That article is really sickening.

picword: Fucking boys from Lambeth

As much as that article was horrid, I'm sure they could have written pretty much exactly the thing about Melbourne colleges if they talked to the right people (except for the bit about the Facebook group).

I didn't have any issues living in college personally, but there are some dickheads everywhere, sadly. I suppose it conceivably might be worse in Sydney, but I'm pretty wary of trusting to media sensationalism.

If so, I'd wonder which one...

...the Facebook group to me is the central issue of the story because it was set up by students, by residents at the college. For it to have had prominance it needed members - also students/residents of the college. And they'd have to join up of their own free will, which says something about their cultural environment.

I would argue that this endemic cultural issue of either devaluing women or trivialising rape is not something that occurs in my experience of Melbourne's colleges. If a student at Ormond had been caught on the facebook site (I can't speak for other colleges, but from what I know of them and the people there I would assume the same), I'm pretty sure they'd have been suspended from the college. Ormond had clear rules around things like this, and they were enforced.

In my experience of Melbourne's colleges there was at least a significant blokey drinking culture, as well as a possible culture of easy women. It didn't seem like a huge stretch to me.

The Facebook group is certainly taking undesirable college culture a big step further, but it's something I could see happening here too, sadly. It's the sort of thing people do in a moment of stupidity and then wonder why everyone else "can't take a joke". Though I do agree that college rules should probably have stamped it out rather quickly.

I was in one of the much smaller, less prestigious colleges than Ormond. We still would have been kicked out for something like condoning rape, I'm sure, but behaviour wasn't always completely stellar. And yet that was one of the theoretically 'dry' colleges. I always assumed it must be far worse in most of the other colleges, just due to having more alcohol around. I'm not sure if it's relevant, but we did have (I believe) a higher proportion of students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.

Hmm... I'd say there was still a drinking culture at Ormond - not sure about the 'blokey' part though. The girls seeemed just as bad as the guys, and I don't *think* there was a culture of easy women. I could have been mixing in the wrong circles though, of course.

AFAIK, if people hooked up they hooked up - and I don't believe they (guy or girl) were judged for it - consenting adults and all that. In any case I would argue there's a big difference between hooking up and 'easy' women (or men) and rape jokes.

Generally I have no major issues with behaviour at Ormond, although I'm glad I didn't live on the ground floor - the bathrooms were a bit feral after a smoko. Generally, if someone was being obnoxiously loud, a simple knock on the door and a polite "please keep the volume down, people are trying to sleep/study", was usually sufficient. I found most people I lived near quite considerate if approached politely.

I'd porbably say we had a very low proportion of students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds - the fees were rather high even with Bursary assistance. But, like you, I have no idea if it would be relevant at all. I don't really see socio-economic status as an indicator of how well people behave - plus I think in this case here it's one of Sydney's more prestigious colleges, which typically means higher fees and students in the richer socioeconomic bracket...

Consenting adults, absolutely, and I'm thankful that's the way it always seemed as far as I could tell. I'm possibly making an unfair leap between an environment where many people are willing to consent, and an environment where consent risks being devalued.

That's awful.
It's interesting that enough time has now passed that the name 'Ormond College' isn't associated with 'the First Stone' - did you hear about that? The Master before Hugh was accused by two students of sexually assaulting them in his office. They didn't lay charges, but he was fired. There was a huge debate over whether anything had actually happened, and (feminist author) Helen Garner wrote a book about it - coming down on the Masters' side with the argument that 'innocent until proven guilty' gets suspended in sexual assault cases and it's not fair for someone's life to be destroyed because someone accuses them of wrongdoing.
So, when I told people I was going to/was living at Ormond I quite often got raised eyebrows!
Interestingly, I think when that happened the male/female ratio at Ormond was much higher - now it's 50:50, yeah? I think forcing all the Melbourne colleges to go co-ed was a good idea, because there really is a sort of safety in numbers. If women are half the college, not just a few strange specimens, it's easier to treat them as people too. This is probably particularly important when most of the residents of a college have gone to a single-sex school...

Oh yes - I remember the first stone. It still got quite a bit of mention when I was there. There was a bit of academic debate (which sadly, got hijacked by feminism) about the actual quality of the writing in the First stone and the alleged lack of research that went into it.

Granted there was a feeling that the author of the critique may have been a little strong in his language, and certainly his text could have been read to imply there was a hidden back from of FemoNazi's trying to pin as much dirt of the (former) Master as possible, but I'm not sure that completely invalidated his critique: i.e. that the female students in question may have been guided by a person with a vested political interest into writing/editing the facts in a slightly sensationalised (or possibly blantantly untrue) fashion in an attempt to futher those political goals.

Honestly, I think one day I may have to actually read the book so I can make an informed judgement. :p
And now I also want to read Helen Garner's book on the issue to. I like rational feminists - but that's probably because I think the same way they do!

I think what really shocked me was that this thing in Sydney happened now. And there's no chance of even having a 'well, I *thought* there was content' argument (although I personally am rather distrustful of those), because the entire point of the group was to trivialise the issue of rape - and that stands regardless of whether or not the site was a jocular reference to sport, as has been recently suggested.

I think the male/female ratio may be higher than 50:50 in the favour of females, although the college aiming for 50:50 wouldn't surprise me. My understanding is that it tries to represent the gender and ethnic makeup of the university, and I think there might be more women at uni than men now...