Some Additional Musings about Sexual Harassment at Yale

The opening sentence of the Hippolytic's post "Yale Prof: I bet it would be fun f*** you" crystallizes one of my fundamental problems with the way we speak and think about sexual harassment.

"Sexual harassment is de rigueur for New Haven's seedier establishments, but now it has reared its head in the university's hallowed halls." While the Hippolytic continues on to make a searing and well-deserved point about the utter unacceptability of Yale's protecting professors who sexual harass employees, students, or fellow staff members, the implications of its opening sentence are that it somewhat surprising that a Yale professor would sexually harass an employee and that it is less surprising that such behavior would occur elsewhere.

As Maggie pointed out, this is certainly not the first, nor will it be the last, accusation that a Yale professor sexually harassed an employee or a student. Thus, it seems sort of silly to express surprise at its occurrence. It seems to me that surprise it could occur here, here at Yale, is indicative of a type of unfortunate elitism.

By conflating acts of ill-expressed sexual desire in New Haven's bars and clubs with quid pro quo sexual harassment in the workplace, we neglect the true potency of sexual harassment in workplaces. Indeed, sexual harassment in workplaces is about far more than sex: it is about exerting power, it is about creating a hostile work environment, it is about feeling threatened by the presence of women, and it is about undermining women's legitimacy as workers.

While the action may be the same (e.g. commenting that it would be fun to have sex with someone), the impact is different because of the different context. The sense of entitlement implicit in making sexual comments or gestures at a club or bar is certainly worth considering, it is fundamentally another animal than using sex to exert power or dominance in the workplace. Discussing the two in the same sentence minimizes these differences, and limits our ability to think of innovative solutions to sexual harassment in workplaces.

Finally, if we assume that sexual harassment is purely about sexual desire, we play into unfortunate stereotypes about male sexuality--that they cannot control themselves and consequently, that women need protection from male desire in the workplace. This creates a negative-feedback loop, because policies that emphasize protectionism further exacerbate a sense that women are fish out of water at work which will, in turn, lead to more sexual harassment.

Certainly, Yale's complicity in any of its employees sexually harassing students or co-workers is heinous, but I wish that the rhetoric in its wake could be more sensitive to the underlying motivation of sexual harassment in the workplace instead of comparing it to someone making a sexual proposition at Toad's.

Seuxual Harassment and Protecting Yale Professors

On November 22, a former Yale employee filed a civil suit against Yale. The woman, Mary Beth Garceau, worked as a secretary for the Chair of the Yale Pharmacology Department, Dr. Joseph Schlessinger. In her suit, she claimed that she suffered from innumerable incidents of sexual harassment during her three years as his secretary, and that when Yale refused to act on her complaints, she was forced to resign. The Yale Hippolytic blog has excerpts from the suit as well as a link to the full document. I encourage you all to read the post.

I don't want to speculate about Dr. Schlessinger's innocence or guilt, but I do think that these accusations reveal problems for women experiencing sexual harassment in the workplace. When the harassment comes from a superior, as in this case, it's hard for a woman to vocally object without fearing that she will lose her job or that such objections will only exacerbate the current condition. It's even worse when women have the courage to come forward only to have their concerns summarily dismissed. Garceau claims that she asked Yale to address her concerns but that Yale administrators made it clear that Dr. Schlessinger was too valuable to the university to warrant such an investigation. Do certain employees or, in Yale's case, certain professors, have license to act in a morally reprehensible way because their contributions (e.g. Schlessinger's work in cancer research) are so valuable? I'm thinking about the accusations made against Harold Bloom, besides those that Naomi Wolff made several years ago (on a side-note: I realize that not everyone believed Wolff's story, but I'm still troubled by how she was vilified by the media and by those at Yale). Do we think that such a system exists at Yale, one in which certain professors are infallible no matter what testimony is heard against them? If this is the case, then gender discrimination in Yale's administration is more pervasive and insidious then I thought.

Remaking the Wheel

I struggle a lot with how to approach criticizing the feminist work being undertaken by other women. Often, I fear, there is so much criticism coming from outside the movement that its counterproductive and damaging to partake. Yet, sometimes I think its necessary that women working in the feminist activist sphere be called out on certain behavior that is counterproductive to their stated goals.

Which brings me to the issue of C.Lit a new feminist literary publication started last year by a group of women in Yale College. I have two bones to pick with these women, even though I appreciate their stated goal of publishing feminist writing by Yale women, in all its editorial, journalistic, and creative mutations. Obviously, I a huge proponent of getting more women's voices out there engaged in our collective public media sphere.

