Features

Selective Memory: The Historical Underrepresentation of Women at Harvard

No Comments 14 March 2009

By Tyler Brandon and Lucy Caplan

This past September, the class of 2012 stepped through the Harvard gates for the first time, feeling the university’s history weigh upon their every step. In their excitement, they could easily name over a dozen famous alumni to impress their friends, their relatives, and themselves- from historic figures including JFK, FDR, Robert Frost, Ted Kennedy, and Ralph Waldo Emerson to more recent graduates including Bill Gates, Al Gore, Conan O’Brien, Michael Crichton, Matt Damon, and even Mark Zuckerberg.

If you haven’t noticed a problem with this list, look again. Where are the women? The role of women in Harvard’s past is one aspect of Harvard’s history that goes continually and consistently unacknowledged. When asked for examples of famous alumna, several students realized that they could name only Natalie Portman. There is not a lack of accomplished female graduates, but their history has been overlooked from the beginning of Radcliffe College. Although Radcliffe women did not enjoy the same privileges as their male counterparts, they too pursued great careers and made stunning achievements. So where on the list is Gertrude Stein? Maxime Kumin? Benazir Bhutto?

Flashback again to Freshman Week. “You’re ugly!” “Die!” screamed enthused Crimson Key Society members during the annual Freshman Week screening of “Love Story.” “You fat b*****!” they yelled passionately at the film’s leading lady, the Radcliffe student Jennifer Cavalleri. While many freshmen were initially shocked and uncomfortable with the sexist humor, they quickly relaxed and joined in the laughter. In under ten minutes, the historical image of the Harvard woman was diminished, albeit comically, to that of a superficial, unattractive, and incompetent student. As funny and harmless as the Crimson Key’s original soundtrack may seem, it is disturbing that today’s satire was once, to a considerable extent, a reality.

Radcliffe College was founded in 1879 “to furnish instruction and the opportunities of collegiate life to women and to promote their higher education.” Named after Ann Radcliffe, an Englishwoman who created the first scholarship fund in 1643, Radcliffe was physically and figuratively separated from Harvard College for the first several decades of its existence. From 1879 to 1943 Harvard professors traveled to the Radcliffe Quad to replicate lectures they had already given to their male students. For the better part of the twentieth century, women studied at the Radcliffe Quad, an area intentionally built far away from the male students on the Harvard campus. In 1943, the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences assumed responsibility for the education of all Radcliffe students, and in 1946 most courses became coeducational. However, the playing field remained far from level. It wasn’t until 1967 that women were allowed to enter Lamont Library because the administration was concerned that co-ed stacks would sidetrack male students from their studies. In 1972, women were finally welcomed into Harvard dorms, and three years later an equal-access admissions policy was implemented and the admissions offices were combined. Over a century after Radcliffe College’s creation, Harvard and Radcliffe united to create one formal institution on September 14, 1999.

Although the 1999 merger appeared to officially mark the end of institutional gender differences at Harvard, reality tells a vastly different story. While the changes of the second half of the twentieth century marked considerable advancement toward gender equality, they were not indicators of universal progress.

For example, Patricia Albjerg Graham became Harvard’s first female dean when she was appointed Dean of the Graduate School of Education. Because she was a woman, however, she was denied the privilege of entering the Faculty Club through the front door. This story cannot be relegated to the status of a distant memory; Graham was appointed in 1981.

In the twenty-eight years since, of course, times have changed.

The appointment of women to so many prominent posts in Harvard’s administration represents a marked shift, and one that has occurred mainly within the last five years. The 2007 appointment of Drew Faust as President was certainly a milestone for women at Harvard. Formerly Dean of the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, Faust oversaw the 2005 Harvard Task Forces on Women Faculty and on Women in Science and Engineering, and has worked to decrease the gender gap since. Evelynn Hammonds is Dean of Harvard College, Kathleen McCartney is Dean of the Graduate School of Education, and just this month, Cherry A. Murray was named Dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. Also, until her recent appointment as Solicitor General, Elena Kagan served as Dean of the Law School. In addition, every Vice Presidency at Harvard has been held or is currently held by a woman.

Women comprise 56% of the undergraduate student body, and are on track to receive over 60% of the university’s master degrees and almost half of the doctoral degrees.

