The Right To Not Be Offended

I already wrote about the Wellesley art kerfuffle, but I liked this quote form Lenore Skenazy

Once we equate making people feel bad with actually attacking them, free expression is basically obsolete, since anything a person does, makes or says could be interpreted as abuse.

Beyond the general amazing sight of feminists acting like Victorian women with the vapors rather than strong, confident human beings, I am still amazed at this interpretation of the art as somehow representing a male threat.  Perhaps this is one area where the campus is poorer for the lack of male voices.  I can't imagine there are many men who see this statue as anything other than a representation of fear and vulnerability and helplessness.  Seriously, does anyone consider sleepwalking at school in your tighty whities as anything but  a bad dream?  If you had showed me this statue before all the brouhaha and asked me if it was more threatening to men or women, I would have answered "men" without a second thought.


  1. MingoV:

    I saw photos of that statue. It threatened my sense of good taste. The "message" of the statue is juvenile, whether you believe it expresses the vulnerability of a near-naked man or whether you believe a dopey-looking near-naked man is a threat.

    Otherwise, the statue is tasteless and ugly and should be placed onto a scrap heap with all the other ugly statues.

  2. MNHawk:

    Maybe the sisterhood could organize a mass twerking exercise about the statue, the way they did a dead chicken at Columbia?

    Yes, Ivy League degrees do still impress me!