Rethinking campus feminism, looking at the first years of OWL

Princeton's Organization of Woman Leaders (OWL), our campus "feminist" student group, ought to be congratulated for their efforts last year that effectively stirred a debate on what it means to be a feminist. But the answers OWL provided to this question merely demonstrate how much we need this conversation: The answers have been deplorably shallow. A true feminist movement seeks both to define what it means to be a woman, if anything, and to have that be respected by society. OWL demands shifts in the culture's attitude toward women without giving reasons why, and until they have reasons, their demands will remain as unconvincing and as self-contradictory as they currently are.

These self-styled "new feminists" consciously distance themselves from an earlier feminist understanding that women should be treated as men, with an improvement: Any good feminism wants women to be respected for who they are as women and as individuals. But OWL's definition of femininity is still defined in relation to males: They see femininity as a power struggle with men, where women can gain equal footing by using their sexuality. The style and tactics of the sort of feminism represented by OWL are typified by their attempted re-appropriation of the "hooters" icon. As OWL leader Nancy Ippolito writes, it "is a statement against the objectification of women. We are reclaiming the 'hooters' symbol." The strategy to promote women's interests, then, is to take the symbols and power apparatus created and dominated by men, and provide inroads for women to come into this system, take the driver's seat and assert their agency.

Even at first glance this "feminism" appears insufficient: Does an overweight, un-sexy woman have no place in OWL's message? Is she not feminine? Such a feminism necessarily limits itself by adapting to that which is already established by the (current) male order. There comes to be just one way to be a "feminist:" Asserting one's agency within the male order.

The strain imposed by this view is evident on campus. When one walks into career services — or the OWL annual conference — what sorts of options are presented? We see successful women in business, government and academia, but are these the domains to which "success" is limited? There is a very important and often overlooked elision occurring here: An elision of those who choose to use their brilliance, skills and training in nontraditional realms, and especially in family life.

Caring for children is perhaps one of the most challenging "jobs" that exists, yet at Princeton, anyone who would dare suggest that they aspire to be a successful parent more than anything else would be thought not to have their head on straight. The careers that are glorified by OWL and most others on campus are those that rank highest in prestige — but the legitimacy of such rankings is never brought into question.

A Princeton feminist organization is uniquely positioned to call into question these value judgments, to make the campus community sincerely consider whether investment banking really is more rewarding than care-giving. But this opportunity is being lost for lack of a more broadminded feminism.

True feminism defends and promotes characteristics not found in the traditional male order. Deborah Tannen pinpoints this inherent distinction in her bestseller "You Just don't Understand – Women and Men in Conversation." According to Tannen, men and women in many circumstances possess different — but equally valid — communication styles. While women generally seek to "connect" with other people in intimate, parallel relationships, men approach conversation as a "one-up or one-down situation." This difference in communication styles is not reflected in mainstream culture, where the male order and habits dominate (and which OWL is unquestioningly adopting). To insist that women compete with men, as men, on every level is to force women to look at the world in men's terms — that is, solely in terms of status and power struggle. In this more "masculine" approach, connecting in an intimate way that bypasses power confrontations can easily be regarded as a sign of submission and weakness. Unfortunately, this view prevails in many brands of feminism, so that today women are asked to denigrate the very aspects which have for so long been erased by the male order and have only been found among groups of women.

OWL's narrow focus in defining femininity excludes the many, many women throughout the world who assert their agency in ways totally separate from the established current male order in America. There are rich traditions of Catholic women — perhaps not called "feminists" but sharing feminist goals — who have created ways of living just as, if not more, meaningful than the male order, but who do not position themselves in relation to this male order. One could look at many other traditions such as women's clubs and societies, ecofeminist thought, and perhaps even some sports teams that also are extremely vibrant and meaningful and yet do not merely attempt to mimic or enter into the predominant male order.

The critique of OWL-style feminism is an area in which an unlikely alliance between the political left and right come together in opposition to totalizing liberalism. We share a distaste for those who seek to limit the debate to its current terms, to those who set up practices that will mindlessly reproduce the status quo, and specifically to those who always privilege social status or financial wellbeing over human interaction and humane values. Anne-Marie Fagan is an English major from Chevy Chase, Md. Niall Fagan is a Classics major from Chevy Chase, Md. Vincent Lloyd is a Religion major from Rochester, Minn. The authors may be reached at afagan@princeton.edu.