The free press’ has been tense lately. A string of 60-something angry comments, a restatement of mission and a public apology have finally engaged student readers in an ongoing discussion about sexism. “I see a lot of that anger voiced above, and that anger should not be written off as trolling,” writes a student and member of the feminist collective. Members of our community seem to agree that the piece is narcissistic and mean spirited and that it shouldn’t be representing the New School publicly. Questions have been raised about whether or not the article’s publication is a feminist issue.
I hesitate to speak on behalf of feminism, but my understanding of feminist theory has, I hope, allowed me to speak with my own feminist sensibilities. There are aspects of Rey’s work that I find problematic, whether or not he meant them as satire; the lack of clarity around consent, objectification of women, commodification of sex and romance, assumption of heteronormativity and sexual entitlement.

1.
Consent – What’s really grey in Rey’s piece is whether or not the women in question have all of the information. Again and again, we hear his assumptions that a situation “cried out” for him to “make a move” or that a “with my kiss, I hoped that I had dispelled any platonic stigma around the nature of our relationship and signaled my intent to take things further.” Rey is clearly not empathically aware enough to make these kinds of assumptions. It would be just as easy to openly and honestly express his intentions. Due to his preclusion to the avoidance of honesty about his feelings, the women involved don’thave all the facts. These public diary entrees then serve as a passive aggressive retort directed atwomen, who’s crimes are unknown to them. The most recent crime: this girl sent a text message that said “Just curious, is rescheduling a possibility?” Her punishment: public humiliation that borders on harassment. I’m assuming that these pieces are being written and published without the consent of the women involved.

2.
Objectification of women and vast generalizations – Rey’s column consistently refers to women in groups and makes vast generalizations: “hipster girls” for example, or “you gotta look outside of the new school”. He describes again and again his ideal woman, prescribing her hair cut and interests (she bears a disturbingly obvious resemblance to the trite “manic pixie dream girl trope”) as then, confirming our suspicions blatantly and literally objectifies her, by calling his imaginary creation an “unobtainable object”.

3.
Sex and romance as commodities – “Because while she may have all the wondrous cultural artifacts of the Western world on her side, at least I have mind-blowing sex on mine.” This statement is repeated and reworded throughout the end of the article. While it’s obviously meant humorously, it is problematic. I’m assuming that the author is being ironic here. Rey is smart enough and hopefully at least self aware enough to recognize that he does not own the patent on “mind blowing sex” and has all of the access one could ask for to “cultural artifacts.” This article ends with two people divided. Rey is dejected and what’s troubling is that we are ending our reading with the sneaky assertion that we are taking sides and bearing arms of taking sides and talking about ownership of sex and “cultural artifacts.” When an essay ends adding up the score, are we talking about sex, or are we talking about power?

4.
Sexual and romantic entitlement – In a piece titled “Learning Not to Love.” Rey describes a relationshipas “somewhere between a 21st century Edith Wharton novel and a Woody Allen wet dream.” The reality: this woman often neglects to call or text him back. He then explains his disappointment that the relationship “had yet to be consummated.” ** After that, he did a really nice thing. his woman lost her cell phone, so he called it a bunch of times and eventually paid a cabbie $20 to bring it back. He describes his generosity, only to immediately show us his true colors: “My reward was three months without so much as a text message returned.” As a character of himself, Rey’s perspective is a prime example of“Nice Guy Syndrome.” Over and over and over again Rey makes this mistake. Hell, the entire premise of“The Law of Averages” is that because there is a large percentage of women at The New School, Rey should easily be able to get his romantic and sexual needs filled. It assumes heteronormativity, and it also assumes attraction to him. He sees this as the way it should be. He ends the piece with “most of the guys who do end up cornering the market at The New School are either politically misguided, complete assholes, or both, for the record.”

5.
All of this is spearheaded with the title – I’m assuming that the irony that I inferred was not the irony the author intended. I want to start by saying naming his musings as parody of “50 Shades of Grey” is loaded. I don’t totally understand why Rey chose to name his musings on his unsuccessful dating life as parody of novel describing kink sexcapades, characterized by a female sub and male dom.

6.
“Girls” – The term “girls” is condescending. I used a browser extension to reverse the gender-specific pronouns in his articles (it’s called “toggle the patriarchy,” if you’re interested). A reverse reading of the piece the piece where “girls” is replaced with “boys” sounds obviously awkward, but we’re so used to hearing this that it’s easy for it to go unnoticed.
So what does all of this add up to? Why is this a feminist issue? For those who think that Rey’s whole column could be condensed into 2 words: “sour grapes”, here’s the problem: We don’t live or write in a vacuum and matters. In a culture where slut shaming and grey-area-consent are ubiquitous, the perspectives of those producing media matter. His voice is one of privilege, and it’s consistent with flood of voices representing a culture of entitlement regarding woman’s bodies. It degrades and objectifies women, and it expresses disdain for them en masse. People of all genders can be entitled and they can be mean. However, that isn’t what’s happening. While Rey gets one jab in at men towards the end, these articles are directed at women. They’re border-line harassment and the intimidation or embarrassment of having something like this written about you is a power play on his part, whether it’s intentional or not.

It matters that this is on our website. Rey’s piece is hostile and it perpetuates cultural norms that make it more difficult for women to speak up and get published. The New School prides itself on being a politically progressive university and identity politics are politics. If you don’t understand why they’re relevant to oppression, then you’ve successfully undermined any theory based political sensibility you have.

Creating a space that encourages dialogue means creating a space that feels safe. Part of creating a space that feels safe for everyone is recognizing overwhelming trends that support oppression and making an attempt to free ourselves from them in thinking, writing and expressive action. At a truly progressive university, journalistic integrity means stepping back and taking an inventory of unintended micro-aggressions.