Porn Week at Yale

For most of last week, I couldn't really put my finger on why I hated Sex Week - it claims to be an exploration of all kinds of sexuality and all aspects of sex, which seems like a good conversation-starter for the issues of gender and sexuality which concern feminists.

But then a) I got an email containing the words "hottest Porn Star" and b) it wasn't spam, but an advertisement for an event that hundreds of Yalies attended. It all clicked: I hate Sex Week because it's basically a bunch of Yalies pretending to be porn stars and pimps.

Here's the thing: sex is not the same as objectification, and it does not have to involve unequal power dynamics. In fact, seeing it this way invites oppressive stereotypes and harmful relationships; Helen in the YDN does an awesome job of pointing out the gender dimensions in SWAY's magazine. There's something wrong when enormous amounts of funding and resources are available for this stuff at one of the best universities in the world. I still can't believe intelligent Yalies ate up the (self-?) promotion of women in "fashion-forward" lingerie, a talk for men about how to "mack" "girls" by asserting your power over them, and a panel on pornography with the "very high-profile" (I wouldn't know) porn star Jesse James - all without seemingly thinking about the implications for their own sexual awareness.

Just check out these quotes from Mr. Macker Nasheed, which seem representative:
"Never ask for a number; instruct them to give you their number" - that's the power stuff - and "the definition of a gentleman is a man who hasn't had sex with you yet" - there's the unhealthy view of sex. 'Nuf said.

Yes, we can play with gender stereotypes and experiment with our sexuality in many ways. But most of us don't even have the healthy sexual relationships necessary to do so. Let's talk about that, shall we?*


*oh, sorry, there's no funding available.

Three Cheers for the YDN and the YCC (Who Would Have Thought?)

Last Wednesday the YCC passed a resolution in favor of centralizing Yale's sexual assault resources and this morning the YDN finally did the story some serious justice. For more details please read the article. While Betty T doesn't seem too thrilled with the idea, Dean Salovey doesn't seem to be saying no just yet. Finally, we're making some progress! Kudos to Larry Wise and the rest of the YCC for being ready and willing to take this issue head on.

Talking Vaginally

I'll always been a bit hesitant to embrace Eve Ensler's Vagina Monologues. Sure, the play is funny and witty and sadly applicable to the current state of affairs. Yet there was always something a little too essentialist about celebrating the cunt and something a little too potentially imperialistic about claiming to speak for oppression of women in Afghanistan and Africa. My penchant for cultural relativism always took precedent.

But last night I went to see Yale's production and the monologue about comfort women and the Japanese government's refusal to acknowledge made me weep. Women are constantly denied visibility about our achievements and about the violence we endure. The silencing of comfort women during World War II is enacted by the same mechanisms which silence Yale women (and men) who have been sexually assaulted and harrassed and violated on this campus - who have been denied the right to protection and support because of social stigma and the administration's refusal to take a more proactive stance. The truth is, as Jean Beaudrillard writes, we are all victims. We are all complicit in the oppression of others but we are all also, in various ways, oppressed. Women and men, here and abroad, are all victims of partiarchy.

On a lighter note, bravo to the women who performed the Vagina Monologues here at Yale. It must take an impressive sense of self to take that kind of risk to be so honest and so real, to share stories about violence, about pleasure, about shame, about sexuality, about orgasms in such a hostile space. We thank you.

also

What is this??

Penis Monologues?

Garrett Morrison's letter in response to the editorial we linked to yesterday argues that men also have unhealthy relationships with their sexual organs and only talk about their penises with "bravado."

I think it's partly true that there is not enough productive and honest discussion of male sexuality. But isn't it true that the way that culture "stifles" straight men's sexuality is far less dangerous to men than the way it stifles women's sexuality is to women? Let's face it - the distortion of male sexuality puts them in a powerful (often violently so) position with respect to women. The "Vagina Monologues" prove that the vagina is too often a symbol of pain and shame in our society. That's a little different than bragging inappropriately about the power of your penis.

V-Week begins today

Alexandra Schwartz's editorial today explains the value of V-Week and the Vagina Monologues, arguing that they represent "nothing less than the legitimizing of a woman's right to exist as a sexual and inquisitive being."

The V-Week calendar is at left (click to enlarge).

Woolsey wage gap

Gunther told the YDN that "if you have respect, you can have sex and love and the whole thing. I am a gentleman style-2000, which means I honor women."

I just learned that of the $16,000 spent on the concert, Gunther received $8,000. Each Sunshine girl received $800.

Where's the respect there?

