Last week, a nine-foot-tall snow phallus was erected in Harvard Yard. It was anatomically precise, a labor of love, if you will. But to some it was also offensive, and shortly after the sculpture was completed, it was crushed. Controversy raged: in a letter to the editor of The Harvard Crimson, one student angrily decried the sexual double standard embodied in the snow penis, criticizing the Crimson for running a picture of the icy member ("complete with testicles and vein") and opining that the Crimson would never be so immature as to run a photo of a vast vagina sculpture (the offending phallus photo, entitled "Winter Wonder," has been removed).

On Wednesday, Jonathan Esenstein, an executive editor at the Crimson, answered this criticism and more with an erudite, tongue-in-cheek defense of the snow phallus, condemning the anonymous crushers for their "cowardly act of vandalism," meditating on the "long and distinguished history of phallic imagery in art," pointing out that the phallus is often a symbol of peace, and speculating about the motives of the self-appointed snow police: "Perhaps the phallus-breakers of Harvard Yard were reacting with bourgeois conventionality in labeling challenging art as subversive. Or maybe they were acting on some radical womenís liberation agenda that requires the destruction of visible symbols of male virility."

Now the mystery is solved. The culprit has come forward. And she is every inch the deluded radical feminist Esenstein so presciently skewered in his column. In today's Crimson, sophomore Amy Keel proudly announces that she and her room-mate were the ones who "dismantled the obscene snow penis 'sculpture'", defending her actions thus:

As a student of Harvard University, neither I, nor any other woman, should have to see this obscene and grossly inappropriate thing on my way to class. No one should have to be subjected to an erect penis without his or her express permission or consent.

Keel offers the following explanation for treating the snow phallus like a real one:

Many women and men, including myself, are the victims of sexual assault, child sexual abuse and rape. The unwanted image of an erect penis is an implied threat; it means that we, as women, must be subject to erect penises whether we like it or not. There was nothing ìchallengingî or ìsubversiveî about the penis. The only thing it did was create an uncomfortable environment for the women of Harvard University.

Lest there be any confusion on this point, I will clarify: Keel is not a victim of the snow phallus; she is a victim of sensitivity training.

Claes Oldenberg. Lipstick.
What about horny women and gay men who were longing to see such a large erect penis? What about their rights? Please let the sculptor have been a gay man and let the PC games begin!

Claes Oldenberg. Lipstick.
What about horny women and gay men who were longing to see such a large erect penis? What about their rights? Please let the sculptor have been a gay man and let the PC games begin!

Honestly, what makes me smirk in all of this is the thoroughly confused mentality so in evidence among our young campus feminists. All of the philosophically incongruent messages they're getting are taking an observable toll on their brains here. What is obvious is this: You can't reconcile the various images of the liberated woman into any kind of coherent ideal to which these girls can aspire. You have several different archetypes vying for supremacy here, and at least two of them appear to be mutually excusive: 1) the puritanical, shock-prone Victorian with a rol-a-dex full of legal resources always on the ready at the first sign of masculine sexuality, 2) the enlightened, formerly-repressed-but-happily-indulgent sexual libertine who loves to attend sex-toy parties with her "friends". All of this is simply more than a 19-year-old of either sex is able to sort out, frankly. It's my humble opinion that academic feminism asks way too much of these young women, who are still trying to work out a sexual identity they can live with. If I were asked to chant "vagina" all day long on Valentine's Day, and recoil in horror at the first visible depiction of a penis the next, and exhorted to make my trip to the campus clinic for my free weekly ration of 2000 condoms the next, who knows what I might think? At the end of the day, I'm left with a melancholy conclusion: I'd still rather be a heterosexual man, in spite of all the verbal abuse, because at least I know exactly what it means. I'm under no pressure to be viscerally repelled by the sight of half-naked women on billboards. In short, I'm allowed to be a grown-up. Lucky me.

