Letters to the Editor

Student leadership marks history of OWL on campus

In the recent editorial, "Rethinking campus feminism, looking at the first years of OWL," the authors achieve neither aspect of the title. They have not proposed a viable new option for campus feminism, and have obviously not really gotten a true look at OWL. The Organization of Women Leaders was created by students, but also has to be continually molded by students. As new members join, new officers are elected, and the organization as a whole becomes older, obviously new ideas and definitions of feminism are going to be introduced. The OWL mission statement asserts that we are dedicated to "changing the face of feminism" at Princeton. Perhaps that should be changed to "faces." Admittedly we, as one organization, cannot represent every person's view of feminism. We do recognize the diversity of opinions on campus and have attempted to avoid strict definitions of feminism. When the authors of the editorial claim that "a true feminist movement seeks to . . . define what it means to be a woman," they are ignoring the possibility that there are many definitions of what it means to be a woman and that inevitably someone, no matter how accommodating you attempt to be, will disagree. The last two years have been dedicated to raising awareness and providing a forum for discussion. Messages from OWL, ranging from the controversial "Hooters" t-shirts to the feminist poster campaign, have always tried to convey the pride women should feel in being women. The overlying goal has been to make feminism accessible to every woman, no matter her physical appearance, political affiliation or religious beliefs.

The authors do raise a good point that many of the speakers have been involved with business, government and academia. More women should be recognized for their involvement in public service, but this is not the point the authors go on to make. OWL has attempted to honor these women, not because they have achieved a Princetonian ideal of success, but because they have achieved success in careers typically dominated by men. When the authors suggest that we consider care-giving irrelevant, they are ignoring the fact that a "glass ceiling" does not exist for homemakers. A woman will always have this option. The focus of the women's movement has been on opening doors in all fields. If the authors would have been to any OWL event, such as the luncheons with professors and different speakers, they would know that one of the first questions always asked is how the woman managed to balance a career and a family.

One glaring oversight in the article was the authors' delegation of care-giving only to women. Shouldn't they be arguing just as fervently for men to have the freedom to become homemakers? The "glorification of careers" such as investment banking on campus impact men as well as women. Throughout the article they claim that OWL believes that women must compete, mimic, or attempt to enter the male order. By only proposing care-giving as an option for women, the authors are doing just that — restricting women to the "domestic sphere."

The editorial was very typical of the Princeton student body — quick to analyze and criticize, but more reluctant to become involved and attempt to make a change. In our opinion, one of OWL's best components is the accessibility to members who do want to become involved. Any member who has come to the officers with an idea — for a community service event, a speaker or debate — and has been willing to put in the time to organize it, has been enthusiastically encouraged to put their ideas into action. We urge Ms. Fagan, Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Fagan to organize a panel, debate or speaker addressing their beliefs about the importance of care-giving in the feminist movement. Until then, their critique of "OWL-style feminism" is merely words. The officers of the Organization of Women Leaders