http://www.columbiaspectator.com/authors/posts/25818 An authors posts... used for embedding en http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/26993 http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/26993#comments Opinion Dodge fitness Submission Wed, 26 Sep 2007 23:37:14 -0500 Abby Bernstein 26993 at http://www.columbiaspectator.com http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/26465 http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/26465#comments Opinion aborion birth control feminism George Bush sex Thu, 06 Sep 2007 22:58:48 -0500 Abby Bernstein 26465 at http://www.columbiaspectator.com http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/55026 "Ah, the joys of spring!" As I looked up from my book, I soon realized the guys sitting near me on Low steps were not referring to flowers or sunshine but a girl in a miniskirt and midriff-baring cami. I felt the wind blow on my own bare legs and blushed. In the cooler months, my sweaters and slacks had fit right in with the stereotypical "rah rah women" crowd. But when April showers bring minis along with mayflowers, it's hard not to feel like a fall-weather feminist. As Laura Kipnis writes in The Female Thing, today's women "are caught between two incompatible positions ... Feminism ('Don't call me dickhead') and femininity ('I just found the world's best push-up bra!)" As Kipnis points out through the push-up bra, a woman's desire to be sexy inevitably makes her become a sex object since the purpose of revealing clothing is to put our goodies on display. But Kipnis' solution for today's women-button up or beat it-is not only restricting but also anachronistic, as her thinking does not differ much from the second-wave ideology. In the '70s, feminists thought that in order to get what men had, they needed to distance themselves from traditional views of femininity. Throwing on a pair of slacks and a loose-fitting tee, they strove instead to look like men, or at least, androgynous. But as Maureen Dowd writes in Are Men Necessary?: When Genders Collide, "I hated the dirty, unisex jeans and no makeup look and drugs that zoned you out, and I couldn't understand the appeal of dances that didn't involve touching your partner." Essentially, the second-wave feminists thought that to be a feminist was to not be feminine. But femininity, then and now, can be empowering when it celebrates a woman's features. Take the early screen actresses like Jean Harlow and Audrey Hepburn. They were brainy and witty at the same time that they were sexy and stylish. As Marilyn Monroe famously quipped, "I don't mind making jokes, but I don't want to look like one." Or what about the pioneers of feminism? When Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucy Stone, the Grimke sisters, and Susan B. Anthony handed in their heavy petticoats for bloomers-a pair of ankle-length pantaloons with an overskirt that came to the knees-they made a political statement that a woman had the right to wear comfortable clothes. Similarly, when ladies cut loose from long dresses in the 1920s and shimmied in short skirts that revealed their legs, they fought for the right to be sexual. And even the foremothers of the second-wave movement were not stereotypical she-trolls but, as a news source of the time commented, "preponderantly attractive young women wearing miniskirts and boots." There is a flipside to femininity, though, that assumes the woman is inadequate and therefore must undergo various beauty regimens to make herself more complete to the opposite sex. Footbinding in China, wearing corsets laced tight enough to suffocate, and taking arsenic (for a paler complexion) in Europe and America are just a few examples of women's wacky (and painful) history of modifying themselves to be more suitable for men. Even now, from Botox, boob jobs, and bikini waxing to vaginoplasty, spray tans, and starvation, women are undergoing some serious reconstruction. But clothing can't easily be thrown into this mix. Nowadays, when a woman wears a risqué ensemble, she doesn't just do so to make herself desirable to the opposite sex; she may want to look good for herself or for other women. Though feminist Susan Brownmiller argues that "the transformation of women's legs from a bodily part that was mostly hidden in modesty to a glamorous appendage that was whistled at and admired may not have been a remarkable gain," returning to the days of modest dress would be a step backwards in women's rights. Surely Brownmiller, a fierce opponent of headscarves and tzniut, the modesty laws of Jewish Orthodoxy, can understand this. I'm not advocating for women to walk into the workplace wearing short-shorts, since doing so would not only be uncomfortable but also inappropriate for both sexes (just think of seeing a male lawyer in a muscle tee). But when she goes out, the woman in the miniskirt and stilettos