The progress that has been made has been celebrated, and rightfully so. But while these achievements are commendable, they are not representative of larger-scale, university-wide progress. Despite the presence of women in several prominent roles, the average percentage of women across Harvard’s entire faculty is thirty-two percent. The gender gap is present at every level of the faculty. Forty-four percent of lecturers are women, the highest percentage of any group. The percentage diminishes at higher levels, and only twenty percent of tenured faculty university-wide are women.

Surprisingly, even these low percentages represent substantial recent increases. Twenty years ago, only seven percent of tenured faculty were women. While that percentage has increased since, its progress has not been smooth. The discrepancy between male and female professors did not diminish consistently over time, but rather escalated under the watch of President Lawrence H. Summers. In 2004, twenty-six female faculty members signed a letter informing Summers that since he took office in 2001, the number of tenure offers for female faculty decreased from thirty-seven percent to eleven percent. The letter claimed that only four of the thirty-six tenure offers made in 2003 were to women. Although those numbers are somewhat disputed, they nonetheless highlighted an urgent and critical need to make the hiring of female faculty a priority.

The current percentages of female faculty at Harvard are similar to those at its peer institutions. However, while Harvard falls comfortably in line with peer institutions, it is rarely a leader in the field. Only in the Business School and in FAS Social Sciences does Harvard place first among its peers with respect to tenure-track female faculty percentages.

Within Harvard, the gender gap varies widely across different schools (see chart). The gap is greatest in the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences and the Business School, where only eleven percent and twenty-two percent of faculty are female, respectively. FAS shares the university-wide average of thirty-two percent. Only in the School of Education do women comprise more than half of the faculty, where fifty-four percent are women. Interestingly, the School of Education’s student body is also nearly eighty percent women.

women_graph

Of course, numbers alone cannot tell the whole story of women’s experience at Harvard. Not only are women vastly underrepresented as faculty, but as a group they are also less positive regarding their experience at the university. A 2008 “climate survey” by the Office for Faculty Development and Diversity revealed that among faculty respondents, “Women are less satisfied than men with Harvard and their individual schools.” The survey concluded, “Tenured and tenure-track women find their departments to be less of a good fit than their male counterparts do.” While these findings are extremely broad in scope, they are indicative to some extent of a pervasive sense of gender inequality among faculty.

At a recent event entitled “At the Cusp of Change: Women Leaders at Harvard,” sponsored by the Harvard College Women’s Center and the Office of Faculty Development and Diversity, the mood was upbeat yet serious. The speakers acknowledged that although women’s presence in the administration has improved significantly, individual appointments are not an indicator of systemic change. Drew Faust’s position as Harvard’s first female president is certainly an important step both practically and symbolically, but it neither negates nor excuses the fact that four out of every five tenured faculty are men.

While women’s sparse representation among tenured faculty is problematic in itself, the lack of public knowledge surrounding the issue is equally startling. During “At the Cusp of Change,” moderator Barbara Kellerman, a lecturer in public leadership at the Kennedy School, asked the audience what percentage of tenured faculty university-wide are women. No one knew the answer. If such knowledge is absent from a self-selected group of mostly of female students concerned with women’s leadership at Harvard, there is an obvious dearth of active campus-wide discussion on this issue.

As Audre Lorde writes in her essay collection Sister Outsider, “In a world of possibility for us all, our personal visions help lay the groundwork for political action.” Though women remain underrepresented at Harvard, the university has made significant improvements and has shown its potential to be a “world of possibility.” With the help of continued discussion and proactive efforts by both students and administrators, Harvard can continue to move toward becoming a truly equal environment for men and women.

Features

A Group By Any Other Name: The Name Change from BGLTSA to QSA and Why It Matters

No Comments 14 March 2009

By Christian Garland

As a gay man, it isn’t difficult for me to conjure experiences in which my marginalization has been made more apparent than usual. It can be something as simple as a feeling of discomfort or something so profoundly incapacitating as a feeling of Otherness. To be honest, in a society in which the dominant culture routinely exercises its power over the different/non-normative/subordinate minority populations, the interpellation of difference is not out of the ordinary. And often, that interpellation – that calling out – takes the form of a pejorative insult. Last summer, as I walked through the Tercentenary Theater, two (tall and white) undergraduates approached me and with the simple shout of “Queer!”, I was named as an Other.

