The second sex speaks up

I’m a “give ’em the benefit of the doubt,” “glass half-full” kind of kid. So, last spring I initially wanted to shrug off the results of the Steering Committee on Undergraduate Women’s Leadership report. I thought it was just picking up on the residual impact of centuries of inequality; we were clearly impacted by it, but Princetonians themselves were not necessarily creating it. Unfortunately, a look at this fall’s Class of 2015 elections has brought about a change of heart. I don’t believe we’re creating the gender gap in leadership. But neither do we seem to be overcoming it.

To begin with, look at the numbers. Out of nine candidates for class president, only one was a woman. Conversely, every student running for secretary was female. As the elections manager read off these statistics at this weekend’s USG meeting, the entire room exchanged glances of unease. And rightly so: These figures remind us that — contrary to what Princetonians love to believe — we are not achieving some higher standard. We are not raising the bar. We are mirroring a dominant trend, present since the beginning of recorded history. “In the nation’s service,” my ass.

Then, let’s look at the runoff between two male candidates for social chair. In order to get that final push of votes, one made a YouTube campaign video. Allow me to explain the video: The freshman is sitting in a leather armchair wearing a bathrobe and holding a drink. He addresses the camera and announces his candidacy. Then, a girl wearing only boxers and a men’s button down shirt enters — the boy shoots her a glance in annoyance. The girl seats herself on his armchair, flips her long, blonde hair and whines, “Come back,” to which he shakes her off, saying, “I’ll be back in a second.” She exits, and then he looks back at the camera, shakes his head and rolls his eyes as if to say, “That silly bitch.”

You have got to be kidding me. I cannot fathom how someone intelligent, engaged and socially aware enough to get into this university could ever think something like this was acceptable. I understand the line — though frequently toed — between sexism and humor. You can drop a good sandwich joke and I’ll laugh; I’m probably even the first to throw one back. But this video plows past that line. It seems to not only say, “My qualification for being elected is my virility,” but also, “My importance and superiority is clear because I can score and then blow this girl off.” And though we may think anything in the name of humor is okay — “we don’t really think women are incapable” — simply in its use, the joke reinforces the stereotypes that discourage women from seeking high-profile positions.

I’m going to assume this kid didn’t mean any harm nor to devalue or subjugate his female peers. But his lack of consideration highlights a real problem. So, regardless of the boy’s intent, I am saying this: We at Princeton are a privileged bunch — we are expected to become leaders and to have the ability to create change. We ought to use this expectation to benefit the world and to hold ourselves to that higher standard, in earnest and in jest. Because there is no reason a Princeton woman should be less likely, or believe herself less capable, to run for an elected position than a Princeton man.

Last spring, Princeton published the Undergraduate Women’s Leadership report and hosted the “She Roars” conference, celebrating 50 years of women’s enrollment. In the months after, two alumni issued charges against our university. Neither were concerned with specific statistics; both were challenging the prevailing social attitudes on campus. Lisa Belkin wrote in the New York Times: “Men set the pace, made the rules and acted as they had in the days when women were still ‘less than’”; and Tina deVaron wrote in The Christian Science Monitor: “College campuses can no longer afford to be complicit in this culture. Women — and men — need to take a stand to change the language, the behaviors, the relationships, the clubs and the institutions that allow it.” Months later, we can show no progress toward these goals; in fact, our transgressions seem all the worse when we frame them in this context.

There’s a passage from Simone de Beauvoir’s “The Second Sex,” where she uses the phrase “the caste of the privileged.” She believes — and I’m inclined to support her — that to be able to change the world, you must first feel a sense of ownership toward it. You must be in the caste of the privileged, meaning to believe yourself important, respected, capable. We at Princeton, men and women, are most certainly in this group — and so “in the nation’s service, and the service of all nations,” we must step up against the use of stereotypes and thoughtless comments. Such flippancy is clearly creating a negative impact and contributing not only to the undeniable gender gap in leadership but also to a campus culture colored by gendered norms.

Lily Alberts is an economics major from Nashville, Tenn. She can be reached at lalberts@princeton.edu.