5 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(01/24/13 1:00am)
As I approach the very end of my time here, I occasionally wonder how much my perspective has changed over the years. I still worry about many of my freshman concerns: Am I happy? Do I have enough friends? Do I like them? Did I take the right class? Presented with an absurd time crunch, these issues jump between irrelevant and tired. We like to think we’ve changed irrevocably during our time at Middlebury, but sometimes I wonder about the difference between how much we change versus how much we let ourselves change. How much does stubbornness push back against maturation?
I’ve thought a great deal about what I should be doing to affect the types of positive change I’d like to see on campus. Despite my focus in print, I never chose to get involved in any sort of organized feminist group here. Up until this column, I’d say, feminism has been a very proud badge I’ve worn, but truthfully, I’ve done very little to push the issue in the way that I’ve organized on other issues. Writing here every few weeks has forced me to examine that choice, and this last column is a culmination of sorts.
Last week, sitting down to lunch with two friends, I wondered aloud about possible topics for my last column. I think my friends — two white, cis-gendered, heterosexual men — represent a pretty large demographic at this institution. Throw in unavoidable privilege for good measure, and we’ve got a sizable group that I’d like to think is my target audience for this column. Firing up the base is something I thought less about initially. I now wonder if that was the wrong tactic. Should I have spoken more to the established feminist community?
So, have I learned anything about feminism at my time here? I like to think I have. I’ve learned that women need to speak up in classes dominated by male professors and male students. Feminism in college means talking about rape culture. It means talking about the advancement of female professors in departments where they are historically underrepresented. I’m looking at you, economics department. Feminism at Middlebury means having these conversations in the basement of ADP, but also in the fitness center and at the salad bar at Proctor.
The bigger question is: did I share that knowledge? Maybe not enough. I didn’t join FAM and I didn’t major in WAGs.
Throughout my academic career, I’ve seen feminism as a hobby, one that’s taken a back seat to my other, more “legitimate” academic interests. Now I wonder if I should have thrown away those preconceived notions about what to study. I’ve never been nearly as successful or interested in the “practical” arts of economics and languages as my side hobby of reading and thinking about feminism.
Because what I’ve found most fascinating here at Middlebury has always been how those hobbies translate into our weekend social scene. The college environment is the petri dish for these ideas we throw around in modern feminist discussion. We are living experiments here, and our weekends consist of feminist blog fodder. We live in the exact societies of under-reported sexual assault, of the possibility for women to be silenced in classrooms, where the next generation of female leaders learns how to interact with a world that is still largely run by men. We take courses with the same men who will run boardrooms in 30 years. This is exactly where we should be talking about feminism and female empowerment.
So what does all that mean about feminism on Middlebury’s campus? Well, for starters, there isn’t enough of it, and it’s improperly labeled: for women only. This false advertising is inherently tied up in the gendered makeup of our college departments. It’s tied up in the fitness center and salad bars and our woeful apathy around so many issues here. Why is the economics department largely made up of men? Why is our WAGs department primarily female?
I’ve learned that women who don’t consider themselves feminists simply don’t understand their own history, or the stakes involved. If you are a female student and don’t call yourself a feminist, you are biting the hand that led you up the path to Mead Chapel, so you could pass along a silly old cane that was once only passed from white, Christian man to white, Christian man. You are here because generations of women built upon the legacy of their predecessors. So if you do not call yourself a feminist, then you don’t belong here. You don’t deserve to walk these ridiculously ice-covered pathways that were fought to be slipped on by you.
And don’t worry, I didn’t forget about those men I talked about earlier, although at this point they may have stopped reading. Men are the luckiest here, really. How many would still be getting warm at ADP without feminism to grease the wheels of hookup culture?
This is the challenge I lay out to feminists still here: get feminists like me involved. Find a way to convince me to do something other than sitting in a corner and whining about gender relations on this campus. And then convince the bro in line at Ross that he should care, too. Make sure every woman here knows who got her here and what she can do for her own future. Let’s stop talking about glass ceilings — those ridiculous litmus tests for equality should be irrelevant. And in the mean time, let’s start passing out a bright pink cane along with Painter’s. Or maybe something a little less kitschy.
