RSS
Facebook
Twitter
E-PrinceFemale leadership
Regarding “In trustee vote, women are majority” (March 12th, 2012):
On Monday, March 12, 2012, The Daily Princetonian ran a front-page article about how women account for the majority of candidates in the Young Alumni Trustee election. This ...
(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
Ooh Prince, you just got owned!
Bitch-slapped.
Finally, the Daily Princetonian publishes a sensible piece about women.
It's time to dig deeper, Prince.
I think @genderless and @I believe fail to understand what the actual gist of this letter is. Certainly the Prince can do a better job of covering these issues, but its readership also needs to encourage that kind of coverage and engage in a thoughtful dialogue. The Prince is not the only party responsible for ensuring that a discussion of women's leadership on campus is thorough, comprehensive, and nuanced.
Petra, it's called humor. I know it's nearly 1am and we're all tired, but there's this great thing called sarcasm... I'm not dumb, I do understand the letter. I can have an informed and nuanced discussion of women's leadership, but I choose to turn to humor in dire times like these, with a test tomorrow and no sleep last night. Lighten up, Princeton!
Bitchra.
I don't think that the Prince is to blame here. The University's administration has focused on "cultivating" female leadership and accomplishment, an effort that assumes that a gender gap exists. In the wake of these efforts, female leadership and accomplishment (at least by certain standards, many with which the authors of this letter are intimately familiar, i.e. Rhodes Scholarship) have increased dramatically. Whether this is a meaningful association is not for me to say. However, it seems to me that the Prince is merely reporting within a framework setup by others.
I am sure that if the University convened a taskforce on male civic engagement, then the Prince would write articles focus on charitable work done by males that is significant due to the gender of the subjects.
why is the daily princetonian staff writing a letter to itself?
I actually agree with AC (on both the positive and negative aspects). Prince coverage is not the reason more women have stepped up in leadership positions - this is due to the University's efforts (such as the Steering Committee). And that is a good thing.
But there is a downside, as the authors correctly mention. In some cases, it has led to the perception that women seeking "leadership" positions (whether it be USG, fellowships, etc.) may not be qualified or may have received undue help. This is also due the efforts by the University encouraging women to do this (such as sending them personalized e-mails, etc.) Whether or not you believe this is a good or bad thing is up to you.
But for the authors to credit the University for the first and blame the Prince for the second is intellectual dishonest.