This entire thing undermines the 'feminist' movement on campus. Real feminists would be appalled. Sounds like some people are just bored

I'm never surprised by the ridiculous "issues" I read about in this paper. I'm just shocked we haven't heard from the Hoya Vegetarians.
What about their budget issues and rights.

As a recent Georgetown Alum, I think people need to pick their battles wisely. While GUGS is a student organization on campus, and people may have found their week/t-shirt slogan offensive, the world is an offensive place and unfortunately we have to learn to live and work within it. People are going to say and do things that you don't agree with, sometimes its not acceptable and other times it is. No one in GUGS is commenting on women or that women have a certain place in society. They made a play on words. Frankly, "Grilling Gone Wild Week" would not have the same effect if everyone did not know about the "Girls Gone Wild" videos, however, the creators of those videos are not breaking any laws and are free to make them and sell them for a profit. That being said, I believe the people who are offended should refrain from participating/buying from GUGS just like you refrain from purchasing Girls Gone Wild videos, but you should not try to silence the group from expressing themselves as they see fit when they have not actually done anything harmful to any individual or group. There are so many other important issues that deserve your time and energy.

Well said. If people are offended by this t-shirt, it's their perogative to boycott the GUGS event or encourage others to do so. But to try to inhibit GUGS' right to print these t-shirts is simply appaling, and antithetical to the purpose of educating students by giving them operational autonomy, which I think is what extracurricular activities should be all about.

If students wish to promote a commitment to diversity and openness -- which many have in good faith in recent months -- I'm all for that. But the reason why I believe so many students tend to shy away from such public conversations is because they are so often led by students who propose regulations, censorship and intimidation as a means to forging a more sensitive community, and justify such steps by arguing that there are all those other students "out there" who aren't committed to creating a more open community.

I can't speak for GUGS -- I myself was particuarly turned off by Jake Styacich's "viewpoint" in the Voice, which was more damage control than actually making a substantive argument that would promote productive dialogue on this issue -- but I think that most students want Georgetown to be a more open community. But it's when these issues are offered in such a regulative framework that so many students get turned off.

This is absurd. This campus and the surrounding community are plauged with legitimate problems. Why is this even an issue? So a group had a little fun with a slogan. Get over it.

If a club that grills food, is the biggest thing that this paper, and the community have to worry about, maybe a few heads need to come out of asses.

I think the men on campus need to come together and form a group to protect ourselves from the PC intimidation tactics utilized by groups like this. It's about time we stop being pushed around every time some oversensitive, bored idiots try to throw their weight around and ruin our activities. We are already outnumbered by female students on campus, but we still have rights. MEN ON CAMPUS - STAND UP!!

Doug, being a "man" (whatever that means) does not require one to agree with ham-fisted patriarchy. Your Larry-the-Cable-Guy masculinity needs to take a back seat to an actual analysis of gender relations. Whether or not one agrees with the criticism of the GUGS event, your mentality of victimhood is bizarre and outmoded. If you'd really like to complain about being a victim, try something else aside from being a privileged male at an elite educational institution.

In response to the arguments along the lines of 'if you don't like it, don't buy it/boycott it' I think it's important to recognize that all of us as students pay a "student activities fee" which goes to help fund SAC-sponsored events. So, if you want to take this on a purely economic level (what else would you expect at Georgetown), there is a financial connection to all of us here. If a group is perceived to be crossing a line, then the student body has every right to raise a valid discussion.

Furthermore, it's a bit one-sided to ridicule this discussion as just a bunch of people trying to 'throw their weight around.' At the end of the day, there are some real power dynamics going on at this campus. The message that GUGS is putting out is one way of exerting a certain kind of power. So, don't be so surprised that they're getting some (successful) push-back.

That's just some good ol' American democracy for ya, boys.

-The power dynamics going on around campus is the special interest groups jerking around the majority of the disinterested student body with their PC appeals to the administration to get what they want at the expense of the rest of the student body.

-GUGS charges for their burgers and for their t-shirts so the activities fee argument doesn't hold up very well.

-Why is my model of victimhood bizzarre? The burden of proof for blacks, gays, and women is half of what we have to prove and then when we finally do, you claim that by our very nature we can't be victims. That's obviously false. I've laid out the argument that women are pushing us around, so I'm free to consider myself a victim.

-How in the world do you know I'm privileged? I'm a name on an newspaper forum. In order to get this far I guarantee you I've had to face much tougher odds than half the feminists crying about a burger pun. Georgetown is no place for stereotypes.

Re: Doug.

That you seem threatened by "blacks, gays and women" makes it appear that you spend a little bit too much time glued to FoxNews or conservative talk radio. Do you regularly quote Reagan on the threat of "welfare queens"? If "women are pushing [you] around" by refusing to be literally represented as pieces of meat, then your threshold for abuse is pretty low. Yeah, I'm sure you've had it oh-so-tough. Before Georgetown, did you have to walk 15 miles in the snow and uphill both ways to get to school and your subsequent coal mining job (which, I'm sure, you considered lucky to get... you know, cause of the "illegals" stealing your jobs and all)?