1. The name C.Lit. I believe it stands for Women's College Literary Magazine, or something akin to that. The rationalization I heard was that the intention with the name was to find something clever and eye catching in the tradition of Bitch and Bust magazine. The only snag here is that there are some fundamentally important differences between the titles Bitch and Bust, and C.Lit. First of all, neither of those words EXPLICITLY refer to a female sexual organ. Second, both of those words are meant as puns, and critically: can be used as VERBS, thus giving the titles an active, engaged, combative meaning totally absent from C.Lit, a word that will forever be relegated to the realm of passive nouns.

2. STOP REMAKING THE WHEEL. Yale College, and the Women's Center, has a magazine called Aurora whose project has always been to publish Yale women's feminist writing. Granted publication of this magazine has been spotty, especially over the last few years, but to create a new magazine rather then resurrect an old one, disassociates contemporary Yale feminist work from the amazing work done by our predecessors and helps to relegate that work to the dustbins of our collective Yale memory. If instead, this group of motivatd women had thought to do some research on the history of feminist publication at Yale, and seen that as recently as last year there was such a magazine being published, and one that has been published on and off for the past twenty or so odd years, they could have aligned themselvesm with, and inserted themselves into, an extensive, important history of Yale feminist activism. And by doing so, they would have further strengthened the impact of their publication, as well as given due respect to those who came before them. But instead, they decided to start a new publication, thus becoming a part of a tired tradition of Yale students remaking the wheel so that they can say that they STARTED a new magazine, no matter how unoriginal or derivative.

A Meditation on Toad's

So I went to Toad's on Saturday night, dressed up in my best '70's-gym-bunny-meets-90's-fake-gold-jewelry' style to dance. I am not sure exactly what that means, but I can tell you it involved striped pants, a sweatband, and big hoop earrings. But thats not really the point, right? While I was standing talking to my friends, two guys apparently took such a liking to my pants that one of them felt the only way he could express his appreciation was to grab my ass. An action, that was, of course, horrendously predictable considering the circumstances. Fortunately, my story has a surprising turn.

After this guy grabbed my ass, I turned around to ask him what the fuck he thought he was doing, and then turned to my wonderful friend to tell her what had just occurred. Here's where the things got really interesting, in her drunken self-righteousness, she gave him a glare, and then asked him "How would you like it if I did this?" and proceeded to reach for his crotch. He, not surprisingly, jumped back in horror, and then tried to play it off by saying, "Hey, I mean if you really want to, you can."

Fortunately, this all resulted in the two guys apologizing to me for their behavior, and trying to explain that the one guy had just really liked my pants and then the other guy had pushed his hand towards my ass. I encouraged him to, in the future, try tapping a girl on the shoulder and using his words.

What this whole episode made me really consider was actually how unwilling I had been to deal with this situation, without the aid of my friend. Sure, I turned around and glared at the guy, but I honestly might not have said anything to either one of them if my friend had not been there with me. I should also mention that this all happened after we were dancing, during which time, I watched her turn around to three separate guys who tried to grind her from behind and ask them directly: "Do I know you?" I had simply avoided that situation by dancing around and doing lots of turns.

This is all to say, that I was surprised at my own lack of conviction on the ground in terms of actually asserting myself. There was some small part of me that didn't want to argue with the two guys, and come off like an uptight [word removed due to misogynistic tone]. And yet calling them out on their sexual harrasment, was much more positive and empowering then I could have even anticipated, and ended up with them being embarrassed and us seeming totally reasonable.

Lusty Busty and tottling on high heels

I just wrote a lengthy post about my concerns regarding Ariel Levy's new book Female Chauvanist Pigs: The Rise of Raunch Culture, recently published by Simon and Schuster, for The Hippolytic. It details my concern that the feminist movement spends too much time picking out whats wrong with our culture and not enough time producing ways to change it. In essence, I want a positive sex role model. Read more here.

Thank Yous on Thanksgiving

Today, in the spirit of this holiday, I want to register my thanks for wonderful feministy people who have been important in my life. I want to include those who do small things (like the woman at Thanksgiving today who gave her mother a hard time for only asking the men if they could carve the turkey) or the large (such as Emma Goldman for being a female anarchistic rockstart).

Also, everyone should note that this post is totally self-indulgent, so feel free not to read it.

