your poster may seem meaningless and sexist to some, I am willing to wager that it was not meant to bash women, but instead was intended as political commentary. If I am wrong, I guess I lack the sack to support your poster, for although I find it hilarious, it is blatantly sexist, which I in no way condone. However, if I am correct, it is certainly not sexist, and is instead one of the funniest and most insightful things to be posted on a bulletin board at Dartmouth. Either way, you leave me with one final question. What the hell is SAPOD?
