fear-mongering = 'inducing legitimate fear'

[Jonathan Lighter]

Yale's chapter of DKE is in big trouble for marching their pledges around
campus loudly chanting their lust for sodomitic rape and necrophilia.

But first, the "fear-mongering" quote from an undergraduate woman:
http://www.broadrecognition.com/yale-new-haven/the-straw-that-broke-the-camel%E2%80%99s-back-dke-sponsors-verbal-assault-on-yale%E2%80%99s-old-campus/

"A mas­cu­line pres­ence declar­ing the inva­sion of female agency
per­pet­u­ates an already despi­ca­ble set of behav­iors present in the Yale
com­mu­nity.  To per­form this action where the youngest women in the Yale
com­mu­nity live, in their first full month of school, in the loca­tion
where they are sup­posed to study and live, is fear-mongering."

Next, and OT, I find the outrageously crude buffoonery of the DKE stunt
appalling.  However, in a different way, I find dismaying the ideology of
the above response.

"The invasion of female agency"?  Is that the best they can do at Yale?
 When the writer appeared on CNN just now, her objection took a similar
form, but I believe she added that "women's bodies" had been symbolically
victimized. In her blog, she is not specifically calling for expulsion, just
"real administrative action." She also suggests, indirectly, that
the officers and not the pledges themselves be "disciplined." How reasonable
of her. How temperate.

What about the obvious objection? Regardless of whether the mass shouting of
such sentiments anywhere, even as a prank on the Yale campus, is necessarily
the warcry of the sociopath (the writer quoted seems to suspect that it
is), the obvious objection is that - even in jest -such grossly, and
intentionally, obnoxious behavior should be *impossible* for a sane,
civilized adult in the tranquil settings of everyday life.  (By contrast,
"streakers" are models of decorum.) The well-bred, highly educated offenders
at Yale have no shame, no civility, no sense of responsibility, none,
they've never internalized these ideas, and that to me is the most
disturbing part of all.  The worst isn't that they were "being
inappropriate" in current parlance and frightened some people, it's
that they were blatantly spitting in their faces, and in Yale's face, and in
society's face, for no good reason, and honestly couldn't care less.

What to call these leaders of tomorrow, these braying gentleman-scholars and
their high-humored drivers?  Is "idiot" offensive to those of low
intelligence, more-than-sheeplike complaisance, sky-high narcissism
(oddly unsupported by self-respect), and complete disdain for those around
them? If so, I apologize for hurting their feelings, poor babies, but they
are indeed idiots. American parents and American education combined haven't
taught them the difference between silly fun and contempt for common
decency or, indeed, for their own reputations. All will "do whatever it
takes" to get into a profitable social network. Everyone involved should be
expelled, not for "invasion of female agency" or any other kind of deluding,
overtheorized cant, but because of what their actions reveal about *them*
and about "where they are in their lives," and, frankly, because their
behavior willfully defies the civil standards of any society yet studied by
anthropologists.

In a world obsessed with "sending the wrong message," some "messages" still
need to be sent.

JL

-- 
"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org