(11/14/12 5:33pm)
Perhaps one of the most exciting results of last week’s election — for women, at least — is that the United States now has the highest number of women in Congress than ever before. Unfortunately, that only means 20 women in the Senate out of 100 seats, and 78 out of 435 seats in the House (although a few races are still undecided). This is a net increase of seven women (we lost two female senators to retirement). So while we are certainly breaking records here — just look at the fact that in 1991 there were just two female senators for proof — the representation of women is still far from equal.
I don’t mean to downplay accomplishments, as there were a number of them. We elected Tammy Baldwin, the first openly gay senator, and Elizabeth Warren, the first female senator for Massachusetts. In addition, we elected the first Asian-American senator, Mazie Hirono, who is also Buddhist. These women are certainly shaking up the status quo, and I personally find that pretty freaking exciting and inspiring. Even more exciting is that New Hampshire’s entire delegation is now female, as is its governor. Talk about girl power, huh?
Over the last year, there has been a great deal of fuss made over the supposed “War on Women,” a term coined by the Democratic Party. The last congress had, in many ways, one of the most anti-women agendas in many years. It felt like almost daily we were presented with elected officials who wanted to curb women’s access to birth control and healthcare, limit abortion rights and block equal pay. The entire crusade against Planned Parenthood as a supposed abortion-factory, when in reality the organization spends the majority of its funds on general women’s health issues such as mammograms and check-ups and only spends about three percent of its funds on abortion services, is another such example.
Our electorate was bombarded over and over this election cycle with inane and dangerous falsehoods coming out of the mouths of incumbents or candidates. Luckily, a whole slew of these guys weren’t elected or reelected. These legislators and candidates, or, as a number of feminist blog christened them, the “Rape Caucus,” lost pretty much because of their fallible logic. Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” comments pretty much resurrected Senator McCaskill’s campaign. Even the Republican Party backed away hard from Akin after those comments. These scattered losses culminated in the ultimate refusal by Americans to accept their logic when the public rejected the Romney-Ryan ballot.
But I digress — let’s get back to the new female candidates. What does an increase of three women mean in the Senate? To be honest, I’m not totally sure, especially after considering the following facts: the balance of the Senate still remains essentially the same, without either party holding a filibuster-proof majority, and the senate is an infamously slow-moving body that defers to seniority. So, does this increase in women in our legislature truly mean anything? Does it imply real progress? Does a fifth of the senate mean a critical mass? I’m not sure.
I think this upcoming Congress will give us our best look at how bringing more women to the table can change the discussion. I’m hopeful that the net gain, although relatively scant, can start momentum to change longer-term trends towards greater female inclusion. Perhaps we can move away from our “tried and true” strategy of old white men legislating for women (and everyone else). I think, as Senator Gillibrand has said, that bringing more women to the discussion can only be a good thing. Perhaps more will get done with more women. I’m hopeful and excited about this possibility. I am inspired by these women who have beat the odds and succeeded in bringing wholly new voices to a pretty staid institution. I have tempered but optimistic hopes for the 113th Congress. And I’m certainly excited to watch the next season of our favorite melodrama. Fiscal cliff be damned.
(10/31/12 7:00pm)
Things I will not be talking about in this column: the War on Women, the GOP (and how much it hates women,) Roe v. Wade and the threat of overturning it, etc. We already know how much the Republican Party hates women, so I’m not going to talk about it right before the election — I’m over it. Vote for Democrats (especially if you live in Massachusetts). I won’t even mention the fact that Scott Brown (R-Mass) supported an amendment that would have given employers carte blanche to deny contraception coverage to employees. He keeps saying it’s about “religious freedom,” but we know that’s a lie — Obama already gave religious institutions an exception. Moreover, I don’t think I need to even remind the public that covering preventative care (like contraception) is actually far cheaper for the United States in the long run. I like to think Middlebury’s student body is smart enough to realize these things.
So let’s get to more interesting things, shall we? Namely, binders full of women. But actually — let’s have that discussion. I think it’s high time we start talking women and careers on this campus. I know as a super-senior feb who is about to enter the real world and hypothetically begin my career, this topic is both relevant and urgent.