should feel like no less of a representation of an empowered woman than the one wearing flannel and Birkenstocks. Actually, it takes a lot of strength and stamina to strut in a pair of Manolos. If we try to put a face on feminism, we'll not only constrain women but will also make feminists susceptible to stereotypes. http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/55026#comments Opinion Sun, 29 Apr 2007 23:00:00 -0500 Abby Bernstein 55026 at http://www.columbiaspectator.com http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/54755 To some, Barnard is simply Columbia's stupid younger sister-a pointless institution for Ivy League rejects that should have disappeared two decades ago. Admittedly, the first time I heard this, I flashed my impressive high school GPA, standardized test scores, and college resumé and pompously declared that I had applied early to Barnard. But these past two years have made me realize that to reduce Barnard to a battle of wits is beside the point. I applied early decision not because my college was easier to get into than Columbia or even that I wanted to avoid the Core; it was the only small liberal arts college located in "the city" that was solely for women. Many Bwoggers have stated that Barnard isn't single-sex to begin with since-with the exception of first-year seminars-classes are open to Columbia and consequently both genders. While true in theory, this point falls flat in practice. Many seminars at Barnard, especially those in the English department, consist mainly and often only of female students. With the exception of popular political science and history lectures, the percentages of males in other courses are also small. As a Barnard student, I have the option of selecting which courses I want to take with female classmates and potentially taking only single-sex classes in my four years here. My reason for wanting to take some courses solely with women isn't that I think men have cooties or should be castrated. Coming from a coed public high school, I realized in my first semester at college that Barnard's mission statement promoting the advancement of women was not a meaningless mantra. From analyzing female monsters as symbols of unfettered sexuality in "Madness and Literature" to discussing "machismo" in my Spanish composition class, I learned that understanding gender is integral to understanding society. Instead of fighting a male student for floor space in seminar or cringing as he corrected the teacher during lecture, I was finally in an environment where I could have a conversation with the other students in my classes. With the exception of the girl who showed up twice all semester, the students and faculty were highly motivated people who continually encouraged me to succeed. What Columbia student can say she receives congratulatory e-mails from her college president and a Pulitzer Prize-winning author for winning a writing competition? What bothered me most about "Separate but Equal?," Julia Israel's recent feature in The Eye, was not that the article made Barnard students and administration sound like airheads (why would Dean Dorothy Denburg know why Barnard isn't mentioned on Columbia's tour?), but that it was slanted in its "scientific" section. When Rosalind Barnett, the senior scientist at the Women's Studies Research Center at Brandeis University and the author of The Same Difference: How Gender Myths are Hurting Our Relationships, Our Children, and Our Jobs, said that "it's not clear if [single-sex schools] are very good because they're single sex," Israel overlooked an entire body of research stating the opposite. Even the U.K. study that Barnett cited showing that as the number of single-sex schools has dropped, the number of girls taking physics has grown is weak: first, the study is correlational, meaning that there is no causal link between female physics students and coeducational schools, and second, Ellen Gillibrand's 1999 experiment found that increased participation and comfort level in single-sex environments caused girls to score higher in physics and also made them more likely to pursue the subject at an advanced level. And as long as we're on the Larry Summers boat, in 2004, Eva Van de Gaer found that girls made more progress in math in single-sex schools. By suggesting that females won't feel any more comfortable in society unless we break the gender boundary in classrooms, Israel and Barnett offer an appealing but ultimately overly simplistic solution. The "contact hypothesis" of bringing members of two groups together has been relatively ineffective-decades after the racial integration of public schools, blacks and whites still sit at separate lunch tables and ethnic slurs still mar the bathroom walls. Similarly, unless we work to rid gender stereotypes, women will continue to feel stigmatized in coeducational classrooms. While Columbia males