Women's liberation and feminism are practically ancient terms, yet the words "Women's Initiative" show us just how much work needs to be done at Duke regarding gender. If women's issues are just being evaluated and "initiated" now, what position are we in as a University? Not to say that we are very far behind other institutions--our position clearly reflects the state of U.S. society. We live in a state of patriarchy no matter what we try to tell ourselves.
We call ourselves feminists because we support women gaining social and political leverage in society and having careers usually dominated by men. Most women at Duke are working towards a career of some sort. We are on our way to being financially successful, rising to positions of power and dominance without turning back. On the surface, the gender divide is lessened by the fact that women are in college, have careers and are financially independent.
Actually being immersed in that process reveals the inherent problems with the way that we view and accept the system in which we work. As the Women's Initiative shows, there are numerous problems at Duke that are just beginning to get addressed. Sexual assault, LGBT, diversity and eating disorder education for undergraduates is in the discussion stage. Perhaps the problem is not so much these individual issues, but the big picture. Why are these issues so prevalent to begin with, and why are we still dealing with the same issues that we were decades ago?
Since the onslaught of feminism, women have been trying to gain status within male hierarchy. By entering traditionally male fields of work, we are not overcoming any forms of oppression, we are appropriating them. Of course, my argument is not that we should return to the ways of the 1950s; instead we need to recognize that if we continue to try to work within patriarchy we are only going to adopt patriarchy in our lives.
We are studying at Duke to succeed based on how success is defined in a patriarchal, capitalist society. If we succeed according to these norms, we are simply accepting and adopting this system, and pretending that we are succeeding in overcoming women's oppression. As statistics can show, only a select group of middle class, straight, white women are climbing the social ladder. Race, class and gender stratifies women, and those at the top are now incorporated into male-dominated elite, living and working by the same rules. Sexism and all forms of chauvinism cannot be solved by women incorporating patriarchy into their own lives.
The Women's Initiative states that "women feel like they play by the men's rules." Shocking. The reason we are at Duke is because of the men's rules. To view ourselves as successful, we often sacrifice our social and emotional well-being, and we must be at once career-minded, academically ambitious, maternal, beautiful and sexual. These might be our ideals, but we did not create them. We are trying to live as equals within a system that was created and defined by straight, white, men.
In addition to our careers, we also want families, and envision our lives as the perfect balance of both mother and CEO, mother and doctor, or mother and engineer. We'll either take off a few years to raise a family, hire a housekeeper (ahem, a woman) or find a child care center. But we know that the burden of dealing with this falls on our shoulders, even if we pass off raising our children to another woman in a lower status than us. You didn't think that all women were being included in this liberation, or initiative, did you?
Let's look at the country's new symbol of masculinity and power: Arnold Schwarzenegger. On Monday, there was a Chronicle staff editorial, "Give Arnold a Chance" which encouraged us evaluate Schwarzenegger rationally despite the fact that he recently admitted to sexually harassing at least fifteen women. The majority of editors of our newspaper see no problem with ignoring sexual harassment? Schwarzenegger said, as quoted in the New York Times, he just "behaved badly sometimes." This definitely involves his politics because it clearly takes a certain ideology to sexual harass women. He sees nothing wrong in it, and is not afraid to publicly pass off his behavior as "dirty politics" and "yellow journalism." If a female politician ever appeared to be sexually promiscuous or had cheated on her husband, she would be scourged as a slut or a bitch.
Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote about different standards for women and men in the 1800s. Today, we still brand women with an A and men with a pat on the back. And no matter how much initiative we take, nothing will change if we think we can incorporate ourselves into this male-dominated society.
Even women continue to support Schwarzenegger despite this, and we look to Maria Shriver standing beside him as a loyal wife. She is a symbol of a successful woman, balancing beauty, financial success, her Kennedy legacy and family: an American princess. She appears so liberated, keeping her last name and her own career. Of course, she will not publicly criticize her husband, just as Hillary Clinton and Vanessa Bryant stood behind their husbands. The public looked up to them for making that sacrifice, or did not see it as a sacrifice at all.
Women are constantly put into situations of domination, and act out against that by entering the male world of dominating others in professional endeavors, or assume submissiveness. Whether we call it success, initiative or female liberation does not matter all that much if we are still playing by the male rules.
Emily LaDue is a Trinity sophomore. Her column appears every other Wednesday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.