While the experience was shocking (Overt homophobia at Harvard post-1990? How unreal!), it wasn’t the word that got me. A word is merely a combination of sounds that produces an understanding of the speaker’s intention. When the undergraduate in Tercentenary Theater spoke, “queer” became the vehicle for his assertion of my difference. The flaw in his attack, however, was his assumption that difference represents, to me and everyone like me, a regression from the norm. To the contrary, I experience my difference, my “queerness,” as liberating: a full-throated acceptance of divergence and a rejection of normative principles. I experience and use “queer” as the perfect vehicle for that declaration of difference, that freedom from compulsory socialization.

To be sure, not everyone feels or thinks the same way. In some parts of the country, I’m sure that I would constitute a minority within the minority: a “radical homosexual” intent upon destroying our purported sameness with heterosexuals. I understand that the word “queer” retains much of its negative impact. However antiquated and unfashionable, and no matter its origins within the urban gay communities of the early 20th century, it retains its punch as an assertion of subordination and of strangeness.

It wasn’t surprising, then, that the proposal to change the name of the Harvard-Radcliffe Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgendered, and Supporters’ Alliance (more commonly, the BGLTSA) to the Harvard College Queer Students and Allies (more commonly, the QSA) created a visible and vocal controversy within the LGBT(Q) community at Harvard.

The rationale for the name change was simple: “BGLTSA” was too long, too confusing, and too exclusive. By limiting and naming identities in the name of the organization, the BGLTSA risked excluding students for whom those named identities didn’t apply. The Board’s decision to support the name “Queer Students and Allies” rested upon the now common re-appropriation of the word “queer” as a lexical umbrella that, through its ambiguity, creates a theoretical and practical space for non-normative identities across a spectrum of practices and desires. By employing “queer,” the organization hoped that it could include members of the community who had so far felt excluded.

While the resistance to the name change shouldn’t have been surprising, it caught much of the Board off guard. Few members of the community submitted suggestions during the two-week submission period, and most of those submissions utilized “queer” in their names. However, the past (and, while diminished, present) usage of the word in pejorative and hateful contexts catalyzed a vocal protest on the BGLTSA’s open list. The inclusion of the word in the proposed name, some protestors claimed, effectively enshrined the “strangeness” of non-normative sexualities; it would recapitulate the culture wars of the 1960s, ignite a conflagration of confused and debased identities, and muddy the ever-clearer waters of LGBT rights groups. More than anything, it would provide justification and credence for the epithets written in the normative histories of a dominant culture.

While understandable, such concerns elide the full history of the word, its current usage, and its theoretical and practical applications in an ever-fluid space. As George Chauncey documented in his landmark study of early modern gay subcultures in New York City, men who engaged in sex with other men (though not always exclusively) called themselves “queer” to indicate the non-normative structure of their desires. It was an appealing and ambiguous alternative to more resolute and precise admissions of strict homosexuality. The word began to pick up pejorative connotations in the 1930s, which thereafter intensified in the pink scare of the 1950s. Simply put, at its inception, “queer” was used not as a derogatory term, but as a vehicle of liberation, a means of suggesting self-identified difference without engaging in the thoroughly modern practice of totalizing identifications via sexual orientations.

Moreover, the word’s presence in multiple academic disciplines – and its growing acceptance among LGBT(Q) organizations on college campuses worldwide – reclaims “queer” by de-naturing it from its pejorative context and applying it to more progressive ends. “Queer Theory,” for instance, refers not to strangeness or subordination, but rather infuses the notions of non-normative sexualities with academic inquiries into their natures, causes, effects, marginalizations, oppressions, and histories. It also expands the scope of that which is studied. By claiming “queer” as its descriptive mechanism, the intellectual pursuit of theorizing human desire extends that pursuit to cover more than homo-, bi-, or hetero-sexualities to encompass a range of practices and orientations that cannot be so precisely named. In short, by “queering” all sexualities, heterosexuality comes to exist on the same plane as non-heteronormative sexualities and subject to the same locus of study. As “queerness” is studied, the queerness of compulsory heterosexuality is illuminated and, thus, its normative status undermined.

But ultimately, the organization’s name was changed to the Queer Students and Allies because a majority of poll respondents approved. Students who had never vocalized their “queerness” began to do so and those who had earlier felt excluded began to see themselves as part of a community that had respect enough for them to name them. To name something is to invest legitimacy in it. If we don’t name a certain identity, but purportedly welcome it into our organization, we necessarily undermine the agency of the unnamed identity by juxtaposing the privilege of named identities with it. In other words, unwillingly or not, “BGLTSA” created a hierarchy of identity. By saying, “you’re included, just not named,” we invested the named with a privileged importance that unnamed identities didn’t receive. And, as a self-identified gay man, I understand that “queer” doesn’t necessarily apply to me, but if it allows us to create a space in which students can identity themselves as they see fit, I’m willing to rescind my named-ness so others can have the chance to name themselves.