are not misogynists, my own study for learning psychology found that the mere presence of men elicited stereotype threat, causing 60 "strong, beautiful and bold" Barnard students to act in accordance with "appropriate" female behavior by speaking less and paying more attention to their appearance. The single-sex classroom then functions as a safe haven for women, providing them with a place where they can develop confidence and competence when they would otherwise be reluctant to speak out and ask questions for fear of confirming the negative evaluations of others. But Barnard does not exist in a bubble that Barnett suggests characterizes other single-sex schools, as students can elect to take coed classes and also live in New York City. When the playing field for women remains rocky, it is ignorant to call gender a "myth." As of now, more than half of the embarrassingly low 16.3 percent of women in Congress and a third of Fortune 1000 executives were single-sex educated. Maybe when women hold more high-powered positions, when they make the same salary as men and aren't pushed on the mommy track, we can reexamine female education. But in a world marked by gender differences, single-sex schools are far from obsolete. http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/54755#comments Opinion Sun, 15 Apr 2007 23:00:00 -0500 Abby Bernstein 54755 at http://www.columbiaspectator.com http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/54522 At some point in her life, every girl wishes for a strange man's hand on her ass. Not a mere suggestion of touch, like a brush or sweep, but a firm, full-on grasp. His assertive action does not repulse her; rather, it empowers her. For the woman, this unexpected physical contact signals a desire for emotional love and attachment. Besides, it isn't often that a girl gets a buttocks caress free of charge. The other weekend my friend was fortunate enough to have an extended hand-to-ass experience. It was around 5 o'clock, and we were packed in a crowded subway car at 42nd Street. When we got out of the car, my flush-faced friend fumed, "I can't believe that asshole! I had nowhere to go-I was just stuck there with his hand on my ass from 42nd to 96th!" Considering her adverse reaction, I at first thought she might be an anomaly or perhaps a member of the rare breed of women who do not take pleasure in "the grasp." However, having just read Freud-the only true interpreter of the female thinking apparatus-I knew otherwise. Like Dora, the young subject of Fragments of a Case of Hysteria who resisted the passes of the elder Herr K. because, according to Freud, she subconsciously loved her father's gray-haired acquaintance, my friend was really repressing her inner desire to be touched. Her angry tone of voice was simply a subversion of the pleasure she experienced while feeling the friendly man's tantalizing touch (as my friend later admitted, "the dirty old man was smiling the whole time!"). Her blushing further indicated her repressed feelings of sexual passion. Though I have not been lucky enough to have ever received a stranger's loving stroke, I have experienced what I have come to call "sweet talk." Contrary to popular belief, construction workers are not the only men fluent in this language. In fact, men of all occupations, social classes, ethnicities, ages, and religious backgrounds have the power to win a woman over with the wonder of their words. Whether it is asking, "You want a piece of this, beautiful?" or offering, "I got what you want baby, I got what you need," men can send shivers up a woman's spine. Throw in a sexy stare and suggestive gesture, and she is sure to swoon like an old Hollywood starlet. Sweet talk spoken in another language is especially sensual. Recently, while walking back to campus after a long night at Butler, I noticed a man urinating on the outer wall of Sulzberger Tower. As I walked on, slightly dismayed at having not made the young man's acquaintance, I soon heard a voice calling out to me in broken Spanish. That's right-sweet talk spoken in the language of love: "¿Dónde vas? Ven conmigo coño, mmmmmm, que cobrana eres! ... quieres jugar con mi pelota, con mi pelota grande?" Now, it is one thing to be offered to play with a stranger's private parts in Spanish, but to be called a cunt-I thought accolades such as those were reserved for special occasions. Since my head was turned (I know-I'm such a tease), I didn't have the chance to say goodbye to my Don Juan as I walked down 116th Street. But I must admit that I fantasized all night about macho men in white wife-beaters. In spite of all my sweet talk experiences, most recently with a middle-aged toothless white man at Whole Foods, I have yet to bring home the (organic) bacon. It wasn't until I walked past a mirrored storefront after a Hasidic Jew (who are quite horny, according to Sex and the City and sources