For some, the second debate was a sort of vindication, especially considering President Obama’s far improved performance over his lackluster first debate. For others, Governor Romney managed to continue his upward momentum, proving he could sound presidential and commanding. But to be honest, I couldn’t really get past the now infamous “binders full of women” comment.
Now, it wasn’t because of the preposterous nature of the comment, nor was it because Romney claimed credit for something he didn’t do (those “binders” were presented to him by a non-partisan group in Massachusetts that works to increase the number of women in politics). What struck me were the jeers I heard while watching the debate in Crossroads Café in response to Romney’s comment. While I do agree that his statements were more out of a place of conservative beliefs and support of hetero-normative gender roles, he inadvertently said something important. Workplace flexibility is something we should be talking about, but not only so women can go home and cook dinner. We should be talking about how to change the workplace so that there are just as many women able to pursue careers as men and just as many men who want to have more time with their families as women. We should be talking about workplace flexibility for men in addition to women.
Today, women only make up about 20 percent of senior managerial positions in the United States. Far less than half of our legislators are women and women continue to make less money than men. The feminist revolution of the 1970’s has certainly not succeeded in attaining full equality in the workforce. This is a problem.
This past summer, Anne-Marie Slaughter, a professor at Princeton and a former director of policy planning at the U.S. State Department, wrote a controversial piece in The Atlantic called “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All.” She left her very high-profile job at the State Department so that she could spend more time with her family after finding that the impossible hours and inflexible structure didn’t give her the work-life balance she needed as a mother. Slaughter’s article sparked outrage among many other women in high profile careers who saw her manifesto as an attack on the idea of progress.
Generally I don’t agree with many of Slaughter’s claims, particularly those that say women simply feel the “need” to be home more than men because of some vague biological claims. I do think her article highlights an important aspect of this argument, though. What does it mean to “have it all?” Does that concept even exist as we’ve been told? More crucially, should it be something women must strive to attain? According to Slaughter, not necessarily.
This, I think, is the problematic nature of Slaughter’s article, but also an issue that most Western feminists have attempted to avoid: should we be moving away from the equality paradigm that many women have intensely focused on, and instead to changing societal norms and where we place value? I think the worry here is that Slaughter’s article is not meant to further encourage women to succeed in the workforce as it currently exists and could in fact dissuade women from even attempting to move to the very top of the pyramid.
Other women at the top of their fields, such as Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, have spoken at length as to how to increase the number of women at the top. Among her areas of focus, Sandberg discusses the fact that our society tells us that for men, success and likeability are positively correlated, while for women, success and likeability are negatively correlated. This tells us that women aren’t able to “have it all” as men often can, because we’re told to choose. It can be near impossible for women to push to the top, often because of familial pressures, or simply because the traits necessary to reach the top are discouraged in women.
So, then, how do we get more women to the top? Well, it certainly shouldn’t require binders. Like Sandberg, I think the world would simply be a better place for everyone if our leadership were split evenly. However, how do we get there? Do we need to reconsider rewarding those who can put the long hours in? Should we be telling men that they can have a rewarding experience as a stay-at-home father? I think a solution is going to require a combination.
(10/03/12 10:36pm)
A fair question that’s been lobbied at me by various individuals who have read my column has been whether we even need to worry about feminism, especially on a campus as progressive as Middlebury. This is often followed by the assertion that women are perfectly fine in today’s society, so feminism isn’t relevant anymore. Well, I have two responses: The first is that I don’t think Middlebury is a particularly progressive campus, and I think many points in last year’s op-eds by Rhiya Trivedi prove that. I wouldn’t attempt to say we have an especially or extraordinarily hostile campus towards women, but we certainly aren’t the most progressive when it comes to feminism on this campus. Feminism is certainly not a goal of the College.
Which brings me to the second part of my answer — that increasing feminist action and awareness should be a major goal of the campus. Why? Because this campus has some issues, people. Engaged feminism has rarely been more pertinent to me, and to this campus, than this past week. In light of the recent alcohol survey results — none of which were particularly surprising — I think it’s time for a little introspection. Obviously I’m going to take the feminist lens on this.
Full disclosure: it would be naive of me to say that anything highlighted by these stats is at all shocking. It would also be blithe of me to ignore the largely race and class-based differentials that were spotlighted by these surveys — not to mention the fact that these statistics are only representative of those who actually chose to respond.