So here it goes:

Sabrina Manville/Della Sentilles for starting this blog.
Tina Fey/Amy Poehler for making me laugh.
Danielle Mysliwiec for being an awesome feminist art teacher.
Martha Stewart, love her or hate her, she is a shrewd business woman and a good cook (you can be both!).
Gloria Steinem, Jane Friesen, and all the other women who married late and make us all remember that marriage is not compulsory, nor necessarily anything we should do soon.
Marjane Satrapi, author of the Persepolis series, an awesome Iranian feminist.
Chase McAllister-Olivarius for making us all reconsider the political meanings of penetrative sex.
Katha Politt for towing the party line.
Grayson Walker/Eric Sandberg-Zakian/Colin Adamo for re-affirming that men are a vital part of the feminist movement.
Elizabeth Alexander for being an amazing feminist role-model.
bell hooks, Angela Davis, and many many others who remind us that race and gender and class all work together!
My dad for reminding me that women are entitled to get pregnant and take time off whenever is best for them.
Erin Gaines and Carey Pulverman who reading all those crazy books with me in junior high and then following through on all our awesome feminist plans!

Why Not Ms. Yale?

Is anyone else troubled, or irked, or maybe just puzzled by the YSAC's Mr. Yale competition? YSAC describes the contest in the following words:

"YSAC seeks the best, craziest and funniest representatives from each college to compete in the first ever Mr. Yale. This exciting showcase will feature modeling and talent competitions, interviews, special judges (including Dean Peter Salovey) and much more! It’s your chance to show your Eli spirit as we gear up for The Game. At stake: a chance to debut the Mr. Yale crown and sash in the the halftime show at Yale-Harvard."

I guess I don't understand why the "best, craziest and funniest represetatives" must be men. Perhaps YSAC feared a "beauty-contest backlash" in which female nominees would only be judeged by their looks. Alternatively, perhaps YSAC was only using the phrase "Mr. Yale" as an all-encompassing, universal term (a problematic action nonetheless), but even if this was the intenetion, Yale students took the Mr. prefix seriously. All 12 candidates are male students. Are we saying the only men embody the spirit of Yale? In my opinion, the whole thing smacks of the ethos of an earlier Yale, a Yale that promised to continue to produce "1000 male leaders" every year, despite the sudden influx of 300 female undergraduates. By identifying a male student as the quintessential representative of Yale College, we ascribe a male normative standard to the university. Women become add-ons, after-thoughts, supplemental figures to this core of male students. The YSAC contest revives Yale's historically partiarchal identity, an identity that most of us hope had faded over the last 35 years.

I HATE the patriarchy

The title says it all.

Election Victory and Women

I am thrilled with the results of this week's election, and that we will have the first woman speaker of the House--Nancy Pelosi. However, I'm feeling a little annoyed about a couple of comments. First of all, Pelosi said (and I quote) that maybe we "need a woman to clean house." And secondly, the first thing Bush said in his press conference was that he would contact the decorator to help speaker-elect Pelosi redecorate her office and change the curtains. Umm, yeah, when are we going to stop using rhetoric (at the highest level of government, no less!) that reinforces that it is the norm for women to be at home. By no stretch of the imagination do I intend to denigrate women who stay at home or women who are concerned about the curtains in their office; in fact, I'm sure, as Pelosi seems to imply, women can garner and hone valuable skills in the home that could be a boon to their political careers. I just don't get why women who haven't been at home or have no interest in it need to somehow prove that they are a true woman, and that a true woman has connections to the home. It seems that there is a skills bias: the same skills that make men a qualified politician aren't sufficient for a woman--we need extra proof that she is competent and that's just not ok. Ultimately, women need to prove their competence along two axes, whereas men only along one.

Who's on Top?

Next Tuesday night at 9pm at the Women's Center, we will be having a discussion/study break about... Who's on Top? After our last event about the Hook-Up Culture at Yale, we realized that there had been very little discussion about the act of penetrative sex itself. It's sort of a hard topic to broach, and as such, I think that it's often hard for us to think of how sex and misogyny may be intertwined. So, I envision that we will talk about sex in two ways. The first is in light of of Andrea Dworkin's article http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin /IntercourseI.html that an attendee at our last event sent to me afterwords. Dworkin argues that intercourse and patriarchy are inseparable--or that, in the context of patriarchy, they are inseparable. I'm not sure that I necessarily believe the relationship is inevitable; however, it does seem to me that the way we experience and practice sex is probably somewhat patriarchal. I mean, even in colloquialisms about sex, we situate men in the active tense and women in the passive (getting pounded, for example). The woman is getting, and the man is doing. I would hazard a guess, and I would love it if someone would/could correct me here, that the way most people practice sex most of the time reflects this dichotomy. Hence the title: Who's on top?