Lesbians at Yale

If Yale is the "gay Ivy", where does that leave lesbians? scene's cover article describes the (still underground) lesbian social scene at Yale. Let's face it, men (and women) often feel threatened or confused by a woman who doesn't want a penis in her life. All of the women in the article say they have been verbally harassed, on-campus and off. This quote hit me hard:

"Lesbianism is ... very, very eroticized," Prichard said. "I literally have never been to a straight party with my girlfriend where some really drunk guy hasn't been on his knees begging to have a threesome."

But, don't women exist to sexually please men?! The whole article points to a serious lack of acceptance and resources for queer women - check it out and comment.

Sad news

"Betty Friedan, whose manifesto The Feminine Mystique became a best seller in the 1960s and laid the groundwork for the modern feminist movement, died Saturday."

Facing Off

Last Wednesday morning the virtual world of www.facebook.com found a new medium: printouts. Anonymous individuals printed out individual profiles and group profiles from the website and posted them all over Yale campus bulletin boards. Circled in red were Yale student's homophobic and misogynistic remarks (ex. "cubs fans are f-ing homos" and "we love tits"); written under these remarks were email addresses: anti_homophobia@hotmail.com and anti_misogyny@hotmail.com. By mid-afternoon, a vast majority of these printouts had been removed, presumably by the singled -out individuals (though I did see one kind boy rip down his roomate's profile for him), or by members of Yale Recycling or of the administration. The group who did it may face legal consequences, if they come forward.

First things first: we were not involved, though some seem to think this is the type of thing we condone (see one comment in the below post). When we have a problem with something someone said, we'll be sure to let the individual know what we think and that we (Sabrina and Della) are disturbed. Believe us, we know how it feels to be attacked anonymously (just check out the comments section), and we find it counterproductive to the rational dialogue which produces change.

That being said, the red ink found some disturbing things. The facebook.com is a space laden with misogynistic, homophobic, and (let's not forget) racist and classicist ideas - and the fact that some quotes were taken out of context is irrelevant. The particular profiles chosen were just a small (if somewhat problematic) sample. Additionally, activists of all kinds have a tradition of making public, anonymous statements that attack certain individuals. Holding people accountable in this way can be powerful - just look at the buzz on campus about the printouts. For a far more cogent explaination of the value in the posts and the complications involved, check out Loren Krywancynk's editorial in the YDN.

But publicly slandering particular individuals within the Yale community anonymously is not an effective response to rampant -isms. Such attacks only put people on the defensive and make them far less willing to engage in a meaningful and productive dialogue about the implications of their words (Morgan Locke's letter to the editor is an example of such a response), and we at Broad Recognition have learned this the hard way (just check out our October archives). The benefit of being part of a college community is that we have the time and the safety (most of the time) to have real discussions and real disagreements. Think about it: a blog like ours would have no place at a high power law firm in NYC or even a large non-profit. So let's take those printouts as tangible testiments to the fact that we live in a homophobic and sexist world, in a homophobic and sexist "liberal" university. Let's face it; anyone who thought those things didn't happen here has obviously not been paying attention. But let's also affirm that this is not the way we seek to produce change.

Rather than bickering about what happened on Wednesday, we should ask what we're going to do about it. How do you get someone to face up to what those statements say about women, what they say about men, what they say about sexuality and violence, and what they say, most importantly, about them as individuals?

Talking to each other, face to face, is where we need to start. It requires patience and it requires distance. Of course, it's personal and, of course, we're tired of having to explain time and time again why something is so blatantly wrong. But we have to - because obviously people still don't get it. We need a new medium; the facebook and printouts outside of the post office will not suffice.

Another Black Tuesday

Today just sucked: Alito was confirmed for the Supreme Court in a too close for comfort 58-42 vote and Coretta Scott King, MLK's widow, died. So much for social justice. It's bad enough that a man is replacing a woman on the Supreme Court (especially after the whole Hariet Miers debacle), but to replace O'Connor with a white, anti-abortion, anti-affirmative action man just adds insult to injury.

I don't have an adequate response to the status quo. Instead, I have a few questions:

1. What should we do now to make sure our so-called "rights" are not even more curtailed in the upcoming years?

2. Does anyone else find it ironic that a "liberal" university such as Yale could have produced not only George W. Bush, but also Sammy Alito?

I ask the latter question with a tinge of sarcasm. I'm actually not that surprised that Yale has produced some of the more conservative world leaders. Think about it: how many of you (and/or how many people do you know) carry liberal, progressive sentiments at this school and plan on engaging the world on a preferably micro-social level? Most of us see bad schools, bad healthcare, bad foreign policies, etc and we want to go straight to the top to fix it. OR we're so overwhelmed by all the issues that need to be tackled that we'd rather forget it by working 80 hour weeks, owning a bmw, making huge financial contributions to charity and then making sure our kids have the same liberal arts education we had.