Features

Conquering Space: Opinions on Sex at Harvard

1 Comment 14 March 2009

By Martabel Wasserman

I think about sex all the time. More than the estimated every six seconds. When I am not thinking about sex in my own life, I am thinking about it intellectually and politically. In many ways, sex governs my life. I am a Women, Gender and Sexuality concentrator, so amazing professors and students blow my mind on pretty much a daily basis. Thinking about sex can be very, very fun. Last year, for the Female Orgasm Seminar, I got to buy $1,000 worth of dildos with money from the UC and eat cupcakes with vaginas made out of frosting. I am currently in my second year as editor-in-chief of H Bomb. I hosted a naked party, photographed a porn star, and received a box of free sex toys to review.

Yet the journey to this point was adverse and disorienting. I began thinking about sex critically after an experience I had my freshman year. The initiation hazing of a certain literary and arts magazine was more traumatic for me than a hangover. I had wanted to join the Advocate so I could talk about art with other interesting and interested people. I didn’t realize to get access to those discussions I would go through an initiation process where I was blindfolded and given lethal amounts of alcohol. I woke up vomiting to realize I had had non-consensual sex while I was blacked out. The reason I disclose this personal information, without going into painful details, is because I actively believe rape should not be shameful for women. This is not easy to do in a victim-blaming culture.

The idea of standing outside in the New England winter waiting to be judged on my appearance to determine whether I could enter a male-dominated, heterosexist space to grind with some entitled fuckers was never appealing to me. The fact that most of our social spaces on campus are old boys’ clubs that act as if there is a virtue in partaking in outdated traditions is patently absurd. What I didn’t realize until after my experience at the Advocate was that most of our social spaces are fundamentally about excluding people. Whether it be the Lampoon, the Advocate or the Spee, Harvard social life is structured around exclusivity. Our sense of community is hierarchical: men choose which women can come into the final clubs and comp processes degenerate into incongruous exercises in ego and domination. Many upperclassmen try to intimidate freshman rather than help them navigate the chaos of Harvard. The Signet makes you think you need to pay $500 a semester to meet other people interested in the arts. Just because only seven percent of people who apply to Harvard get in, we students should not continually try to replicate that high of being chosen.

This competitive hierarchy is inextricably linked to the sexual landscape of our campus. When we privilege our individual success over the health of the community, the spaces controlled by exclusive organizations become increasingly dangerous. Sexual assault happens anywhere and everywhere. I am not trying to imply that it is specific to these environments on campus. It does, however, seem far-fetched to me that someone who guards the gates of a final club would be a considerate lover or that someone who is willing to lock people in a castle for a week thinks about how to have respectful relationships. Final clubs have bedrooms. What kind of sexual experience is that designed to foster?

I know that these structures are not going to change. There is too much power in owning real estate in Harvard Square. Final clubs are not budging. The Lampoon and Advocate produce some of Harvard’s most notable alums and provide valuable space for students to express themselves. However, this must not be used as an excuse to give these institutions carte blanche. There is space and opportunity to resist normative socializing at Harvard, but it needs to be cultivated continuously in order to survive. I live at the Dudley Co-op because I feel safer socializing there than within the house system. When you choose to enter a cooperative community, you take on responsibility to your home and your community. Yet one need not be a member of the co-op to experience a positive, comfortable Harvard. Radcliffe Union of Students threw a fabulous feminist prom last spring. The Queer Students Association works to make LBGT-friendly dance parties. People smoke hookah on the steps of Widener in the spring. The Women’s Center is great for free coffee, condoms and a comfortable place to work. Phillips Brooks House is full of passionate energy and is at the heart of service and activism on campus. We have alternative social spaces that try actively to be safe, non-exclusive and fun.

H Bomb has been tremendously important to my intellectual and personal development. Everyone on H Bomb’s board busts their asses because they believe it is important to continue the dialogue on healthy spaces and sex on campus. It is a hard organization to maintain and it folded once before. H Bomb aims to redistribute agency within Harvard’s undergraduate culture. While we don’t have real estate, we have the publication to express non-normative views on sex as a political issue at the forefront of our lives.

