 "Photo: Ryan Littman Quinn, Ryan Killiany, and Michael Saldarriaga")
Calling women bitches, sluts, whores, and worse is dangerously commonplace in Generation Y. In fact, it is unusual to find someone on campus who doesn't use this language either in seriousness or jokingly. Half of our population is being judged more severely than the other half at progressive institutions. Universities used to be the bastions of broad-minded thinking; and after the second wave of feminism, professors and students alike were very careful about using inclusive language, such as "first-year" instead of "freshman" and "humankind" instead of "mankind."
Akash Tharani, student in Introduction to Feminisms this semester and A&S '09, says, "Plenty of people are feminists but don't call themselves that." One could argue that actions speak louder than words, but what is wrong with a generation that cannot even formally acknowledge its feminist leanings - cannot even speak the word that defines gender equality? Something is holding young women (as well as young men) back.
There is a powerful sentiment that feminism is not needed any longer - not surprising when we consider that the beginning of the second wave of feminism is long behind us. Matt McCluskey, a another student in Introduction to Feminisms and LSOE '10, says "Feminism is not seen as an issue anymore because the gains that women have made in the workplace, etc. have made it seem like a non-issue. They say 'oh, well women are CEOs, doctors, and lawyers now, so, it looks like everything has been accomplished." But, as any feminist will tell you, the fight is not over. If all is achieved, then we have nothing to strive for anymore; there are many who are happy with their current status.
As Sharlene Hesse-Biber, head of the women's studies department, says: "You can say the glass is half empty or half full, but no matter how you cut it, it's half there."
Indeed, the most dangerous part of today's sexism is its masked, lurking presence. Writers like Ariel Levy, author of Female Chauvinist Pigs, point to examples like Hugh Hefner's "playmates," some of whom justify their positions of subordination by using language that emphasizes freedom of the body and choice. Abigail Brooks, professor of Introduction to Feminisms, disagrees saying, "Some women may use language of empowerment and choice to engage in these self-exploitative behaviors."
Brooks expresses discontent with the stark contrasts between the information she was receiving in the early 1990s, during her own college years, and the messages young women and men are receiving today from peers and the media. She explains, "You would have been so called out on it if you said 'slut' when I was in college. Guys liked to call themselves feminists; now it could not be more the opposite." As males on BC's campus, Tharani and McCluskey agree that there is a fear of being perceived as homosexual here. One way to push one's self in that direction would be to bring up women's issues.
Tharani occasionally brings up things he has learned in class to his female friends, who ask: "Why are you telling us about women's issues?" He believes that sexism is "deeply internalized by women, and one way this idea surfaces is through the fact that the ones being oppressed do not fully understand the issues, so men don't feel that those conversations need to come up - if women aren't even concerned."
McCluskey agrees wholeheartedly: "Men aren't allowed to be feminists, because it is viewed as a female issue where men do not have space because they cannot empathize." Hyper-masculinity provides a very narrow and dangerous view of sexuality for the 18- to 22-year-old crowd, which is now discovering itself in terms of gender and sexuality.
Theme party names, like "golf pros and tennis hoes," seem harmless, but this is only if one underestimates the power of language in dehumanization and the internalization of sexism. Brooks explained that there used to be a critical lens through which people looked at language as something that had strong effects. She mentioned that her college boyfriend was actually the one raising her own feminist consciousness and that this played a factor in how popular or well-liked someone was. It is very disturbing to her that young women are "exploiting themselves to this degree and co-opting the language of liberal feminism" while they do it.
This is obvious with anything from the pervasive use of non-inclusive language to the evolution of the Halloween costume from scary to scarier. Brooks emphasizes that, in her generation, "you would be shamed out of any party if you wore a playboy bunny costume or anything sexually exploitative." Where has a feminist consciousness as a part of a normal, socially aware life fled for young men and women, and why does it feel so hard to reach?
Many feminists say the answer would be plain fear. What does it mean to be a white male in a society heading in a new direction for women? Hesse-Biber says, "It means that privilege that males have is at stake. There's a perception that feminism is going to eat at male privilege, but why not? Why is that a bad idea and why is that kind of social justice not OK?" She stresses the fact that feminists are not man-haters.
This misconception can only hurt the feminist movement. Feminists are not of one kind, and no one can spot one by just looking or by taking into consideration one specific stance a person has. Women who hate all men are not feminists, and those who want to tip the scale in the opposite direction are not feminists either.
Feminism is about men's rights, too. Equal relationships benefit both sides. Hesse-Biber agrees with that fact, and adds that men are absolutely not the enemies, but she believes that feminism is "pointing to the structures of a society that are perpetuating a socialization of gender that is unbelievably binary. Men suffer under the regime; they don't spend as much time with their families - they are supposed to be out making a lot of money. They don't do things that deal with their emotions. Feminists want strong families. They want men to be fathers, too, and they don't want it to be considered women's work."
Gender as biologically constructed is part of the conservative backlash to some of the strides women have made. The biological essentialist argument is exactly what perpetuates gender inequalities, because how can we fight nature, biology, even God? The young women of today are, in so many ways, better off than their mothers, and we must remember this. But, if we look at pure statistics relating to rape, domestic violence, and the pay gap, it is obvious that we are not there yet. It does not take a lot of effort to do a quick Internet search and find that the domestic violence rate in Massachusetts has tripled since 2005 or to discover that one in four college women will be a victim of rape or attempted rape (and one in 20 men will be jailed). Just as Obama's historic win does not mean less need for affirmative action, we cannot look at sexism as dead because women can vote, go to school alongside men, and have more professional opportunities than ever before.
Although this younger generation has not personally experienced grand scale inequity, nuanced discrimination on college campuses and everywhere is still traumatic. The result of the fear of women's progression is horrifying. Women are called "bitches" when they become too powerful, "sluts" when they experiment, and "prude" if they don't. Many college-aged women are in a bind, and there is not too much dialogue going on about it, causing some to suffer inner dilemmas, such as one junior, who prefers to stay anonymous: "A lot of guys see me as strong ... but in a bad way. So, sometimes I really want to act like the opposite of strong and curl up and let the man dominate but, then I'm like, 'that is so wrong!' I feel like it sometimes is so much easier to not be, because that's not how people want you to be. Like when you are feminist, other people feel like you are challenging their own philosophy and almost attacking them when you aren't - you are just trying to let them also realize and come to their own consciousness [of gender]."
Brooks thinks that we are seeing a "conservative era in terms of gender and ideas … more than the 1970s when you look at children's role models. With the deregulation of the media and commercialization, we see the rise of raunch culture as well as more intense gendered behavior. In college, Brooks remembers all of the women talking about keeping their own names instead of taking their husband's. She had both of her parents walk her down the aisle and "give her away," because she did not just belong to her father to give away. She believes that today there is a sense of "created traditionalism." We are trying to retain an ideal that never existed and are trying to emulate a past that is a figment of our imagination, in some ways.
The wedding culture we see today, especially as depicted in the media on shows like Bridezilla, is very new. That is not tradition. Brooks' mother had a short dress and a party, not a lavish reception, and not everyone at that time got engagement rings, whereas today that is an expected part of marriage and proposal (only from the male). Traditionally, the decision to marry was a discussion between individuals rather than a hyped up, down-on-one-knee proposal.
So, the question is: How did this regression happen after such great progress in women's rights? Does pointing the finger at certain groups hinder any chance for future gender equality - and is that even possible? It is absolutely possible once the notion of real feminism is understood. It is important to speak up when you see something wrong, in order to not be a part of the problem. Can we expect anyone to swim against the current in a culture that has normalized sexism to such a degree?
Be the first to comment on this article!