Excuse me while I weep as you, noble soldier, suffer the outrageous slings and arrows of political correctness. Without your martyrdom, where would I - the White Male Hoya - now be?

Let's set aside the question of whether the t-shirts were theoretically offensive to "women" (whatever that means). Is there anyone who was actually offended? If not, then there really isn't any excuse for activism on this issue, is there? Moreover, if anyone was offended--not by "ham-fisted patriarchy" generally--but by this specific manifestation of it, I think there is a lot to be gained from asking not "whether" but "why" those individuals were offended. I think any answer to that question must inevitably and predictably lead back to still more hackneyed references to "ham-fisted partriarch[ies]." In short, people who are in the market for being offended are always going to find bargains.

There is no value in activism for activism's sake, and there is nothing more ridiculous than an overraction to humor.

Joe is 100% right. This campus is filled with a bunch of kids who like to claim victimization for the sake of having something to say and do. Hemley and those who support "open dialogues" on this issue REALLY need to find something more valuable to talk about.

Good job by SAC of not going along w/ this nonsense, making a decision, and standing by it.

I didn't realize Georgetown had turned into Port Chester University (PCU). People need to stop being offended at the drop of a hat. If not so subtle puns are not safe from the wrath of political correctness, not only will the New York Post cease to exist, but we are also deemed to become a boring, thoughtless, and humorless society of conformists who refuse to speak their minds for fear of hurting someone's feelings. The people protesting this whole thing need to get over themselves. Though I suppose the thin air up on their high horse may be affecting the thought process. Better get going, Dean Garcia-Thompson is on the warpath.

GUGS should sell the t-shirts anyways. Caving into whiney overly PC people only inflates their egos and illusions of effectivity. They need to realize no one cares about the smallest violin they're playing, and instead need to develope a sense of humor.

Personally I'm waiting for a different version of the t-shirt that makes a pun on hamburger size and penis thickness or length (up to GUGS to decide which is more important). There are a lot of creative people on this campus so I'm sure I won't have long to wait before they become available!

The name GUGS is a sexual pun. I've never heard of anybody offended by it before.

Women in our society face much bigger problems than a few puns from a harmless college grilling society. If you asked an abused woman what she'd like privileged college students to do to help her cause, I doubt she'd put protesting puns on t-shirts very high on her list. Surely these groups have more productive things to do with their time and energy?

By protesting a universally popular campus organization such as GUGS over something as trivial as a couple harmless puns these groups are doing a lot of damage to their own cause by making themselves look like petty killjoys. These groups have lowered my respect for feminist causes.

Maybe the best way to resolve this would be for GUGS and the protest groups to do a day of community service together at a local womens' shelter. That way both would be doing some real good in the community.

"Grade A, women shouldn't vote" or "grade A, guys grill better than girls" would be worth getting angry over, but "grade A, size D"? give me a break. Please tell me this is a belated April fools joke...please...

Also, i'm not sure how GUGS is able to maintain a balanced budget having that much meat in their burgers...i hope this recent setback doesn't lead to size B burgers for hoyas in the near future.

-Surprised alum

When they print a shirt with the words, "short," "thick," and "soft," I'll be the first to buy

Dirk, Max, Doug and all the other objectors out there-

"GUGS should sell the t-shirts anyways. Caving into whiney overly PC people only inflates their egos and illusions of effectivity. They need to realize no one cares about the smallest violin they're playing, and instead need to develope a sense of humor."

The objection to the GUGS (which I have always pronounced Gughs not Jugs) is not whiny nor inconsequential. What does the shirt - in combination with the week it is promoting - actually say?

Grade A - ok, way meat is described, no problem there
Size D - how is meat a size D? What could size D possibly refer to other than breast size?

You don't have to be a woman to find this combination insulting. The "joke" doesn't work unless you realize what the size D refers to and that is breasts. In this case, it objectifies women, explicitly comparing them to meat. I'm curious as to why gender-neutral language or language of equal rights is, on this comment section, regarded as PC - politically correct. Shouldn't it just be correct to speak that way...because it's true. This means that every person who has termed women's rights as PC only does so for political appropriateness. Do the people expressing this opinion really feel that men are better than women, that they are better than their mothers, sisters, classmates, professors and future co-workers? If there wasn't a demand to be politically correct, is that what you would say? Because, the Georgetown I know, is about men and women for others - not men and women for men.

I've made a similar comment on the editorial regarding this subject.

The hotdog/penis subject...not whatever that other guy is talking about.

Dave, thanks for replying.

Yes, the t-shirt does mention meat and breasts, but I don't think it equates the two. GUGS is a grilling society, but their name is a boob pun. Does that mean that the GUGS name equates women to meat? Does it mean that all members of GUGS think that women are inferior to men?

If an all-female grilling society made sausages and sold t-shirts saying '8 inches of hard meat' would that equate men with meat? Would that be offensive to men because it made it seem like they're only valuable for their bodies? Would the ideal of 8 inches be hurtful to men who have less than 8 inches? I don't think so. I think both men and women would get a good laugh out of that shirt, and rightly so.