I swear, I will leave the NY Times alone . . .

as soon as they leave mothers alone. At least the Times reporters don't discriminate; they critique the habits stay-at-home moms as well as the lifestyle of working mothers. Last week, the Times revealed the frivolous behavior of business women, and this week's style section contains an article on "Cosmopolitan Moms," mothers who gather together to share a cocktail while their children play.

Whether or not you agree with the idea of drinking while watching children, the fact that this practice merits a feature article is problematic. First of all, the article focuses exclusively on mothers, ignoring the fathers who most likely drink in similar circumstances. As Brown anthropology professor Dr. Dwight B. Health says, "In this culture there is a still a double standard [. . .] It is more acceptable for men to drink, more often, and in greater quantities, and in public [. . .] This is not really exotic behavior." Heath's last sentence illuminates the central problem with this article, in my opinion. By examining and analyzing such banal behavior, the reporter problematizes and almost pathologizes these women's everyday existence. Having a drink with a fellow mother becomes an indication of rampant alcoholism among stay-at-home moms; the very act of drinking during the day exposes the depression and irresponsibility of these women. I know this sensational journalism occurs in other papers and about other issues, but I have to say that I'm a little sick of seeing this kind of reporting about motherhood in the Times.

Truly Insightful Opining Found in the YDN

Last week sophomore columnist Alexandra Schwartz wrote a truly insightful editorial for the Yale Daily News titled "Dearth of woman columnists is puzzling."

In the editorial Schwartz addresses the gender disparity found in the YDN's editorial page by considering what sorts of campus activities women tend to gravitate towards, in order to understand why so few women seem to be interested in opining in the Yale Daily News. Schwartz suggests that women often overload themselves with campus involvements and also are more likely to go abroad, both of which are valid points but it is slightly unclear whether Schwartz sees these facts as causal or simply corrollary to the problem she is getting at. I, of course, would have loved to have seen her title the article "Dearth of woman columnists is abhorrent" and criticize the YDN for not working their asses off to fix the problem, but hey, thats my opinion, not hers. She does sum things up very well in her last paragraph when she writes:

I don't wish that there were more female columnists to give the page some kind of vague "feminine perspective" that it lacks. Rather, I wish more Yale women felt compelled to write regular columns, if only to prove that girls can be just as outgoing and aggressive as boys in publicizing what they have to say and in standing by it. This page would benefit enormously if more women felt compelled to pursue a column of their own.

That said, its imperative that we take into consideration the greater social and structural problems that cause women not to write for the YDN, and not put all the onus on them.

Broad Recognition and the women involved (Maggie, Basha and I) obviously agree with Schwartz in that it is important for women to voice their opinions in a public way. Our hope is to enable women to do so by creating this blog and inviting guest bloggers. We would also like to develop an editorial relationship with the YDN--something Schwartz' editorial has now given us greater impetus to make a move on.

Finally, I just want to point out that the YDN isn't the only campus publication suffering from a lack of women editorializers. Yale's progressive publication, The Hippolytic, could only find one woman (me) to write for their blog (its great, you should all check it out). Fortunately, when I brought it to the attention of those running the blog (Noam Rudnick and Jared Malsin) they were both very responsive, and concerned about this dearth of women (to quote Schwartz) and we are now in the process of looking for more women to write (email me at adda.birnir@gmail.com if you are interested, please!).

More Insightful Reporting from the New York Times

What is it with the New York Times and working mothers? In 2003, a New York Times magazine piece about eight female Princeton graduates announced the "Opt-Out Revolution": highly educated women choosing to stay home with their children instead of working outside the home. Last fall, an article about the professional ambitions (or lack thereof) of Yale female undergraduates caused a stir both on campus and nationwide. And yesterday, the Times published an article about working mothers who travel on business trips (you can click on the title of this post to view the article).


Once again, instead of addressing the complex issues surrounding working women and family responsibilities, the reporter chooses to write a simple, somewhat sensational piece about these seemingly flighty women who only travel in order to get away from their squabbling children. The article details the massages these women schedule and their elegant dinners; it positions these luxuries in contrast to the banal demands of the home. A quotation from one of the women interviewed anchors the piece: “I can go home and deal with two screaming 6-year-old twins and a grumpy preteen [. . .] Or I can go to the Four Seasons in Mexico City and drink Cognac in the bathtub.”