The fact that male athletes are the most likely group to have unprotected sex, and that first-years are most likely to have unwanted sexual experiences is genuinely troubling. We have had some excellent programming that highlights the issue of consent, such as last week’s Sex Signals and the student-run event “It Happens Here” last year. But I have to wonder if that’s enough. How do we go about changing the culture so that there isn’t a category of people who are more likely to engage in questionable behavior in which women are often those that are most compromised. While some may argue that Middlebury is better than our peer institutions, I don’t think that’s good enough. We shouldn’t be satisfied with the fact that our campus may be better than other schools when it comes to the possibility of unsafe sex or unwanted sexual encounters. Instead, our goal should be to have a sex culture that promotes positive and safe encounters for those who express both consent and desire. Only when this positive culture is realized will these statistics become unnecessary.
Feminism can play a major role in creating a more positive and safe campus culture. The numbers show that we still have a long way to go in female empowerment on this campus, particularly for first-years. This is not a judgment on hook-up culture; in fact, I don’t think female empowerment and our hook-up culture have to be mutually exclusive. Nor is it necessarily a judgment meant to single out or stigmatize our athletes, as that would be both unfair and malicious.
Alcohol clearly comes into this conversation, as it impairs judgment, but I think it would be a cop-out to solely focus on that aspect of this problem — that would be the easy answer. Drinking is not an excuse for behavior, nor is it a legal or moral exoneration. In addition, I don’t see our drinking culture drastically reducing or changing anytime soon.
Instead, I believe it is necessary to move the conversation from sporadic events to a larger campus-wide venue. Truthfully, I’m not sure how we should go about doing this. But I do know that if there are pockets of the community that are more likely to engage in “risky” or potentially harmful behaviors, they must be part of this conversation. I think a big part of it is removing the stigma of female empowerment and making sure that we understand that feminism can have a positive impact on more than 50 percent of our campus.
It affects our campus’s culture of sex, our social culture and the general health of our college. Why wouldn’t we want our campus to be a safe environment where newer students are able to feel completely comfortable? I think that sounds like a more fun Friday night out, don’t you?
Listen to Sam Kaufman discuss her column with the Campus' Will Henriques.
(09/19/12 11:12pm)
What's so bad about feminism?
Feminism. Does this word scare you? Is it off-putting to you when others identify as feminists? Let's talk about it. Shouldn't it be a problem that feminism has turned into a dirty word, particularly among our 18-24 year-old age group? Well, I think it's a shame and I'm going to keep talking about feminism. I'm going to keep talking about feminism until people don't cringe at the word, or dismiss it out of hand as irrelevant or passé.
Feminism has moved far in public perception. What started as a movement that many of our mothers took part in has become a phrase often avoided by their daughters. Particularly when women in our generation have benefited so much from the feminist movement, the inclination to distance ourselves from it is baffling to me.
Feminism shouldn't be scary. It also shouldn't be something we shy away from, considering just how far women have come, and how far we could be pulled back. The fact that there is even an extant threat to Roe v. Wade should be a cause for alarm. It should be a kick in the pants to a generation that has enjoyed countless opportunities, such as Title IX funding and maternity leave. It should be a wake-up call – if we abandon the movement, forces in our country may very well quickly dismantle our progress. So then, why do we steer clear of the word today?
I think it's high time that we stop pretending "women's issues" are indeed solely the issues of women. The fight for coverage of contraception and availability of family planning should not be solely in the realm of women. These issues affect all of our society. They should be treated as such.
I think that it's time for us to start talking about why feminism is good for everyone, and why we should stop thinking of it as a radical relic of last century. The biggest misconception, I believe, is that feminism is equivalent to hatred of men, or is somehow anti-sex. I would like to present a more inclusive and complex lobby to you all. Otherwise, we are trapped in a definition that only works to divide a populace and alienate men from an issue that is most certainly of their concern. In terms of relevancy, I would also like to push the idea that we have already conquered all of the mountains of inequality that exist, and shattered every last glass ceiling. Progress is always a moving target and I look forward to hunting for it with you this semester.