I understand that there are problems in our society with objectifying women and treating them like pieces of meat. But that doesn't mean that any mention of meat and women in the same sentence has to be offensive.

It's also worth mentioning that a lot of girls aren't offended by these shirts. A quick glance at the pro-GUGS Facebook group on this issue shows that a lot of Georgetown girls find the t-shirts to be funny, not offensive. Over half of the front page wall posts are from girls supporting GUGS (no pun intended). So don't act like this is a men vs. women issue.

Max, I think you missed the point-

It's obviously not a men v women issue given my perspective. I object to the language used as do many other male individuals that I know. That's absolutely not the issue.

What is the issue is the shirt itself - If the shirt isn't equating the two, then what is it talking about? What's the point other than capitalizing on a degrading comment to females? The words - grade a double d - actually refer to one thing...in this case, the burger. The two are being specifically conflated. That's how the language functions. A term used to degrade women sexually (double d - b/c women with bigger boobs are "hotter")is applied to meat - referring first to your burgers but meat is also another referent for sexuality. Let's state the obvious...when dudes talk about looking for a piece of meat, they're looking for a girl. They want sex. This is what the GUGS shirt is mimicking. And it's clearly sexist and objectifying women.

To treat men OR women according to these sexualized attitudes is unfair to either sex. I object to male stereotypes as much as female ones because the stereotypes burden everyone.

It's unfortunate that GUGS thinks of their name as a pun, not just georgetown university grilling society. If more people knew the direct intention (most people I know don't even know how to pronounce it...they say it both ways and then follow it with...or however you say it), they might not be so supportive. And that isn't to say that GUGS doesn't provide a valuable service. Lots of people enjoy eating burgers on a sunny day. But when the Corp was faced with an issue of objectifying women with certain bunny-shuttle signs, the response of the corp leadership was sensitive to the concerns of the georgetown students and showed that they really care about those that they serve. They took down the posters, apologized and showed that the undestood the implicit ways that language and images can be used in demeaning ways. I don't see why it would be so hard for the members of GUGS (male and female) and georgetown students generally to take a second to learn someone else's position on the subject. Maybe we all have not had the same experiences with prejudice and maybe there is something valuable to learn from students who seek fairness for all groups, men and women. I think this issue has become greater that the shirt slogan. It's about understanding how women are degraded. It's little to expect socially conscious georgetown students to be aware of these. We are the future leaders and so to think that women's studies is only for college (as a comment above said) and not for the boardroom betrays the legacy of georgetown education. No, selling or not selling the shirts will not solve the societal issue - but it might help spread awareness about conditions that seem normal and funny but in fact are based on discriminatory gender stereotypes.

I wasn't making generalizations about all members. I was only responding to those who in this forum declared women's rights as politically correct language.
And yes, if an all-female grilling society made sausages in the scenario it suggest, that would unfairly objectify men in the same unfortunate way. Don't assume everyone would think it is funny. And lastly, because females do not ALL respond in the same way does not mean that the shirt or the attitudes of those who chose to misunderstand its importance are proper.

Dave -

First off, I should clarify that I'm not a member of GUGS. I speak for myself and only for myself. All I do with GUGS is enjoy their burgers.

When I see the slogan, I think of big burgers. "Size D" (not "Double D") is a big size, so I see the slogan as saying that the burgers are good (Grade A), and big (Size D).

Now if the slogan said something like "Have a burger, have a woman" then you'd have a point, and I would want the shirts to go.

I also object to you saying: "Let's state the obvious...when dudes talk about looking for a piece of meat, they're looking for a girl. They want sex." Maybe it's just me, but when I told my mom this weekend that I wanted to have meat this weekend, I was most definitely referring to a steak on a plate at a restaurant, not a woman or sex.

In fact, after this fiasco I could probably tell a friend on campus that I want a "Size D piece of meat" and they would probably understand that I just want a nice big steak or burger.

I'm surprised that you know people that don't know GUGS is a sexual pun. Aside from tour groups, I've never heard it pronounced any way other than "jugs" which in my mind is a pretty clear (and innocent) sexual pun. I've never heard people protest it before.

Georgetown groups should be conscious of the concerns of other groups, but that doesn't mean letting the other groups dictate every move they make. If groups have to change their actions in response to every single protest you'll end up with groups having to stop activities because a single person on the campus objected loudly enough. You have to draw the line somewhere. At some point a group has to say "We hear what you're saying, but frankly we don't think that our actions are a problem."

An online poll isn't the most reliable indicator, but the poll on this site shows that less than a quarter of Hoyas are offended by the t-shirt slogan. Should GUGS really let such a small percentage of students dictate their policies, especially when a much larger percentage of students (of both genders) have come out in favor of the t-shirts? I know we have to respect minority opinions, but where do you draw the line between respecting minority opinions and letting any group (no matter how small) dictate a club's actions?

The way I see it, virtually all Hoyas on both sides of this issue agree that degrading women is a bad thing. But most Hoyas don't think that this t-shirt degrades women.

I think they should consider "Grade A women shouldn't vote" after all this uproar. The GU Fems are showing their true character.