Students Must Ensure the Future of Feminism at GU

There’s something I haven’t been exactly forthcoming about with you all since I started writing this column about women’s issues: I’m not a women’s studies major, or even a minor. I’m just your usual government major in the College who cares a lot about social issues on the side — although sometimes I think part of the reason why I write this column is to atone for the fact that I didn’t pursue women’s studies.

I really started writing this column, though, because I was afraid that women of my generation had become complacent. We weren’t around when the only way a woman could be a member of Congress was if her husband died, or when women weren’t allowed to attend colleges like Georgetown. A lot of people don’t even realize that Title IX isn’t just about sports. (Indeed, one of its most important aspects was that it made it illegal for schools to expel pregnant students — a situation that ended academic careers for many young women during the ’40s, ’50s and ’60s, while the young men who got them pregnant faced no repercussions.)

But because many barriers have been broken for us already, we seem to think that we are on an equal playing field.

We’re not.

Women my age don’t seem to want to admit that being female is different or an obstacle. We keep our mouths shut too often and work twice as hard because we think we’ll just show them that we deserve our shot by overextending ourselves.

What particularly concerns me, though, is that young, middle- to upper class American women like many of us are made to feel like our problems aren’t as important because they’re often (but certainly not always) psychological. Symbolic violence is just as powerful as more overt harassment and discrimination.

In fact, when I think about the whole uproar-over-the-uproar over the GUGS T-shirt, it brings me back to the concept that I had to learn in one of my French philosophy classes abroad. The shirts deliver a message — a message that belittles a large group of people — and are worn in order to show off the wearer’s values.

The thing that really bothers me about the controversy now, though, is how the anti-feminist reaction fits into this larger idea of how other people define feminism, or what is “good” for feminism.

One of the things that people have been saying in defense of the T-shirt is that it’s “trivial” and that feminists should learn to “pick their battles.” (In fact, one of the comments I got on my column online was that I used that phrase myself. I haven’t.) And while I understand that there are much worse things that happen to women, like domestic violence, rape and female genital mutilation, to name a few, that does not mean that “smaller” issues like the ones on campus have no value. Women are never going to be on an equal level with men as long as it’s OK to disparage us right in front of our faces.

I was also taken aback because many of the objectors are saying “learn to take a joke.” It’s basically telling us what we should think is and is not offensive. That’s not how it works. And really, if this were a joke about some other group of people, it never would have made it onto a T-shirt. Women are too often made to be an easy target and told to get over it.

It does concern me, though, that people think that it polarizes feminism when women get upset over something like this. I don’t want to scare anybody away, but there is a ground rule in life that we must treat other people with respect, and I don’t think that is too much to ask.

There are a few other things that have been on my mind, though, that I was never able to present in this column. A few female students have told me that they have felt uncomfortable in the competition for fellowship nominations on campus, but I could never get them to talk to me because they were afraid that the Office of Fellowships would reprimand them.

Sometimes I also look back and think that I could have been more clear about what I meant or chosen better examples. But I am appreciative of the people who took the time to write to me when they disagreed. What I really wanted to do with this column was to get a dialogue going, and the people who wrote in were always willing to talk it out in a civil way.

There also are a lot of people on campus whom I really admire for trying to give women a bigger voice at Georgetown, like Flavia Menezes (COL ’08), who organized Take Back the Night this year, and Dr. Dan Porterfield, who has been a great source of encouragement for this endeavor and has truly always been an advocate for students at Georgetown.

Jen Schweer, the sexual assault and health issues coordinator in Health Education Services, is one of the coolest and most understanding adults that I’ve met at Georgetown. And professors Maria Donoghue and Kimberly Sellers, who both came to Georgetown last year, are major assets to our science and math departments.

A group of students and university staff also came together this semester to discuss how women fit into leadership roles and the academic scene here on campus, and I am particularly grateful to the people who got this discussion started between students and administrators and organized the program: Molly Keogh (SFS ’08), Katherine Boyle (COL ’08) and administrators Allen Gill, Erika Cohen-Derr, Sonia Jacobson and Maryam Mohamed.

There is just one thing that I ask from Georgetown as I step down from my soapbox: Keep the dialogue going. Keep it going in the dorms, in THE HOYA and in discussions with professors and university staff. Most importantly, keep it thoughtful and positive. Equality for all people can only be a reality if we sincerely listen to each other.