across the globe) avoided my glance that I realized my problem: my butt isn't big enough. As UK scientists have found, a male baboon fights fiercely to mate with the big-bottomed female baboon because the larger swellings on her backside during ovulation signal that she will be a successful reproductive partner. Though there have not been any formal studies on the correlation between BMI (buttocks mass index) and mating in humans, Sir Mix-a-Lot's "Baby Got Back" and other musings of popular culture continue to emphasize more "junk in the trunk." So for all you ladies who are lacking in the caboose, swap that salad for a double quarter-pounder with cheese. No need to worry if you pack on pounds in unwanted areas-as the old adage states, "more cushion for the pushin'." Besides, if your arteries hold out long enough, you'll be as timeless as an obese woman in a Botero painting. From sidelong glances on the subway and sweet talk to suggestive gestures and grasps, men nowadays are making their urges known to women. Though women should celebrate their independence, it wouldn't hurt every now and then to think of the lonely strangers on the street who need their affection. Heck-even powerful politicians like Bill Clinton can't resist a little extra loving. So ladies, the next time that stranger asks you to "give me some of that sugar," don't hide your goodies. He's starving for a squeeze. http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/54522#comments Opinion Sun, 01 Apr 2007 23:00:00 -0500 Abby Bernstein 54522 at http://www.columbiaspectator.com http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/54236 Last Tuesday morning, while most of you were sleeping soundly in your beds or sunbathing in Bermuda, I was driving to the Springfield, Mass, courthouse. No, I was not on trial-I was assigned to jury duty over spring break. As I walked down to the courtroom, I expected to be seated on a relatively innocuous and speedy trial-like a lawsuit or drug case involving one of the winners from my graduating class. Surprisingly, the defendants in the trials for which I was called were not only strangers but also women accused of committing intensely violent crimes. When my number was called for the second trial, I at first was relieved to see two college-aged girls, one Caucasian, the other Hispanic, sitting behind the defendant desk. After all, how could their case possibly compare to the previous trial? The defendant, a middle-aged Hispanic man wearing torn jeans, a faded black t-shirt, and iPod headphones (he was obviously trying hard to make a terrific impression) had been accused of tying a seven-year-old girl to a chair with his belt and repeatedly penetrating her vagina with his finger. Though I was supposed to assume "innocent until proven guilty," every feminist I had ever read was telling me this man was evil. He wasn't just a pedophile and rapist; he represented the stereotypical conquistador, the misogynist claiming and subordinating the female through forced sex. Was I biased? Yes. Was I excused? Faster than you can say "feminist." But as the judge read the allegations in the second trial, in which the defendants pushed another girl on a sidewalk, beat her, and slit her throat with a knife, I wondered why I had been so quick to convict the alleged male rapist but so slow to assume that these women also could be aggressors. Every day we are bombarded with statistics and images of women as victims of rape and abuse, yet we rarely hear about women themselves as assailants or even criminals. Though the American Civil Liberties Union reports that the rate of imprisonment for women of drug crimes has surpassed that of men and that the number of women committing violent acts increased steadily in the second half of the 20th century, the media have been slow to mention the now one million women behind bars. Even when they do cover violent crimes committed by females, journalists continually label the criminal's behavior as sexually deviant or downplay the aggression factor. Take the case of Lynndie England, the female soldier accused of abusing Abu Ghraib prisoners. She was no delicate flower, yet the media continually framed Abu Ghraib as the romance story of a young woman torturing prisoners to please her fiancé-even though England's original plea bargain mentioned no pressure from Pvt. Graner. As sociologist Ann Campbell has pointed out, attitudes toward aggression shape sex roles-we expect certain behaviors to be assumed by males and females because of their gender. In becoming a man, for example, a boy is expected, if not encouraged, to act tough, resist authority, and exert a dominant attitude. While physical aggression often is met with punishment, it nevertheless is condoned as natural. On the flip side, "good girls" are expected to play nicely, follow the rules, and display the helping behaviors of a nurturer or