During a freshman workshop on sexual assault this year, one girl asked of the rape scenario, “If they started having sex, why doesn’t she just let him finish?” I don’t blame her for saying something offensive on so many levels. She was simply reflecting back messages of the dominant culture. Sexual politics change through dialogue, as we learned from the conscience-raising circles of the Women’s Liberation Movement.

It is our job to confront the backlash against feminism, the commodification of gay culture and the hyper-sexuality of our culture that renders the politics of pleasure invisible. If a freshman comes into Harvard thinking that girls are selfish for not wanting to be raped, she certainly should not graduate from this fine institution still believing that. That transformation should not be contingent on her being one of the 25% of women who will be the victim of an attempted or completed sexual assault during their college career. It should be because one of the many things she learned at Harvard was about was how to respect herself and others inside and outside the bedroom.

Editorials

Γender Σquality? Sororities Are Not An Appropriate Answer to Final Clubs

3 Comments 14 March 2009

There are sororities at Harvard? I know, you may be surprised. Despite their low profile, however, the presence of sororities at Harvard is actually increasing. Currently, there are three sororities at Harvard: Kappa Alpha Theta, founded in 1992; Delta Gamma, founded in 1994; and Kappa Kappa Gamma, founded in 2003. Each is a chapter of a national sorority organization.

According to the Crimson, about 150 female freshmen rush these three sororities every year. The Harvard Panhellenic Council, which is made up of the leadership of all three sororities, oversees the process. According to a current sorority member, the rush process consists of a week of social events hosted by each sorority. The lucky few are then invited to further events by individual sororities. And if you’re not invited? You’re out. Beyond this general description, the process remains intensely secretive. Members are forbidden from talking to anyone about sorority happenings or even the sorority’s existence at all. In fact, when asked to speak about sororities for this article, three members refused to comment. The president of one sorority wrote: “I’m afraid I cannot may any comment about sororities in general or Delta Gamma at Harvard at this time.” She did offer to release a statement, but Perspective had yet to receive it at the time of publication.

Why join a sorority? Proponents of sororities claim that they provide a new, noncompetitive opportunity to make friends. The draws include a “diverse” set of women and, well, people who are basically guaranteed to like you.

Honestly, we want to root for a new social space on campus. The existing choice among hanging out in a dorm room, going to a House-sponsored for a party or, in desperation, trekking down to MIT, can get monotonous. But we just can’t support alternative provided by sororities.

Sororities purport to even the playing field. They allow women to have the social opportunity that men already have thanks to long-established final clubs and fraternities with houses on campus. Yet, this method of equalizing social opportunities for the genders is fundamentally flawed. Due to their exclusive nature, sororities actually perpetuate gender divides in our community.

Yes, final clubs suck. But why? For starters, they are exclusive by nature: they necessarily exclude an entire half of the student population from membership. Sororities, clearly, do the same. Additionally, final clubs must be criticized for choosing to be exclusive. You must be “punched” for membership, and getting into parties can be a challenge. For those students who still bother, getting dressed up to have a shirtless guy with a penis drawn on his face assert that you are not elite enough to enter his fine institution is, at best unpleasant and at worst, extremely degrading. Ideally, sororities would present a viable alternative to this social space. However, sororities operate with the same level of exclusivity as do final clubs. In terms of membership, the image of accessibility that sororities present is largely a charade. Members readily admit that many women do not get “invited back,” which seems awfully similar to not getting “punched” for a final club. Giving girls the illusion that they are applying to sororities, as they would for a club or job, and then judging them just as a final club does, seems mean. Also, sometimes the pretense of the rush is dropped and girls are simply invited to join.
In terms of social events, we wonder whether anyone has even heard of a Kappa dance or a DG night open to all. Doubtful. Perhaps sororities are even more exclusive than final clubs themselves. Which brings us to yet another reason that final clubs suck: they are shrouded in mystery. This sounds exciting. As you know, it’s mostly just annoying. The goings-on of a final club: its membership, activities, even its location, are too important for mere mortals to know about. But do sororities try to counter that culture? Are they open, and transparent, inviting everyone to know about their workings? Hardly. One actually meets in the AD.

