Like it or not, TAP is an Amherst tradition. ("Tradition?" you say. "The very word smacks of the OMP!") It was here before we were, and it will be here long after we have left. Women do not go to TAP because they are held at gunpoint by any man. They don't go because they feel they "ought" to. And they certainly don't go because they're too dumb to be enlightened by feminist rhetoric. In fact, many of the women who go to TAP consider themselves to be ardent feminists.
The Amherst Spectator, in its heyday, addressed this issue on several occasions. They said that feminists imply "that there is some executive board of men that meets regularly and actively conspires to oppress women ... Contrary to [their] implicit assumptions ... women have the independent thought to decide which, if any, social and beauty customs they will comply with. To claim otherwise is not only misogynistic, but denies women the fundamental tenets of equality in our society."
The outcry against P&H is hypocritical on several levels. Most obviously, by telling women what they can and cannot do with their free time, the feminists are doing exactly what they accuse the mythic and omnipresent OMP of doing. I don't know about you, but I didn't get a memo to boycott the Vagina Monologues at the behest of the OMP. However, I definitely read the "demands" for SoCo to cancel P&H and its like.
I'm certainly not trying to imply that TAP is a worthwhile way to spend a Saturday night. I stood outside TAP 11 as a freshman and decided, then and there, that it was not the place for me. But let's be honest-P&H is no worse than any other TAP theme that SoCo dreams up. TAP is a meat market. Kids go there to get cheap thrills. Period. "Kum Ba Yah" TAP would be no less sketchy than "Grab My Ass" TAP.
By denying women the freedom to choose, even if that means allowing them to risk heartbreak and mild assault, feminists discount the intelligence of women. It can be argued that Amherst women are among the brightest in the country. The information contained in the previous paragraph will come as no surprise to any of them. They choose to go because they enjoy the cheap thrill. And bully for them.
The second hypocrisy of the feminist stance on P&H comes to light when you look at their stance on actual prostitution. These same women who would ban the satire of sex workers often advocate unionization for hookers, complete with health care benefits and pension plans.
If turning tricks on a dark street corner is a respectable, even admirable, use of female power over men, how is it that these feminists have any problem with Amherst women playing that role for one night?
Perhaps if SoCo charged admission to P&H, they would be placated. Men could pay a set fee for each hour they remain at TAP, and at the end of the night, the women could divide the spoils.
No? Perhaps the root of the problem is that P&H takes business away from the hardworking hookers of Amherst, Mass. In that case, we could invite them to P&H to provide authenticity and pointers. I mean, they're in a profession that's just as good as any man's, right? Someone should call the career center and set that up.
This is a problem that pervades this campus: many people can agree with things "in principle," but when pushed, change their stance entirely. Prostitution is a fine thing ... for other people. Dean Couvares caught himself in his own net last week after the Assembly for Patriotism. During his remarks, when everything was confined to the ordered and predictable world of the schedule, he made several references to flag-burning as an acceptable show of patriotism. However, when questioned by The Student after the interlopers made asses of themselves, he changed his tune to sound more like: Well, it's not my thing, but flag-burning is fine ... for other people.
So, ladies, when you're pulling on that leopard-print miniskirt and adding that third coat of mascara next time, dust a little more glitter onto your cleavage and think of me.