Gosh, the comparison with Eve Ensler's recent appearance at the U of Michigan is delicious.
A shame that a manifestation of the penis did not lead to loving the penis, and that in loving the penis, we did not come to love eachother, and there was no peace, and in "dismantling" the penis, the world was proven not creative, sexy, delicious and fabulous. For penises are not inherently less sexy than vaginas. Ms. Ensler may disagree with the characterization of genitalia as "obscene and grossly inappropriate.", and I'm disappointed that this incident is a setback to the realization of v-day and the empowerment of women.

a vagina-loving man,

What seems to be missing in this young woman is a sense of humor. It's really very sad. A 9-foot tall snow penis is just plain funny. And yes, I am a fully liberated, self-aware, independent woman. Life without the ability to laugh is going to very long and trying for Ms Keel.

"a vagina-loving man,"

Aren't they all? 96-97% of them, anyway.

did not see a major associated with ms. keel.

hummm.... is there a women's studies program at harvard?

At the risk of beating a dead horse, let me ask how Ms. Keel's terror of snow-phalluses compares to Mr. Sanders's assertion that he was shocked--shocked!!--at the "Ridicule" scene where some poor fellow gets peed on? Seems to me that similar sensibilities are at work despite the difference in ideological window-dressing. Neither silly child ought to be taken seriously by grownups.

The whole thing brings happily to mind my favorite Harvard Crimson headline, which appeared quite a number of years ago, when Harvard's president objected to some proposed new buildings in the middle of town: PRESIDENT FIGHTS ERECTION IN HARVARD SQUARE.

Oh, dear. Don't they teach semantics any more? Has all of Korzybski's and Hayakawa's work gone for naught? "The map is not the territory."

That Crimson headline gives one to think: when the president fought the erection, did both wear gloves and follow Marquis of Queensbury rules?

Can We Tar-and-Feather Them All?

Can we hold this truth to be self-evident: That this is whole sordid thing is gross and offensive?

First, they hypocrisy of academia. Claiming to be totally non-offensive they seem to support pornographic sculpture that is terribly offensive to middle America. When are they going to be dragged into the Star Chamber and sentenced to sensitivity brain-washing? Or is it wrong to offend only some groups?

Second, the Feminists shouldnít have demolished this: the groundskeepers should have demolished it first.

Third, a major purpose of education is to inculcate manners and good tasteóHarvard has failed miserably.

Fourth, another purpose of education is to teach reasoned discourseóthere is nothing reasonable about this, it is merely to shock and offend. What is theólegitimateópurpose of shocking and offending the citizens of Cambridge? There is none.

The only thing more shocking than this is the fact that people are not shocked by it.

I agree (or mostly agree) with much of what you've said, AB. But frankly, I just can't be bothered to be shocked.

One way of looking at the incident: One group of students built a snow sculpture. Another group of students destroyed the snow sculpture. End of story.

Of course, it cannot quite be the end of the story, because it happened on a college campus, where everything must be politicized by people coming from all points on the political spectrum. If a group of Eve Ensler devotees built a snow sculpture of female genitalia (and I really hope they _don't_), no doubt some group or other would come forward claiming to be shocked and offended.

But yes, a snow sculpture of a penis does offend against the sensibilities of middle America. And though community standards vary from one place to another, there is probably a consensus (shared even by the sophisticates at Harvard) that public displays of genitalia (and/or of representations of genitialia) are indecent or obscene. The sculpture strikes me as a stupid (and tasteless) prank deliberately designed to offend people like Keel, who very obligingly took the bait. She needn't have bothered: no doubt the university would have destroyed the sculpture if Keel and her roommates hadn't got to it first.

Oughtn't we expect better from Harvard students? Had a phallus been interwoven or implied in some more intricate design, it would have been clever. This was facile trash suitable to the pages of Hustler magazine. A hundred thousand dollars, plus, seems to me a steep price to grant one's children a four-year Neverland where they might indulge their inner tweens in full public view.

