The hitherto silent partner in Harvard's snow phallus-breaking dynamic duo has come forward. In today's Crimson, Amy Keel's roommate, Mary Cardinale, explains why she helped tear down the now notorious nine-foot snow penis erected last week in Harvard Yard. Cardinale stresses that unlike Keel, she is not a radical feminist but a social conservative concerned to maintain standards of public decency. When deciding what to do about the offensive snow sculpture, both Keel and Cardinale looked within: "we asked ourselves what someone we respected would do. While I considered what Jesus would think, Amy considered what the reaction of her Womenís Studies professor would be." On the strength of their mutual introspection, the two decided to take a shovel to the snow penis. There was no time to lose: even though it was one in the morning, the towering "symbol of male violence" was attracting an all-too appreciative crowd. "We witnessed the lewd acts that the presence of the sculpture inspired in our peers," Cardinale writes. "There were the typical photos taken of climbers, huggers and lickers, and one young man went so far as to disrobe and mimic a sexual act against the statue as his friends snapped pictures. There were no two ways about it: the display had to go."

Meanwhile, the campus women's group R.U.S (which stands for "Radcliffe Union of Students," and not, as Princess Bride fans might imagine, "rodents of unusual size"), has met to discuss the controversy. Keel reiterated her conceptually challenged argument that "women or men who are walking to class should not be subjected to a penis," and Cardinale stated her view that it was her responsibility to spare sensitive Harvard eyes from the "lewd" and "inappropriate" spectacle (unstated, but implicit in this view, is the related belief that she is specially equipped to adjudicate what is and is not "lewd" and "inappropriate").

The good news is that there appears to have been a sincere exchange of views at the meeting. One student questioned whether the snow phallus was really such a big deal; another pointed out that destroying the phallus was showing disrespect for those who devoted a great deal of time to creating it; there was a discussion about whether building a snow vagina alongside the penis would have made a more effective statement. More to the point, the status of the phallus, and of the phallus-breaking, as forms of expression were discussed. Keel remains adamant on this point: ìIt wasnít anyoneís private property; it was snow,î she said. ìTaking down a penis...is not impeding anyoneís free speech.î But the co-president of RUS isn't so sure: ìI donít think we have a right to take down things that offend us,î she said. ìWe have to put up posters to the contrary.î

Phalluses do indeed strange bedfollows make.

Suggestion for all who would defend the public square from offensive displays (whether they be nine-foot snow penises or the destruction thereof): How 'bout finding a sense of humor?

If the young women had organized a light-hearted "Anti-Penis Brigade," wrested the giant member from its defenders and dismantled it with mock ceremony instead of resorting to grim argument to defend their action, they would have accomplished their worthy goal and none of us would be reading about this now.

And those who answer by turning a drunken snow-joke into a rallying point for freedom of expression only match the thin skins of the moralizers. C'mon, the thing was just begging to be knocked down.

(Oh, now look what you made me do! I went and got all serious...)

Ms. Keel must be a follower of the late, great Frank Zappa, who in "Bwana Dick" wrote:

"My dick is a dagger
I'll poise at you babe.
My dick is a reamer baby
To steam up your snatch.
Steam it! Ream it! Cream it!

You can hear the steam baby.
Your can hear the screaming semen
As the reamer steams up the leg.
Reamy, weamy up to the snatch.

I am Bwana Dick."

And I'm sure Ms. Cardinale would be shocked!

The Tempest in a Teapot Continues

It is interesting reading about the con-fab Radcliff: There seems to be no understanding of what the real problem is. As one physicist said of a paper he was shown, ìThis isnít right. This isnít even wrong.î

The problem is that the sculpture was gross and offensive. Building another gross and offensive statue is hardly the answers.

Like graffiti the only thing to do was to remove it. The fact that it was the middle of the night excuses the groundskeepers, but the students merely did a little maintenance that should have been done first thing when the morning shift came on.

Should the offended students have engaged in arguments and put up posters? Think of the mismatch in methods, the arguments, intellectual effort, and man-hours that go into vandalism, versus what is required to mount an argument. And who were they to debate with? The perps were long gone.

If someone were printing pornography off the internet and posting it around campus it would make just as much sense to suggest a formal debateówith the perp doing nothing more than standing there with a silly grin pointing to an obscene picture.

Perhaps the university should designate Amy and Mary as the arbiters of which publicly displayed works are gross or offensive. Clearly, these two women believe they possess a special gift for such discernment that their fellow students lack. I'm surprised that so many in the university community don't appreciate that these young women are willing to provide this service free of charge.

Strange bedfellows (shouldn't we have a gender neutral term for this? bedpartners?) indeed! These women represent two opposite ends of the feminist spectrum, radical feminist and neo-puritan, that share a common goal, the creation of a penis-free environment. In their own words "No one should have to be subjected to an erect penis without his or her express permission or consent". And since they would never consent to such a "obscene and grossly inappropriate thing", one has to conclude that they desire an environment free of penises, erect, flacid, or otherwise.

From a purely sculpting/engineering/physics point of view it would seem far more difficult to create a flaccid snow-phallus than an erect one. I suppose this disproves the theory that art imitates life.

No Brainer

Brian,

Somethings can be filed under "No Brainer."

This easily fits into that catagory.

"we asked ourselves what someone we respected would do. While I considered what Jesus would think, Amy considered what the reaction of her Women’s Studies professor would be."

This quote is just too good to be true. It's symbolic of something, but I'm not sure what--maybe, the old puritanism meets the new puritanism.

They should have put a snow condom on it and declared it a statement in support of safe sex.

The Incoherence of the Feminists

David,

Both the Feminists and the Christians are reaching for Modesty. The problem is that the Feminists only know this from their own experience and the experience of people they know, not their ideology.

Modesty is a natural virtue, but much of modern Feminism owes it roots to the Free Love movement. Coming as it does from a movement dead-set opposed to Modesty, it does not contain the intellectual framework needed to show the need for Modesty. The Feminists ìcanít get there from here.î Hence their incoherence on the issue.

The Christians move from the Bible to Modesty in a more direct route. Nonetheless, like the Feminists, if you took the Bible away they would still be looking for Modesty.

Ah yes, the unholy alliance of essentialist feminism and right-wing religious prudery. We first saw this when 19th c. feminists joined forces with the Temperance activists, and most recently when the anti-porn feminists like Catherine McKinnon joined up with the Moral Majority in making a case for censorship based on a view of women as victims.

We've had 10 years of riot grrls and Third Wave feminists and Camille Paglia and Madonna Studies, but unfortunately the prudes of the Mckinnon-Dworkin era are still working out their personal sexual issues by turning everyone around them into their therapy group.

Ah, yes, Jesus. Very polite fellow. Only associated with the socially acceptable and morally pure. Promised to keep his disciples from breaking any laws. Helped toss stones at the first guilty person he encountered. *shakes head*

At least the girl thinking about her Women's Studies professor presumably had some bad role models who inspired her questionable choice -- although, speaking as someone who does in fact teach courses crosslisted in Women's Studies from time to time, I would've suggested either a giant condom or a tasteful scarf in Harvard crimson wrapped around the, ah, base. ;)