So, according to this portrait, women who travel on business are both irresponsible mothers and irresponsible employees. They neglect their children and erroneously see these important business trips as personal vacations. They are self-absorbed individuals who only want "me" time. Interestingly enough, this article unwittingly explores the conflict facing these women who don't fear being seen as bad mothers or bad workers. One of the women even says, "You meet all these investors, and they’re all men [. . .] They all look at me, and they always ask, ‘Oh, and how often do you travel?’ It’s such a loaded question. I’m now going to look like a bad mom or a bad portfolio manager.” Of course, instead of exploring such an essential conflict for these women, the article glosses over it and moves on to report another woman's "date with herself" in Vegas.

It seems that women continue to face stereotypes about their inability to balance their personal and professional lives. What no one is talking about, of course, is that fact that most work environments make it incredibly difficult for women to fulfill their duties at work and those at home. This article from the Christian Science Monitor - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1030/p13s02-wmgn.html - explains how more women are "pushed out" of the workplace than "opt out" of it. As Basha astutely noted in an earlier post, the workplace is not yet family-friendly, and until it is, it's shameful to continue to criticism parents, especially mothers, for struggling to operate in both the professional and domestic spheres.

Can someone please tell me...

...why this makes me so angry? Out of the sorority house and into the boardroom With new networking group, Yale women are cooking up more than just dinner. BY VIVIAN NEREIM printed in THE YALE HERALD, OCTOBER 20, 2006 VOL. XLII, NO. 7 I think Tina Wu (Calhoun, '08) said it best: "We would NEVER see a headline like this for any other demographic. Could you imagine: "Asians, cooking up more than just pork fried rice"?" Yale women have been cooking up a hell of a lot more than dinner for a hell of a long time. In fact, I find it pretty blatantly offensive that we choose to define ourselves in such binary terms: the sorority house and the kitchen? Yes, I understand that the title was intended to dismantle stereotypes, but by assuming that those stereotypes are the status quo, we perpetuate the stereotype and demean men and women who do cook etc. Some thoughts: 1) "A woman who is assertive but not bitchy" The very use of the word "bitchy" is problematic. It is men who perceive women's assertive behavior to be unfeminine or inappropriate who use this term. When men behave in a "bitchy" way, they are assertive. We should be working to eradicate that misconception rather than define ourselves in opposition to it. 2) "The Women's Center is a safe space, but there is a need to unite women of all political ideologies." Where in the phrase "Women's Center" did you read "crazy Lesbian separatists?" We ARE a space that unites women of all ideologies. Come to some our events. Maybe you'd be surprised. 3) "We aren't going to whine about men keeping us down." Well, see, I WANT TO YELL THIS, THE STRUCTURE OF THE WORKPLACE ENVIRONMENT IS INHERENTLY STRUCTURED TO REPRODUCE GENDERED ROLES. I'm not advocating sitting on our asses and complaining about it -- I'm just saying that to not address the problem with WORK in the United States head on is to hold the glass ceiling firmly over your own head. You may think it doesn't affect you. It does. It affects how people see a woman in the workplace; it means you can't be assertive because that makes you bitchy; it means that you are either the bitch, the mother, or a sex object; it means people will not take you as seriously as a man. Maybe we shouldn't strive to be "like men." Maybe there is something wrong with the male ideal of work in the USA. Here's the thing: supposedly women friendly policies--such as maternity leave--often exacerbates the very problems they seek to ameliorate. It makes women's labor market attachment more tenuous, and increases statistical discrimination within firms because employers assume women are more likely to take advantages of these policies. Perhaps we need to work on having both parents take equal responsibility, rather than allowing "femaleness" to be defined almost as a disability. Oh, and some tremendous irony, the Women's Leadership Initiative didn't ask anyone from the Women's Center to participate in their campus-wide intiatives. AND btw, this is nothing new. The WC has been doing the same thing for over 25 years with great success, and to ignore that is profoundly offensive.

It's funny where you find sexism . . .

In English seminar, for instance. This afternoon I listened as people critiqued a work by a female writer, and it wasn't until halfway through the class that I realized the degree to which our comprehension of gender roles inform our understanding of art as well as other intellectual disciplines. For today's class, we had read a novel by a British lesbian author that interwove her own personal narrative with revisionist versions of fairytales and Biblical parables. Some students criticized this foramlly innovative work for being "cutesy" or "too clever;" other students tried to redeem the novel by calling it "tender" or pointing to moments where it showed "heart." These adjectives, while supposedly speaking to the quality of the author's writing, are strikingly similar to negative and positive characterizations of women. Instead of being "smart," women are often called "clever," a more menacing term for a supposedy positive attribute. Women who don't show tenderness are seen as frigid our cruel. It seems that our evaluation of this author's writing depended on the degree to which she exhibited certain characterstically female traits.