caregiver. As a 1999 University of Michigan study found, parents and teachers told girls to be quiet, speak softly, or use a 'nicer' voice about three times more often than boys-even though the boys were louder. On the playground too, peers label aggressive girls as unfeminine by calling them "bitches," "lesbians," or "manly." As Rachel Simmons, author of Odd Girl Out: The Hidden Culture of Aggression in Girls, warns, "this double standard has grave consequences, suggesting to girls that their aggression will be more acceptable only if they keep it indirect or covert." And since physically aggressive girls disproportionately appear to be those of working-class or color, officials often form stereotypes that only minorities lash out. Even though research has concluded that women of all socioeconomic backgrounds are just as volatile as men are in both physical and verbal expressions of anger, the media's main coverage has been of the "mean girls" phenomenon. Though the movie Mean Girls had its share of figurative backstabbing, outright aggression was confined to the stereotypical representations of female hostility: rumors, catfights, and craftiness. But if the Scooter Libby scandal reveals anything more than a corrupt administration (which we already knew anyway), it is that males can be just as catty and conniving as females. It is dangerous to ignore female aggression or brush it off as sexual deviancy when the number of women committing violent acts is on the rise. As psychologist Barry Yeomen has stated, "women have the natural capacity to be as violent as men; the difference is that women need greater incentives to express that violence." To get at its source, we need to be able to talk openly about aggression. Female angst extends beyond Victorian chatter, minorities, mean girls theory, or Fiona Apple-it's time for the media to let the pitbull out of the bag. http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/54236#comments Opinion Sun, 18 Mar 2007 23:00:00 -0500 Abby Bernstein 54236 at http://www.columbiaspectator.com http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/54040 "Is it usually this cold in here?" Serrin Foster, president of Feminists for Life asked me in the bathroom prior to giving her talk two Thursdays ago. I decided against responding with a spiteful answer ("no, it's only your cold heart") for two reasons: one, I'm not that ballsy, and two, it didn't seem fair to knock her before hearing what she had to say. I figured sitting through a Feminists for Life speech would be like attending a Jews for Jesus meeting or losing my virginity: initially painful, eventually humorous, possibly pleasurable. But after Foster finished her self-admitted "rambling" about restricting the rights of women, I only left feeling fucked. The speech started out innocently enough: a history lesson on the women's movement and a shout-out to Susan B. Anthony, whose birthday fell on the night of the talk. Taking a few out-of-context quotes, Foster then used Anthony, who never stated her stance on abortion, to propel her pro-life cause. While Anthony is contestable, Betty Friedan surely rolled over in her grave when Foster hijacked her work to say that motherhood empowers women. Who's next-Andrea Dworkin as a defense for denying rape victims abortion? Couching her pro-life stance in feminist rhetoric, Foster further tried to speak for all women: "If women knew what was going on inside their bodies ... this divine power to give life ... they would never think of getting abortions!" I'm pretty sure my friend, a pre-med student who recently had an abortion, knows how conception works. And I'm pretty sure she feels more empowered about getting into her dream medical school than she would be changing the diapers of the baby she never wanted. But then again, according to Foster, my friend should be depressed or dead. Foster told several stories of mourning women and, without any statistical source, declared that since Roe, the number of deaths from abortion has doubled. According to Planned Parenthood, death from abortion-1 out of 100,000-results from serious complications and "the risk of death from childbirth is eleven times greater than the risk of death from abortion up to twenty weeks of pregnancy ... after twenty weeks, the risk is about the same as the risk of death from childbirth." Moreover, more women experience postpartum depression than the fewer-than-10 percent who experience depression from abortion; 90 percent of women report feeling relieved about preventing an unintended pregnancy. The supposedly "feminist" Foster makes the age-old assumption that all women want to be mothers. As Foster claimed to speak for all women, I couldn't help noticing who she was leaving behind. The majority of the "joy of choosing life" anecdotes applied only to upper-middle-class white women. What about women who don't have the option, like