If cleverness was beyond the capacity of Ivy League students, bravery might have made up the difference. The next time ample snow collects on the Harvard campus, perhaps some valiant student will risk ridicule, or worse, and sculpt a detailed, nine-foot crucifix.

Who claimed it to be non-offensive? It's people over-reacting to what they find offensive, forming focus groups and enacting bizarre re-education plans that are the problem. The question is: why no focus groups on smashing nine foot tall snow-penises, clearly an idealogical attack against men's rights the world over? The young minds of today should be worshipping snow-penises, preferably veiled (unless they're male in which case they may retire to the private lounge).

As far as manners, too many people confuse a college education with a charm-school one.

I think it does serve a legitimate purpose. Frivolity. What is so terribly shocking about having a little fun? And why must such simple, youthful things be perverted by endless and 'reasoned' discourse, under the pall of arcane and outmoded views on morality not backed up by the science building? Why poison yet another generation with your qualms? It's getting to the point where most liberal arts professors need a second campus, one that they can surround with barbed-wire, and ring with attack-dogs.

There are a few good ones, though. Very thought-provoking, and they usually cut against the grain. But most are worthless, walking in lock-step. I blame the tenure process.

The pall of arcane and outmoded views on morality is what preserves many from destructive actions. Trivially, 40% of all the men, women, and children in Botswana will die from AIDS, entirely preventable with ìold-fashionedî morality.

Even on the modern campus many could be saved from disease and heart-break by a little self-control.

I just wanted to defend the administration a little bit, because I'm a student at Harvard. I know for a fact that the snow penis was built starting at around 10 pm. and torn down no later than 1 am the same day. the administration never saw it and neither did groundskeepers, who are not on duty in the middle of the night. Therefore, no one at the university was given the opportunity to react to the sculpture's presence on campus.
As for good taste, I will merely reply that a few students on either extreme can be found at any institution, and the vast majority of us are respectful and well-mannered.
I hope you don't generalize over 6,000 undergraduates based on one story.

Ok, granted. But without the bugs, what good is that belief structure? And when will it finally get around to curing cancer? As well, it seems possible that many of the AIDs cases in Africa are due to failed medical infrastructures infecting their own patients, rather than what you propose -- that they are all godless hedonists with rapacious desires for anal sex. At least that's what I've heard. (Am I reading a little too much into the text of your three sentence post here? lol.)

I'm a romantacist btw. I do believe in old-timey morality. But using it as a stalking horse against HIV in Africa, frankly, sullies the issue, and doesn't address the real problems.

Problem being: nine foot tall snow-penises.

AB, I'm a little bit in shock at the fascist nature of your comments. Lets break them down shall we:

QUOTE: Can we hold this truth to be self-evident: That this is whole sordid thing is gross and offensive?

No we cannot. YOU can. But don't tell me what the truth of the matter is. What you find gross and offensive, I might find thought provoking and humorous (and this has proved thought provoking personally because of the varied responses of people to a mere sculpture of a penis, including your response)

QUOTE: First, the hypocrisy of academia. Claiming to be totally non-offensive they seem to support pornographic sculpture that is terribly offensive to middle America.

How is academia, and Harvard more specifically, in any way responsible for a statue that stood for less than three hours? Unless you believe that Harvard should control all aspects of its studentsí lives, then all behavior cannot be accounted for and controlled by the administration.

And more importantly, who cares if it's offensive to middle America? Even if the majority, as you righteously assume, does agree with you that a snow penis is offensive and has no place in society, this doesn't grant you the right to ban all representations of penises. Regulating based upon the wishes of the masses is a frightening proposition and unpopular speech such as nine foot high snow penises need much more protection than bland, non-offensive statements.

QUOTE: Third, a major purpose of education is to inculcate manners and good tasteóHarvard has failed miserably.

Arguing that Harvard has failed miserably because THREE students out of a population of 6,000 undergrads built a snow sculpture that you found offensive is laughable. By your standards Harvard fails unless every student exemplifies your personal standards of taste and decorum. And let me again stress that these are your personal opinions, not fact or all knowing truths.