Emily Liner is a senior in the College and a contributing editor of THE HOYA. She can be reached at liner@thehoya.com. This is the final installment of SKIRTING THE ISSUES.

Two points:

I think there's often a conflation of sexuality and the politics of sex. Moreover, I find it ironic as well as sad that protests supposedly originating out of an incensed feminist ethic reveal (via the assumptions being made to stir the ire of the interest group) much more about the protesters than they do about the target of the protest or any larger cultural pathology.

On the first point:

Far too often, issues which arise out of the realm of sexuality both private and public are attached by advocates of group x or group y to the realm of sexual politics (e.g. feminism). A level-headed analysis of this situation, slightly removed from the emotions of the invested parties, reveals that this isn't a 'women's issue' as much as a symptom of the sexually repressive culture in America, harkening back to the origins of this country with its Protestant moral background.

Put bluntly: Western men, essentially to the point of uniformity, like breasts. Particularly large breasts. They find them to be sexually arousing as well as more generally aesthetically pleasing. This is a statement of fact, not opinion or subjective approach. (Why large? for one, they're a traditional indicator of suitability for copulation and healthy offspring, they also likely allow for lower search costs and align well with the general availability heuristic which informs so much of the way the human brain operates)

The discomfort that some are having over these t-shirts boils down to a generalized discomfort which many segments of American society have with the expression of unfiltered human sexuality. (Please note, in anticipation of a potential objection, that sexuality DOES NOT imply debauchery or unmitigated sexual rights. I'm talking about the building blocks of human sexuality, not the Red Light District issues that draw so much voicferousness)

My response to this is largely 'get over it'. Not as a women's issue, but as a human issue. We can, we ought to, and I think we one day will have moral, well-functioning, just, and fair society without speciously attaching as a 'necessary precondition' a restraint on expressions of ubiquitous, reasonable adult sexual feelings.

What we do currently (vide this 'uproar') is endorse a stunningly irrational bipolarity, grounded in anthrophobic world-views. We create masks: one ought not say what one thinks, acknowledge what one likes, etc.

I'm not calling for absolute loss of restraint. Certainly, at the margins, we need to deter abberant behavior. But, for much of human interaction, how unhealthy the way we have arranged the world!

On the second point:

(Setting aside the fact that what we should be discussing is sexual repression rather than engaging in any dialogue using the lexicon of sexual politics)

It takes quite a leap - a revealing leap, on behalf of the protesting players - to move from 'we like breasts, particularly big breasts' (again, the real message of the t-shirt) to anything which degrades or objectivizes women. I fear that the most adamant voices against these shirts are, in reality, a self-selected (inadvertantly) cadre of those people most easily tricked into the mindslip required to transform an expression of male sexuality into an expression of female inferiority or objectification, whether facially or in its application.

Where does this come from? This concept that to express ones sexual preferences is to do so to the detriment of group toward whom one's preferences are directed?

Moreover, (and hopefully not to ironically commit the same sin I just rallied against supra) does anyone see a tinge of discriminatory animus in all of this? I've seen 'trendy' alternative sexuality types sporting shirts with slogans like 'Dick: The Bigger the Better' I never heard a word (though I did hear some shocked side comments) in terms of the wrongfulness of endorsing such a view point. I'm troubled that we so vet our expressions of masculine sexuality - when it is in the mainstream, restraint. When it is in the minority channel, have at it.

But to return to the central point here: In short, I think the old expression does a lot of justice to the opponents of these shirts: It says a lot more about you than it does about me.

I found your comment regarding discrimination in fellowship nominations to be unfair to the fellowship office as well as of generally poor journalistic quality.

You mention the female students felt uncomfortable, but were too afriad to talk to you for fear of punishment. Could they not have spoken to you off the record?
Also, to imply that the fellowship nomination process, which is not exactly known for its gender-biased decisions, is discriminatory without giving further details seems in poor taste. Why potentially sully the fellowship office without the facts?

Seems like you wanted to add this random point just to provide filler for an already weak, desultory, and sprawling pro-feminist article

I think the Heckler has this issue under control:

http://www.georgetownheckler.com/vol6no4/fromtheeditor.html

Shorter Emily Liner: "I started writing this column because I was afraid that too many women of my generation don't think exactly like I do."

Post new comment

Comments which are spam, off-topic, abusive, use excessive foul language or promote hate or bias will be deleted.

Anonymous comments will be held for moderation. This may take some time, so we recommend you create a free account.

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <ul> <li>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Copy the characters (respecting upper/lower case) from the image.