The question arises as to whether Harvard should change its policy toward Greek life on campus. Many state schools and southern universities, and even our own neighbor down the river, MIT, fund Greek life. Harvard not only refuses to provide funding or housing for Greek life, but it also does not permit frats or sororities to meet on campus. Title IX of the Education Amendments, written into US law in 1972, states that “No person in the United States shall judge on the basis of sex, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Although Title IX does make exceptions for universities to support sororities, Harvard chooses not to. As Harvard College dean Harry R. Lewis ’68 said to Harvard Magazine, “While I am sure their members consider them important, the Greek organizations do not add to the educational experience here in the aggregate, since they simply displace other forms of activity. A student who organizes the rush for his Greek organization is probably not going to organize things at the IOP or a choral group or his House intramural teams, too.”

We concur. There are myriad opportunities to socialize on campus. And although we may complain, we really do have a lot of options for every weekend night.

Sororities at Harvard may be different from those at other schools. But, fundamentally, sororities, just by virtue of being at Harvard, are not any better. They perpetuate a system of gender inequality. So, this month, as we celebrate the women in our community, let us celebrate them at Cultural Rhythms, at the IOP, in our classes and our entryways, not in our sororities.

Back Page

What Women Want: An Interview with Sarah Haskins '01

No Comments 14 March 2009

By Madeleine Schwartz

The modern woman is powerful, well-dressed and cares for her children. According to advertisers, she also loves yogurt, cleaning her house and will buy anything that promises pseudo-sexual satisfaction.

Sarah Haskins thinks that these stereotypes are ludicrous and she’s ready to prove it. On “Target Women,” a segment on Current TV’s Infomania, Haskins mocks television commercials visibly aimed at women. The products—from yogurt, “the official food of women,” to “scientifically proven” skin cleaners—are diverse, but the message is always the same: buy this product and you will be the perfect woman.

Haskins began her comedic career as a member of Immediate Gratification Players at Harvard. After she graduated in 2001 with a degree in History and Literature, Haskins moved to Chicago. She now resides in Los Angeles, where she both writes and hosts for Current TV.

And for the record: Sarah Haskins does not like yogurt. Her favorite dairy product is cheese.

Perspective Magazine: How did you get the idea for “Target Women”?
Sarah Haskins: We wanted to expand at Current TV. We used to only have pods (short pieces) and we decided we wanted to do something longer. I was already writing for Infomania, but I was interested in doing something on camera.

I was watching TV and I saw all those ridiculous yogurt ads. I thought, “Those are dumb!” “Target Women” was built around that.

P: How do you decide if an advertisement targets women?

H: We talk about some advertisements which target women and men — like Eharmony. But most of time it’s pretty apparent that the main target is women. This week’s “Target Women” focuses on Barbie. Next week, I’m talking about those horrifying Frito Lay commercials. [We just decide from] watching the ads. Who’s in them? Are they women? Who buys or is expected to buy the product? It’s not a science—it’s more like a hunch. And if the ad is on during Oprah, it probably targets women.

P: Why do women make good targets?

H: From an advertiser’s standpoint, women are seen as in charge of certain spheres of life and product purchase. There are some spheres which are uniquely female, like the house and the kids. Women are seen as controlling a domestic budget and buy for that aspect of their lives. You can see the breakdown in car commercials. If they want women to buy the car, the commercial highlights safety, how well the brakes work and the kids in the backseat. If they want guys, it’s like, “Look at this car in the mountains!”

P: A lot of your work centers around the idea of the perfect woman—it seems that when advertisements target women, they are playing on certain ideals.

H: I think that what we are dealing with now is an idea of the perfect woman which has expanded. The perfect woman today is almost perfect at everything. She’s a mother, she’s physically beautiful, she’s perfect in the working world and at home. There’s a sense of all-encompassing perfection. And that means that there are so many ways you can improve yourself. When the perfect woman is around, no one’s feelings get hurt. She serves the workplace and her family. Do you know about the cult of the womanhood in American history? At the turn of century, there was a sense popularized in society and in women’s magazines that it was the woman’s job to be in charge of domestic sphere. Now, roles have changed, but we see the same attachment with the idea of a woman being in charge of her home. The woman’s role on the home front, as nurturer, is one she plays in the workplace as well. Also, the perfect woman always wears high heels.

P: That sounds like a lot to live up to.
H: Well, advertisements are by nature aspirational. Yeah, combined, the message is pretty demanding…but the advertising is also really bland.

P: Why do you find them so bland?
H: Everyone in those advertisements is always so sweet. The perfect woman is also always in a good mood. Except when there’s a mess. But then she has the perfect product and mess is gone.

P: I have also noticed that a lot of the advertisements that target women, such as advertisements about food and cleaning products, seem to focus on sex.
H: Yeah—it’s all about sex. I may be reading into it, though. It’s something I should discuss with my therapist.