The profile of this author that we read during class demonstrated a similarly gendered perspective. The journalist described the criticism this author has received: words like "self-confident" apparently have a negative connotation when describing a woman. The profile detailed the author's self-absorption, dedication to her craft, and narcissim (a rare trait among artists, apparently, or perhaps just rare among female artists), as if all these qualities detracted from her fiction, or, at the very least, indicated flaws in her character. In a desperate attempt to salvage the author's reputation, the reviewer listed compliments from the author's friends, who describe her as "humble," "generous," and "modest." Well, thank goodness, because for a second it looked like this author was threatening to break out of the stereotype of the demure female, refuse to play coy, and conduct herself in an assertive fashion that can only be labeled "bitchy" (a word that was not used but that haunted the written profile and our class discussion).

I am so tired of these confining gender roles, and I am even more tired of strong, assertive women being called "bitches," or of strong, assertive women restraining and modulating themselves so as to avoid that insult. It's funny - or, really, not so funny - that at an academic institution like Yale, a place teeming with smart, strong, confident women, this sterotype persists.

The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same

It seems that at least once a year, the YDN publishes an article about gendered inequities in academia. This year's installment appeared in Friday's paper. The headline read "Female profs still paid less," and the body of the article detailed the ways in which female professors at Yale earn less money than male professors at every level from junior faculty up through tenured professor. Even more troubling, it appears that the payment gap between male and female professors at Yale is larger than the salary gaps between the genders at Stanford, Columbia, Duke and MIT. To top it all off, the number of tenured women on Yale's faculty is nowhere near the number of tenured men, a trend that runs throughout the Ivy League.

As someone with dreams of someday being a university professor, I find these statistics disheartening and extremely frustrating. I feel like I read the same thing year after year without seeing any significant changes. Yes, Yale has hired a few more women, such as the physicists mentioned in the article, but these hirings don't represent systemic changes that get to the heart of the problems facing women in academia. And I don't feel that we're on the cusp of change, either. Prof. Shankar suggests, in a somewhat patronizing manner, that the number of female undergraduates foreshadow an increase in female professors, but I'm not sure whether his timing is right. We're not in the wake of coeducation anymore; women have been attending college in large numbers for decades. Although there is an equal ratio of male to female undergraduates, this ration changes in graduate school and changes even further at the professional level. I think that some undergraduates feel daunted by the problems facing women in academia and eschew this line of work.

There is absolutely no reason I can think of why a female associate professor should make less than a male associate professor. Many argue that the pay gap simply reflects the tenure gap (a problem in and of itself), but this study seems to indicate that the inequality in men's and women's salary isn't necessarily linked to the fact that the university has fewer women on its faculty than man. Indeed, it appears that women still don't recieve equal pay for equal work, and the workplace of the university is no exception. For some reason, I find this salary discrepancy in academia almost hypocritical, since these are institutions that promote the values of equality and justice and that supposedly operate on a merit-based system.

At the same time, I don't want to push for a system that looks at "merit" alone and turns a blind eye to the complicated relations between gender, family, and work. The tenure problem is a perfect example of the need to revamp an essentially patriarchal system in light of women's rise in the academic world. Female faculty at Yale often fail to achieve tenure, partially because of the opacity of the tenure review process and the almost incestuous nature of the review committee, but also because of simple biological facts. As my advisor is fond of saying, "for women, the biological clock is the same as the tenure clock;" that is, the years that you are supposed to be writing and researching and publishing are the same years that you are getting pregnant, if you choose, and raising young children. The simultaneous responsibilities of teaching, researching, and child-rearing make it incredibly difficult to achieve tenure. I believe that universities need to take this problem into account and provide better child care, among other services, for its female faculty. Kate Ott's call for "creative solutions" is a call that Yale must heed.

Hook-Up Culture at Yale

I just want to let you all know about an (awesome) event happening at the Women's Center next Wednesday at 9pm in (loose) reaction to the Brett Sokolow event that Adda and I discussed. It will be a discussion about hooking-up at Yale with Indian food from Zaroka. I'm not sure exactly what I expect/want out of this event--but it will be a safe space to mull over issues we all struggled to deal with and to (maybe) take action. I expect to see you all there.