poor minorities? Though she referenced a Hispanic mother of four who had an abortion because she could not feed her kids and died, Foster didn't say how a life with five children to feed would have been the jollier choice. While Foster spoke of providing women with resources, such as affordable day care and pregnancy-care programs, she graciously left out where this money would be coming from. Does she really think our administration, which is already in massive debt, would dish out dough to mothers? Or that pro-life advocates, the majority of whom are Republicans, would dig deeper into their tax-paying pockets to support welfare? As Ann Crittenden writes in The Price of Motherhood, since its inception in 1936, welfare has "never amounted to more than 5 percent of the GDP. In the memorable phrase of one feminist scholar, mothers could be 'pitied but not entitled.'" Abortion then isn't just about choice; reproductive rights grant women power in an unaccommodating world. Throughout the evening, Foster played up this distorted version of reality, describing a woman's life as a "parfait ... she can have children, go back into the workplace and so on." If it were that easy, I wonder why NYC public advocate Betsey Gotbaum hosted the "A Better Balance: The Work/Family Dilemma" discussion three weeks ago. Women don't "opt out" of the workforce; they're pushed out because they have children. While Foster can dream about ridding gender discrimination from the workplace, the reality is that employers aren't opening their doors to mothers. When I mentioned this to Foster after the talk, she suggested women "start their own businesses." But even in 1997, when women were starting businesses at twice the rate of men, they received only two percent of the institutional venture capital-a quarter of female entrepreneurs had to take money out of their own pockets. Once again, Foster caters to an upper-middle-class white majority. Though poor minorities can get sponsoring from organizations, most are unaware that these exist and the money is limited. To this Foster replied, "We're working on it." But how can FFL work together when members within the organization disagree on issues essential to their mission to rid "the root cause of what drives women to abortion"? In Foster's talk of "resources," there was not one mention of sex education or contraception-though she did provide more false statistics on the effectiveness of condoms. When questioned, Foster's nonsensical answer was that it was better for FFL to be divided than "redundant." As Foster quipped, "I talk too much." I couldn't agree more. http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/54040#comments Opinion Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:00:00 -0600 Abby Bernstein 54040 at http://www.columbiaspectator.com http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/53767 If we can have a psychological term for the man who won't commit or the kid who cries over spilled milk, then surely we can diagnose a disorder for Americans' attitude toward powerful women: the Hillary Complex. The senator isn't just a person anymore; she's an idea and sometimes a metaphor. In the 2004 election, for example, pundits dubbed Teresa Heinz Kerry "hyper-Hillary" to suggest that she was controlling and uncontrollable (unlike the ever-obedient and docile Bush women). Hillary Clinton is an ice queen, a power-hungry leech, a perfidious Lady Macbeth figure. But who is she really? As Susan Estrich writes in Sex and Power, "the idea of Hillary Clinton is the idea of a woman who puts career first; who will do anything, put up with anything, sell her soul if necessary to keep her hands on the levers of power." People are put off by Hillary because she doesn't fit into the traditional mold of femininity. She's not particularly warm, she doesn't care too much for hair or fashion, and she never hesitates to declare her opinion. She was the breadwinner when Bill was campaigning for Arkansas Governor, and she chose political policies over flower arrangements when he was president. Ambition isn't a traditionally feminine trait. In medieval Europe, uppity women were subject to ducking stools (an apparatus which dunked them into the river) or iron muzzles. As scholar Susan Brownmiller writes in Femininity, "a sacrificial willingness to set personal ambition aside-is virtuous proof of the nurturant feminine nature, which, if absent, strikes at the guilty heart of femaleness itself." Hillary is worse off than other motivated women because she doesn't have any redeeming "feminine" characteristics. When Madeleine Albright became the first female Secretary of State, the media delighted in the sob story of her college sweetheart's leaving her for another woman. And sure, Condi's tough, but her name (stemming from "con dulcezza," a musical annotation meaning "with sweetness") and her duty of dishing out