QUOTE: Fourth, another purpose of education is to teach reasoned discourseóthere is nothing reasonable about this, it is merely to shock and offend. What is theólegitimateópurpose of shocking and offending the citizens of Cambridge? There is none.

This is where I fucking lost it. The purpose of education, in my opinion, is to encourage people to think on their own, formulate arguments, and defend these arguments through a system of public discourse and checking. When you attach the adjective reasoned discourse this means that you are defining what is and is not acceptable to argue about. You're censoring speech and encouraging the notion that certain people KNOW what is right or reasoned.

Lets assume for a second that the entire point of the penis was to shock and offend. Well, I'd say mission accomplished and if the penis eventually led to you posting how offended you were and lambasting academia that then led in turn to others refuting your claims, I would argue that the penis did a pretty important service.

Finally, arguing that a lack of morality is what has caused the AIDS epidemic in Africa is a more offensive statement than 10,000,000 snow penises. However, you have all the right in the world to think that morals and not education or better health care is what will save people from AIDS. I, however, also have the right to think that you're a moronic wanker.

"Finally, arguing that a lack of morality is what has caused the AIDS epidemic in Africa is a more offensive statement than 10,000,000 snow penises."

It's also a case of apples and oranges. While you may find someone else's opinion offensive, it is an opinion on a matter of public interest, and one that you are free to counter by providing evidence to the contrary. By contrast, a snow penis (or 10,000 of them, for that matter) does not communicate any particular message, so how the hell is anyone supposed to engage in a debate with one?

First of all, the snow penis was white, which racializes it and makes a point about the fact that African-American people would likely never see a snow penis if it were not for slave ships, and thus is a symbol of white male supremacy. Second, it was on the grounds of Harvard and was a disembodied penis, thus calling to mind a phallo-alienation of women from the technocracy of tomorrow and American racial and gender disparities in wealth distribution, perhaps even offering a Freudian gender-based defense of the status quo. Third, in requiring someone to touch it to destroy it the snowpenis sexualizes those who hate it most, but in that sense reinforces the penis-envy of women while molesting them, which also recalls the revisitation of trauma through the generations. It is also a sexualization/inverison of the snowman and thus points out the true sexism of the holidays where we pray for a baby boy-God born to a virgin and hope a fat white guy brings us presents, after which a baby boy brings a new year and us girls sit around praying to have a date on Valentine's Day. This is in fact the greatest work of art since David's penis was so artfully sculpted in the Renaissance. Only a Philistine would be offended by such a masterpiece.

Notes: Harvard costs $160,000 for four years but most of the kids are ill-mannered due to being on heavy financial aid, has a wonderfully rigorous women's studies program I enjoyed greatly and found more academically demanding than most other subjects there in its 1000 page a week reading requirements, the snowpenis was built by freshman hockey players on a Friday night (booze anyone?), 1/4 of graduating seniors are virgins making this the first penis many of them have ever seen, and the mom of the young firebrand is a professor of psychology at Harvard which might have helped her application. She also went to Milton Academy, one of the most elite schools in Massachusetts. 11% of Harvard's student body are Mass-holes so you can imagine the horror this penis inspires in the local Pilgrims. Veritas, baby, Veritas.

My god Sandy, I hope that was sarcasm.....

If not, it seems you sure wasted 160k.

1000 pages a week in reading, hell I do that in pursuit of my own interests. And I'm not a student anywhere.

Why should I be affected by the morality of "Middle America"? The ethics of Middle America are the ethics born of Conservative Christianity, and I need not present examples of the frequent hypocrisy of these "ideals". (Open any newspaper and I guarantee they will present themselves). The very notion that our actions should be based on the sensibilities of the majority is most concerning. In 1830, what would these sensibilities have reflected regarding race relations? In 1895, reflecting gender relations? It is ironic that Victorian prisses line up to defend the movement that "Middle America" sought to deny suffrage just a century ago. Phalli make strange bedfellows, so to speak.