Drunk Sex or Date Rape? Responses

Basha weighs in:

When Brett Sokolow, JD, came to speak last Thursday night about drunken sex and date rape, I must admit I attended more out of a sense of obligation than genuine curiosity.

Sokolow proceeded to relate the facts of a case, and then ask the students and faculty present to vote guilty or not guilty. While I had rightly expected discord amongst those present, I did not anticipate my own ambivalence. Legally it seemed the man in question was guilty of rape, but morally? Maybe just poor judgement. His punishment seemed disproportionate: 18 mos. in prison + lifelong registration as a sex offender? The man lost his job and education prospects because a drunk girl woke up the next morning, didn't remember having sex with him and was very unhappy about it. At the same time, she had consumed the equivalent of 15-20 shots (at his behest) while he remained basically sober. Any reasonable person should know she couldn't consent, right?

Honestly, I don't know -- one person's funny story of a drunken Saturday night is another's nightmare. How do you tell the difference and what should the consequences be?

I think a large part of the problem is that we don't seem to have the proper vocabulary or perhaps comfort level to talk about what happens to us and to express what we are comfortable doing or not doing?

Adda weighs in:

I totally agree with Basha in that, legally speaking I did find the defendant guilty of rape--the girl in question had had way too much to drink to be able to consent, evidenced, if nothing else, by her having blacked out. Unfortunately, its also true what Basha said, which is that so much of this case depended on things specific to their respective personalities--another, more sexually experienced woman might not have charged the defendant with rape. The point being that at the end of the day it often comes down, not to objective facts, but the experience of each person involved. In this case, the accuser felt like her drunken state, and lack of ability to make a reasoned decision, or fight back, was taken advantage of.

And although I truly believe in the importance of respecting and believing women who feel that they have been raped, I do wonder whether such circumstances are enough to warrant the sorts of penalties they can carry--its a tragedy that the defendant will now forever have to register as a sex offender.

What this leads me to wonder is whether or not we should lump all sexual assault crimes together, or whether the law, and society should actively acknowledge that there is an enormous grey area and that crimes that fall into that grey area should be handled differently? In other words, I want to believe in the inherent goodness of most men, and I want to believe that good men can make poor decisions, but that does not mean that they are morally corrupt, or dangerous to all women-kind. Instead, I think it behooves us to create a well structured system that addresses what causes men in such ambiguous situations to take advantage of the situation, rather then respect the female and her right to protect her body. Why do men feel entitled to sex? Is it purely hormonal, or is it conditioned by our society that encourages men to want sex all the time?

What is interesting to me though is that of my friends who can remember their assaults, they have talked about how during the assault they felt totally invisible, or like anything they said or did was falling on deaf ears. What this indicates to me is that during most sexual assaults men dehumanize the victim to the extent that its totally irrelevant what his or her feelings are in the moment--their sexual desire, or desire for power, conquers all. It also suggests that assaulters care so little about the feelings of the victim, that after the fact the assaulter would never register the event as an assault. I think that sort of dehumanizing is obviously incredibly problematic and speaks of deepseated misogyny on the part of the assailant. Unfortunately, in this case, the victim couldn't remember having sex, and is therefore incapable of telling us what the defendant acted like in the moment.

Perhaps instead of jail sentences, men should undergo major counseling. But maybe something like this can't be solved that easily, and the only answer is to change our culture so that men and women don't don't internalize such misogyny.

Maggie weighs in:

I wish I had made it to this talk; it's such an important discussion.

I understand what Basha and Adda are saying about the punishment being disproportionate to the crime in the case study, or at least disproportionately harsh when you consider the intentions of the male student. That being said, I don't feel an inordinate amount of sympathy for this guy. I think men, especially male college students, need to be aware of the consent laws in their state and know the role of alcohol in this legal context. If you know that a woman can't give consent when she is drunk, then it's probably in your best interests to not have sex with her, even if she is the one initiating the hookup.

I think that men should be as aware of the possibility of rape as women are. Rape is a constant threat that changes the way women conduct themselves. It changes what neighborhoods we live in, how late we stay at the library, with whom we socialize and how we interact with these people. Before we come to college, many of us hear the same warnings: always pour your own drinks at parties, don't go anywhere alone with a guy you don't know, etc. My point is that rape is a part of a woman's consciousness, but as far as I can tell, it's not something most guys think about, or at least it's not something they think about as much as women do. To be honest, I'm kind of envious of college guys because they haven't had to worry about keeping their wits about them when they go out. I don't think that such ignorance or obliviousness on the part of men is fair or productive. Why is the onus on the woman to "not put herself in a bad situation?" Why shouldn't men operate on the same principle and avoid situations like the one described in the above case?