I say all of this more about myself than anyone else at this school. I'm just trying to figure out what happens to one's drive to make the world better and when exactly it is that individual's stop questioning the system and instead resolve to accept it. I'm as guilty as anyone. Traveling for a year after college might make I-banking look like Mother Teresa's line of work. Forgive the rant. As I said, it's been a rough Tuesday.

Everyone knows Playboy = hott!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, i'm OBSESSED with "Hef" too! I mean, if you aren't, you're probably unattractive and "unusually sex-deprived"!

Stop repressing it. Embrace the obscenely misogynistic. You, too, can be someone's wet dream.

Reproductive health round-up

YUHS is still working on that survey, which showed "mixed feelings" about health services at Yale and in particular points to the problems with EC distribution revealed by the survey.

...Edelman said he thinks UHS does not do enough to publicize the availability of emergency contraception. In addition, the process for obtaining the morning-after pill in advance is often lengthy and stressful, he said.

Also in the YDN, a rather feel-good article discusses abortion at Yale (reporting that 5-12 undergraduates annually have abortions in New Haven), and draws optimistic conclusions about the importance of choice for our university and the increasing availability of EC. The RALY-CLAY dialogue (or lack thereof) is interesting food for thought.

This all points to the fact that sexual health depends on our access to information and resources. The real way to be "pro-life"? Ensure that choices about our bodies can be made in informed and choice-rich environments.

This part of the abortion article bothered me, because it reinforces something we've discussed here before:

Hartmann's decision is far from common at Yale, and the increasing polarization between work and motherhood -- or at least the perception of such an increase -- remains an issue for young women. The issue was brought to Yale's, and the nation's, attention last September in Louise Story '03 SOM '06's controversial New York Times article "Many Women at Elite Colleges Set Career Path to Motherhood," which suggested a disconnect between a modern woman's professional career and the responsibilities of a mother. With that perception comes the belief that the two are irreconcilable.

I know Story's article has become a catchy cultural reference, but it is out of context here. The article cites women whose life-plans involve being full-time mothers - and this involves reproductive planning. Also, the reference ignores the economic and social aspects of abortion; Story's sources were all planning to marry presumably financially-independent men, while students at Yale (younger, probably unmarried, and 'unemployed') who have abortions surely do so for more than professional reasons.

Moreover, the issue of parenting and reproductive health must not only be a young woman's issue (as the article states). The responsibilities of sex and parenthood are issues which affect individuals of all sexualities and genders. Secondly, "work and motherhood" is not a dichotomy. "Paid work and motherhood" - that's more like it!

The Pornographic Inbox

Nice party invitation, huh? You'd think that La Casa, as a cultural house, would steer clear of fetishizing and objectivizing advertisements (not to mention the nasty innuendos of the party's name, "Gold Rush").

One in four college students reported they had experienced sexual harassment

One in four college students reported they had experienced sexual harassment, according to a report from the American Association of University Women released Tuesday.

Yale reported only four on-campus sexual assaults in its 2004 campus safety report.

What's wrong with this picture?

Yale's sexual assault response system is not adequate; there is little information regarding the resources available to survivors on campus, and YUHS/Yale-New Haven Hospital get very spotty reviews from rape survivors who seek mental and physical health services. On the disciplinary side, students are frequently discouraged from making official reports or pressing charges; again, there is a lack of consolidated information and advice. We need community consensus that rape is a serious crime and should be treated as such by the administration.

There's nothing to prove this without your help; we need your stories - accounts of how Yale's institutions and people respond to sexual assault on campus. Share them anonymously here, and please help spread the word.

Questions? Want to get involved? Email yalersvp@gmail.com

Get Out of My Uterus

Monday, January 22 marked the thirty-third anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

While we try to stay focused on feminist issues at Yale, we thought when it came to abortion and a woman's right to control her body, we had to say something (even if it was a couple of days later). Additionally, wiith the nomination of Alito, who attended Yale Law and his adamant anti-choice stance and the recent anti-choice activisim of our campus (read: www.yale.edu/clay), we think it's time the pro-choice camp made a visible response.

