OWL and feminism should look beyond fashion statement
The Officers of the Organization of Women Leaders recently explained their motivation for ordering "We're not just Hooters" t-shirts. Their goals were "to reflect the dramatic changes in the feminism of our generation" and to "make people realize that women are not objects."
Women have gained the freedom to express their sexuality, but, more importantly, they have gained the freedom to earn higher education, the freedom to hold positions of responsibility and the freedom to be financially independent. Hooters t-shirts demonstrate only a woman's right to be a sex object, not the truly important social advancements modern women enjoy.
Early feminists, our predecessors, were revolutionary not because they wore pantsuits to work, but because they were at work. They pushed their way into the ranks of male-dominated work places neither by suppressing nor showcasing their femininity, but by demonstrating their capabilities, their intelligence and their independence.
By contrast, OWL seeks to quell objectification by "flaunting their femininity" and showing that they "own their sexuality." But consider women leaders of today — President Tilghman, Christine Todd Whitman, Sandra Day O'Connor — it is their personalities which are so much more significant than their beauty. Nobody looks at them and sees merely a pair of breasts; respect for their responsibility, their dignity and their accomplishments places them beyond objectification. Women cease to be objectified when their actions — not their t-shirts — disprove the notion that they are sex objects.
My motivation for writing this letter is not to destroy OWL or to suggest the organization has bad intentions. Their sponsorship of speakers and service activities should be commended. However, women as a group can be better served by moving beyond the superficial. The real issues women face are not whether they can comfortably wear scanty clothing to the 'Street', but issues such as whether they can balance a career and a family, why men in equal positions are still paid more than women and how to reverse the dwindling number of women in math and engineering.
Although they boast a membership of 600, only a fraction actually attend OWL meetings. OWL has the potential to be a serious and beneficial organization, but instead of focusing on real-world issues and the education of Princeton's women regarding positions of leadership, it has focused on showing that feminists can, as their posters say, wear "sexy dresses and don't-mess-with-me shoes." How many of Princeton's women feel OWL addresses the issues women face today? If, as their mission statement declares, OWL is truly "dedicated to promoting and serving women at Princeton," it would greatly benefit from surveying the opinions and concerns of the diverse set of women on campus. OWL has been endowed with the resources to motivate positive social change, but it needs to look beyond making a fashion statement. Michelle Wu '03
Students are not defined by their eating club membership
In response to Carlos Ramos-Mrosovsky's op-ed piece on the "Street." While Carlos does raise a number of points about the eating clubs that are worth discussion, he is just as, if not more, guilty of stereotyping than the clubs which he criticizes. My experience as a club officer over the past year has convinced me that the clubs are a positive but often misunderstood force in our community.
Mr. Ramos-Mrosovsky's arguments reveal the false assumptions that he makes about life on the 'Street.' Mr. Ramos-Mrosovsky's central thesis seems to be that Clubs are such a defining feature of undergraduate life that one is completely identified by their club choice. As Mr. Ramos-Mrosovsky says, "the club system's major flaw is that it intimately connects a practical question, like the choice of a meal plan, with far more complex and meaningful decisions about social life and status."
The problem with this argument lies in its false assumption that one is defined by his or her club. Few juniors and seniors that I know feel identified or are identified by their club choice. Whether individuals feel defined or are defined by their club choice is their own choice and not an inherent part of the club experience. Mr. Ramos-Mrosovsky is therefore implicitly denying his fellow students' own individuality and powers of self-definition.
As evidence that the clubs do not divide the "unified group" of a class into 12 distinct classes, I point to the everyday use of the inter-club meal exchange program in which countless numbers of Princeton students take meals at a club where they are not members. It is the norm, and not the exception, that members from different clubs and independents mix on Thursday and Saturday nights and during meal times.
Moreover, I reject Mr. Ramos-Mrosovsky's assumption that a class is an initially "unified group spread across the five residential colleges but free to interact."
As we all know, students self-select into different activities and social groups from day one. How is this self-selection different from club life? People are still free to eat other places, party other places and visit friends from different parts of campus.
The clubs benefit their members' lives by providing them with organized social events twice a week, lectures, food and places for informal interaction with faculty and students. Almost all clubs have programs that bring in faculty to discuss and interact with members. Clubs also participate in community service and intramural sports.
I invite Mr. Ramos-Mrosovsky and others who feel the same way to get to know the clubs during the 158 hours of the week that we are not on tap before making a judgment about the social activities of their peers. So, I am making an open invitation to any student or faculty member who wants to come eat a meal with me at my club, Terrace. I think that you will be positively surprised. Clay Whitehead '02
Read More
An open letter to President Eisgruber and VP Calhoun concerning minoritized student safety
Patrick Jaojoco, Brandi Bushman, and Humza Gondal"We — the undersigned leaders, community members, and allies of cultural affinity groups of Princeton University — condemn in the strongest possible terms the University’s utter disregard for the safety and wellbeing of its students of color."
"We — the undersigned leaders, community members, and allies of cultural affinity groups of Princeton University — condemn in the strongest possible terms the University’s utter disregard for the safety and wellbeing of its students of color."
On the occupation of Clio Hall and the treatment of Graduate School staff
Cole M. Crittenden“There are real power differentials on this campus, and we all have an obligation to be mindful of them. The students, postdocs, and faculty who occupied Clio Hall seem to have abused their privileges in the ways they treated staff as an expression of protest. That is wrong.”
“There are real power differentials on this campus, and we all have an obligation to be mindful of them. The students, postdocs, and faculty who occupied Clio Hall seem to have abused their privileges in the ways they treated staff as an expression of protest. That is wrong.”
Regulations on ‘disruption’ restrict dialogue at Princeton. Let’s change the standard.
Rishi Khanna“When Princeton administrators suppress mere disruptions tied to progressive speech, they effectively suppress a substantial portion of the speech itself.”
“When Princeton administrators suppress mere disruptions tied to progressive speech, they effectively suppress a substantial portion of the speech itself.”