In short, why should only women be responsible for stopping rape? In recent years, groups of men have become more active in preventing sexual assault. The national group Men Can Stop Rape and the undergraduate organization NO MORE (a group dedicated to involving men in discussions about rape and sexual violence) are too great examples of the growing number of men who are taking responsibility for their role in sexual violence prevention. I think that when men begin to be more conscious of their role in rape prevention, there will be fewer situations like the one Sokolow discussed.

The Black Widow

On Tuesday all of Yale College received the following email from YSAC:

YSAC Presents: S’Wings Wing Fling

Ever wanted to put your eating skills to the test? Join YOUR residential college team!

This year at the Yale-Princeton Tailgate on Nov. 11th the colleges will compete.
5-person teams of 4 guys and 1 girl, going at it for 10 minutes to determine eternal glory.

Can you bring your college the awesome trophy?

We here at Broad Recognition forwarded this email amongst ourselves and discussed whether or not we thought it was sexist. I want to preface the following by saying that at the end of the day, my goal is not to eradicate sexism in competitive eating--I am not sure that its an area of sports in need to particular attention. That said, I do think its important to note how we as a culture totally take sexist stereotypes for granted and I think its important that we point out the basic fallacies that these stereotypes rest on.

So allow me to introduce you to the Black Widow. Sonya Thomas is a petite Korean woman who loves to win competitive eating contests. She holds the world record in asparagus eating, as well as in the divisions of cheesecake, eggs, jambalaya, and a host of other random food groups. At 105 lb she is the second ranked competitive eater in the United States and third in the world.

The point being that winning at competitive eating has little to do with sex or size (in fact, this wikipedia article suggests that Sonya's petite stature may put her at an advantage) and is instead all about drive, sheer force of will, and the willingness to stuff oneself with an enormous amount of a designated food product. So though I acknowledge that more men may want to eat themselves silly on wings, a four male to one female rule does nothing in terms of giving the teams a fair playing field, nor does it enhance the teams. Its simply a rule based on outdated, disproven, sexist reasoning.

SPOTLIGHT: Holla Back NYC

This summer I listened to a really interesting interview Brian Lehrer did for WNYC, New York Public Radio with the two founders of the website Holla Back NYC.

In short, a year or so ago a group of four women and three men got together and started a website called Holla Back Nyc, with the mission that "Holla Back NYC empowers New Yorkers to Holla Back at street harassers. Whether you're commuting, lunching, partying, dancing, walking, chilling, drinking, or sunning, you have the right to feel safe, confident, and sexy, without being the object of some turd's fantasy. So stop walkin' on and Holla Back: Send us pics of street harassers!" The website was inspired by a young woman who took a photograph of a famous local restauranteur exposing himself on a subway, which was reprinted in local newspapers.

Holla Back NYC offers local New Yorkers the opportuntity to post photos of people who harass them on the street or in other public places, such as subways, buses, parks, etc. and tell their story. Recently, they have expanded to websites that offer the same space for sharing stories of street harassment in DC, Texas, Boston, Canada and Europe. They also offer their email address and encourage people to send photos of perpetrators directly from their cell phones to the website. Additionally, the website tracks pending criminal cases of people charged with public lewdness. It also offers browsers links to tons of legal, activist and social service resources, and links to women friendly organizations all over the five boroughs.

What I found particularly impressive about this project was that the founders of Holla Back NYC are also very conscious of how race plays into sexual politics. Their website includes a great section outlining their policy about how race be discussed. In a nutshell, in light of how often men of color are stigmatized as being sexual predators, Holla Back NYC forbids people who write in from referencing the race of their predator, unless it is overwhelming relevant to the story. As they say, "Replacing sexism with racism is not a proper holla back. Due in part to prevalent stereotypes of men of color as sexual predators or predisposed to violence, HollaBackNYC asks that contributors do not discuss the race of harassers or include other racialized commentary." They then link to "Further Reading" on anti-racism, including (my all-time favorite), Peggy Macintosh's "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack." (Which you should all read.)

The awesomeness of this project, coupled with how amazing the two founders (a man and a woman) who spoke on Brian Lehrer's show were, has inspired me to establish a special section of this blog that will highlight amazing feminists doing amazingly feminist things--especially those projects that are a little off the beaten path. For now we will start by highlighting people outside of Yale, but hopefully we will include some awesome past and present Yalies to the ranks.