The fact of the matter is that some young college athletes were enjoying freshly fallen snow on a beautiful New England evening. There are few places quite as beautiful as Harvard Yard in winter, and this beauty was no less nor no greater because of the erection.

Having been a student at Harvard a few years ago, and having seen the photos the "artists" took of themselves, I doubt little more was on their minds than the immature locker room/fraternity humor prevalent among many young adults.

ìSmart kids overanalyze things.î

The funniest aspect of this story is these kids are supposed to be our best and brightest, ha ha!

ìAs a feminist, pornography is degrading to women and creates a violent atmosphereÖ because [their comments] were said in the context of our gender . . . ì

How can they be expected to have sharp analytical skills when they canít even communicate their garbled theories with proper grammar?

The discussion sparked by the incident has been far from stimulating. They canít even begin to make a decent argument of how a snow cock is ìdemeaning to women.î Maybe those members (har) of the crew team were gay and were just worshipping each otherís tools. What would that have to do with women, other than making them feel left out? It would have been far more interesting if they just made their alternative ice pussy and be done with it.

It reminds me why I chose not to accept an offer to enroll in an ivy. I went to a liberal arts school that was far better equipped to embrace radical politics, controversial art, and a SENSE OF HUMOR. My experiences with Princeton only revealed that just because mummy and daddy sent their kid to a prestigious prep school and managed to snake the brat into their alma mater despite average grades, test scores and writing ability, meant that they could conduct themselves with annoyingly smug self-importance.

It would be hard to imagine feminists like bell hooks, Lucy Lippard or Susan Suleiman compromising their dignity by knocking down snow cocks or getting into a tizzy about it. It looks to me like Harvard students need to spend less time expressing their half-baked thoughts and start hitting the books and try getting some perspective, if not a life.

I am offended by the fact that other people are offended. Assertions that their priviledges (rights) supercede those of others is quite offensive. The "ME" generation has mutated from the greed of the 1980's and is present on every college campus, even the most liberal.

What shocks me is that this ridiculous occurance got so much national attention. I'm sure this is not the first time this had happened on a college campus. Some guys built a big penis, as is within their rights, and some women decided to knock it down, which is also within their rights. As a senior at the college, I never got to see the sculpture firsthand, but it looked pretty impressive from the Crimson picture. Why was the nation so interested in this event? I'll ponder that as I prepare to "hit the books and get some perspective"--or am I simply deluding myself?

It was just a joke you over-analyzing Harvard nerds! Get a fucking life!

I agree completely with what Dakota said. I'm glad he/she said it; it saved me the time of posting it myself.

I would just like to say that I felt very little when seeing this phallus in the yard, besides laughing at the utter stupidity of it all. I'm furious that Amy stained the image of feminism with the overzealous radicalism that all anti-feminists claim for us to have.

Tear it down or not, but don't taint a movement with your personal choices.

Sandy, that was very good. Very funny. Well done.

Maybe we should have built this instead.
http://www.rit.edu/~sta5620/pics/art/art.jpg

Don't lose the point here. Why do we confuse feminism with another, much more common disease, constipation? This "revolutionary" young woman who destroyed it(maybe a statue of her should be *erected* in the penis' place), is just another patient of this disease, so commonly found in this country. After all, we can all imagine the connotation that a giant penis can have to a constipated person...
Vive la constipation!
God Bless America!

The women who destroyed the snow penis is suffering from none other than "penis envy". Penises are luxuries some women actually wants to own, not like on their boyfriends, but actually attached to themselves, these women has become radical and since deprived of this male member felt they dont have the empowerment so they destroyed it. An erect penis in itself is not offensive in the context of an adult audience, likewise with the vaginas or any other body parts, as adults sexual imagery and arts is not a taboo subject, how some feminists see a human penis as violent and subordination of women over a sex organ that help create the human race in the first place is like saying to everyone that they object to the existence of you and me and themselves included.