There are so many things to be said about this debate that it is hard to know where to begin. For one, there is the simple fact that the same number of women sought and had abortions before and after it was legalized; the only difference was that when it was legalized fewer women were dying from back alley abortions. Two, the fact that even though we may have a supreme court decision backing our "right," there is still very little acccess to safe, affordable abortions and even those of us who can afford them face increasing harassment and violent opposition. Three, the langauge of the debate has been co-opted by the "pro-life" movement which ignores that to be pro-choice is not to support the act of an abortion, but rather the ability for each individual woman to have a say over her body and her life.

Anti-choice proponents argue that an abortion kills a life. Where human life begins doesn't really matter to us. Sure, the embryo shows signs of life, the fetus, when more developed with its heart beat, is a moving and legimate proof of this. But that's not the point. Abortion involves making life and death decisions, literally but also metaphorically. Most women who seek an abortion do so because they cannot afford to have another child or because they were impregnated under horrendous circumstances - for them, as Catherine MacKinnon put it, any choice about abortion involves making life and death decisions - why do we privilege the choice of someone else (say, a politician - in particular, a white man like Samuel Alito or George W. Bush), over that of the very woman who is pregnant? Why would we deny this choice to the women whose lives it changes and, many times, saves? Being pro-choice, ironically enough, is being pro-life.

Self-Censorship & Being Anti-Feminist

It's taken me a week to write this because I guess this post involves calling myself out on my own sexism. My apologies for the delay.

The short version of the story goes like this: there was a party where people were pretty obliterated. After the party, people started sending emails suggesting that instead of consuming too much alcohol we had all been "roofied" (who knew it could be turned into a verb). The first mention, I let it slide. I liked these people and I knew they didn't really mean it. Then there was another email and another and another. Finally, I decided I had to say something not just because it was a bad and innappropriate joke but also because I'm always frustrated with people who see and hear offensive and insensitive things and remain silent.

So I wrote the following email:

Hate to be the token feminist . . . and I don't really think it's a solely "feminist issue" but this roofies/date rape joke isn't so funny. It happens a lot at Yale. It happened this week to a girl. I know you all don't really mean it and would never mean it and I realize it is just a joke, but I think I have a decent sense of humor and joking about roofies just isn't a good idea. Sorry to be a debbie downer.

Talk about eating your own words: "hate to be the token feminist". I was surprised by my self-deprecating tone in the email and yet I did it, deliberately. Looking back, I believe I wrote that particular email partly out of my own insecurity about my role as the one (and only) voice of dissent in this particular group. I also wrote it in a less combative tone because I wanted to get my point across. (I received apologies shortly after the email was sent.)

But I can't help but feel disturbed by what I wrote. For me, my email tells me I've bought into the very anti-feminist ideas I so often critique and resent. It also tells me that I'd rather get my point across than be ignored and dismissed because my tone is too combative, too hysteric, to feminist. Which leads me to the following, difficult questions: what is the most successful strategy for feminists and for all people voicing dissent and concern? Should we be appalled and show our outrage or should we tacitly, calmly disagree in hopes that others might see the light?

Fluidity please

I was doing laundry today and reading a sign, produced by STEP, on how to save energy and water. One of the items is headed "Dad yells check the oil, Mom yells check the lint!"

I know that this is not explicitly that sexist; you could argue that it jokingly describes the usual division of household labor. But this sign perpetuates gender norms - norms that have more broadly delivered vast inequality within and outside of family units. I think we should at all costs avoid using such stereotypes (however trivial the situation!), in the hopes that individuals of all genders can be recognized as "experts" in whatever "field" they want.

Thoughts?

Oh, man!

Another brilliant headline from the YDN:

Three join Yale Corp.
Newsweek editor, two top businessmen are appointed Univ. trustees

Problem is, one of those two "businessmen" is a woman. Listen up, editors: "man" is not an acceptable gender-neutral pronoun anymore.

But... you won't find a man!!

This is not official Yale news, but I just saw Katha Pollitt's article at the Nation and it seemed like a must-read for college women. I, for one, am tired of being warned about the negative consequences of being a highly-educated and successful woman.

We've heard the argument a lot in recent years that the gains of feminism (and the resulting increase in numbers of women in college) represent a "War on Boys". John Tierney recently wrote a column (egalia has the full text and Pollitt comments on some choice exerpts) on the real problems with this imbalance: all these educated and financially independent women won't be able find husbands!

Pollitt's piece rightly points out that the numbers don't tell the whole story; university curriculums and policies are still masculine to the bone, and the "real world" is no better.

...does today's dating scene really consist of women who love Woolf and men who love Grand Theft Auto? College may not create the intellectual divide elite pundits think it does .... For most students, it's more like trade school--they go to get credentials for employment and, because of the sexist nature of the labor market, women need those credentials more than men.

Until that changes, let's not institute affirmative action for men.