P: Well, if we assume that neither of us is reading into it, why do you think advertisers would focus so much on sex?
H: Okay. Well, the sex is definitely there. But it is disguised sex. Disguised pleasure. Chocolate is easy—there’s the old saying that chocolate is better than sex. But with other products, the sex is more disguised. I think it’s partly a joke to think that the satisfaction from cleaning can is as exciting as actual physical and emotional intimacy.

P: Do you think that this focus on sex suggests that women are missing something? Is the idea of the perfect woman incompatible with being sexual?
H: I think the focus on sex also undercuts the idea. I mean sex—it’s what you are missing out on if you are everyone’s maid all day long.

P: Okay, the requisite Harvard alum question—did you ever pee on the John Harvard statue?
H: No. But I peed in a lot of places around Harvard.

Other

A Keynesian Down Under

No Comments 14 March 2009

By Ian Kumekawa

Just days after the Australian Parliament passed a (AUD) 42 billion-dollar stimulus package early last month, Australian Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd published a sweeping condemnation of neo-liberalism. Dubbing it “that particular brand of free-market fundamentalism, extreme capitalism and excessive greed which became the economic orthodoxy of our time,” Rudd calls for a reevaluation of neo-liberalism’s applicability in today’s world.

Of course, Rudd’s essay is not divorced from short-term political goals. After all, Rudd’s opponent, Malcolm Turnbull, the head of the center-right Liberal Party, spent a good deal of his career working in a corporate bank, one of the very institutions that is blamed for the current economic crisis.

However, Rudd’s message resonates because it takes the form of an inherently ideological treatise. In seven thousand words, Rudd establishes himself as one of the most powerful politicians in the Anglo-American world to call for a clear break with the accepted economic orthodoxy which has been in favor since the days of Reagan and Thatcher in the 1980s. In light of the current economic woes, Thatcherian logic and rhetoric (the slogan “There is no Alternative” comes to mind) seems painfully outdated. Against the backdrop of governments around the world spending billions on economic stimulus packages, it is clear that the edifice of laissez-faire economics is being questioned in profound ways.

Rudd’s article, entitled “The Global Financial Crisis” is impressive largely due to the historical parallels it draws. It reminds us that the neo-liberal economics of today has a powerful analogue in the neo-classical economics that reigned before the Great Depression. Just as Paul Krugman has been doing for the past few months, Rudd looks to the great economist John Maynard Keynes for guidance in fixing the current economic mess. He takes up the Keynesian mantle in the old battle between Keynes and the great neo-classical thinker F.A. Hayek.

And why not? Keynes correctly diagnosed the Depression and prescribed a legitimate solution. And in doing so, Keynes destroyed some of the principal tenets of an accepted economic paradigm. If only world leaders such as Churchill and Roosevelt had taken his advice for heavy deficit spending by the early 1930s, how much suffering could have been averted? It makes sense then that a neo-Keynesian lens should be applied to a neo-liberal problem just as a Keynesian lens was successfully applied to a neo-classical problem nearly eight decades ago.

As Keynes himself said, “practical men who believe themselves quite exempt from any intellectual influence are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.” This state of affairs makes it risky for a politician in Anglo-American culture to attack the free market. People are generally attached to old ideas, however in need of modern adjustment they may be. Kevin Rudd has surely taken a risk – indeed, his political opponents as well as Rupert Murdoch’s The Australian have already retaliated with a variety of refutations and personal attacks – but yet, this is an ideological risk that should be taken.

Other

The Harvard Salient Drinking Game

1 Comment 14 March 2009

1 shot on ice because global warming does not exist.

1 shot when Ronald Reagan’s role in defeating The Communists is lauded.

1 shot when getting decked out in red white and blue is the only way to benefit America.

1 shot when the future of our unborn children is at stake.

1 shot when the historical significance of Obama’s election is downplayed.

1 shot when Obama is referred to as “The Savior” or “The Blessed”.

1 shot. Purge the Party! Purge it good.

1 shot when you can really only picture this argument coming out of the mouth of a very old man wearing argyle.

1 shot when “the global society” has to make decisions .

1 sh–wait where did all the money go?

Think You’ve Had Enough? Submit to Perspective.


© 2012 Perspective Magazine. Powered by Wordpress.

Daily Edition Theme by WooThemes - Premium Wordpress Themes