The action by Ms Keel is a crime against humanity.

A group of male students in the presence of a neutral void chose to create, and brought into existence a symbol of reproduction and sexuality. A female group of students chose to negate, destroying this image and returning the environment to a void through an act of violence.

Ironic, that.

The idea that Harvard students are the best and the brightest is a complete fallacy. There are a lot of wonderfully intelligent people that attend Harvard, but "the best and the brightest"? That's certainly what Harvard's administration, admissions office, students and graduates would like you to believe, but it's just not true. The day people stop making this assertion is the day that Harvard students will no longer have an excuse to "conduct themselves with annoyingly smug self-importance."

Harvard students, along with those who attend the other Ivies or some fancy "small liberal arts college on the East Coast", are still just college students. They're still learning how to express themselves, discovering who they are and going through the process of becoming adults. They're going through the same experiences as everyone else who attends a university. It's foolish to assume that you are any better than they are because you were so wise not to associate with them or because you were so different from them when you were an undergraduate. It's also foolish to expect so much more of Harvard students than you would of any other university's student body.

The vast majority of 18-22 year old males like drinking, possess hyperactive libidos, have immature views of the role women play in their lives and would think a 9-foot snow penis is funny. College aged women can certainly be excused if their feminist ideology is slightly mixed up, if their sexual past is putting up road blocks on their path to creating a solid personal identity, and even if they "just ain't so good at writin' yet".

As someone mentioned earlier, it is very unlikely that this is the first time something like this has happened on a college campus. The reason this got any attention at all is people's proclivity to build up Harvard students' egos by perpetuating the oft undeserved prestige associated with their school and then jumping at the chance to tear them down when their thus altered feelings of self-importance are unabashedly displayed in a public forum. Get off their backs! Most of them may be grade-mongering, overachieving assholes, but they're still just silly, foolish college coeds underneath. Treat them as such and maybe they'll stop thinking they're so damn important! Either that or raise the expectations you have of all students attending college. Then everyone else can wipe the chips off their shoulders, stop beating their chests about how much they read "in pursuit of [their] own interests," surrender the moral high ground that they as mature, effectively socialized adults claim with such great authority and quit jerking themselves off about what school they went to and the myriad other reasons why they're better than these "elitist Harvard jerks".

The people who object to this are probably the same people who are against the War with Iraq. It puts things into proper perspective. I mean the women in Iraq and their children are regularly raped in front of there husbands and fathers to get the men to conform to the wishes of Saddam Hussain. So of course the women who are offended by and would knock down a snow phalius, want to allow Saddam Hussain to remain in power.

Let's try to keep our eyes on what is important and not get lost in the trivial.

Just an opinion from a male war warmongering oppressor,

-C
Sgt USMC

1. my mom is Boston public school teacher, not a Harvard Psychology professor.
2. I went to Milton High School, a public school, not Milton Academy.
3. Harvard Students are fascinating, huh?

Wow. Incredible.
Doesn't anyone here care that your nation is preparing to go to war against the wishes of the rest of the world? Perhaps focus should shift from this giant penis to the one that is running your country.

Cheers from Canada.

Mark, just be glad that you share a peaceful border with the worlds last superpower eh! I mean come on dude; the US stopped ignoring dictators in WWII. Remember Adolph? To quote a great leader, "Fool me once... Fool me twice...":)

I've learned a few things from reading the postings above.

I know that I don't have perfect grammar, so I must be stupid. Hockey players (drunk or not)will do silly things; feminists (drunk or not) will do equally silly things. Penises are evil; nine foot tall white penises are even MORE evil. There is a fine line between feminism and sexism.

Don't you love the logic of the feminist here? The snow penis was uninvited... uninvited penis = rape... therefore the snow penis builders gang-raped me. They played a stupid prank. Get over it. Get over yourselves.

Can anyone tell me if it was curved or straight? I'm concerned that mine may be abnormal. Size is about right so no worries there.