Bush's agenda softens any of her hard edges. But if Hillary had cried publicly over her husband's affair or allowed herself to be pitied, would she be perceived as any less pitiless? Here's where the contradiction comes into play: when women are warm, they are condemned as weak, but when they rage, they are ruthless . The media criticized Katie Couric for not being ballsy enough when she opted to stay at home with her kids instead of sacrificing her life to report in Iraq. Yet had she chosen career over family, she most likely would have been dealt the bad-mommy/merciless-opportunist card. What is a powerful woman to do? While you would assume that the best bet for Hillary would be to combine preferred stereotypical gender traits, research has shown that masculinity produces more positive outcomes than androgyny in society. According to Ann Morrison's study on successful corporate executives, women workers excelled only when they "contradict[ed] the stereotypes that their male executives and coworkers had about women-they had to be seen as different, 'better than women' as a group. But they couldn't go too far to forfeit all traces of femininity, because that would make them too alien to their superiors and colleagues." To garner support for her presidential campaign, Hillary has to balance a lot of balls (pun intended). She has to seem bold but not castrating, assertive but not domineering, empathetic but not emotional. With all these contradictions, it's no wonder Hillary seems so cold and controlled! Playing politics in a man's world is tricky because even if a gal is on top of her game, the rules can change without warning. In an ironic new twist on the "weak woman" label, opponents assert that Hillary's weakness is her lack of womanliness. When Hillary was running for Senate, John Spencer joked to the New York Daily News, "You ever see a picture of her back then, whew ... I don't know why Bill married her." At the other extreme, some media outlets have attempted to transform Hillary into a Lifetime movie subject. Though it is too early in the game to take a tally on Hillary articles, a 1999 study of Elizabeth Dole's presidential campaign found journalists were half as likely to mention her policy positions as those of her opponents with the majority of articles focusing on personal stories. And when journalists do mention Hillary's views, they only further typecast her. As political scientist Kathleen Dolan has pointed out, women candidates are often portrayed as more liberal than men and also more liberal than they actually are. Though Hillary voted in favor of Iraq (given faulty intelligence) and has been inconsistent on gay marriage (no excuse here...), conservatives and even Urban Outfitters (which sells "flaming liberal" Hillary dolls) label the senator a radical. Teddy Roosevelt wasn't mincing words when he said, "speak softly and carry a big stick, you will go far." With gender-biased coverage of her campaign, it isn't likely Hillary will make it to the oval office, especially given that the 2004 election was largely decided by "security moms" who trusted the macho Bush to handle the mess he made in Iraq (not surprisingly, Kerry often was labeled "girly"). Voters can't get a clear picture of Hillary when they mainly hear about her failed handling of traditionally "womanly issues" like health care or her hair. Go ahead and hate on Hillary, but knock her for her political opinions, not her appearance. http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/53767#comments Opinion Sun, 11 Feb 2007 23:00:00 -0600 Abby Bernstein 53767 at http://www.columbiaspectator.com http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/53506 Whenever I see the "dare to say the f word" t-shirt hanging in the window of Barnard Hall, my first instinct is to say "fuck." I'm not dense-it's the first word I don't get. I might have been "dared" to kiss Tony Rugani during 4th grade recess, but I've never needed any nudging to speak on behalf of women. That is until recently, when I worried about the consequences of writing a column about women's issues for Spectator. Write about abortion or catcalls in a Barnard Bulletin column and I receive a pat on the back, but do the same in the Columbia paper and I risk being typecast as a "Barnard feminist." When stating the slew of Barnard stereotypes, a Columbia student, male or female, rarely leaves out this label. But what exactly do they mean by "feminist"? If personal experience has taught me anything, it is that these students aren't thinking in subcategories-liberal feminism, Black feminism, Marxist feminism, to name a few-but in extremes and stereotypes. Earlier this year, after overhearing a conversation in Pinnacle between two Columbia guys bad-mouthing Barnard women, I looked up from my book and gave them the obligatory glare. "Sorry, we didn't mean to offend you ... it's just that Barnard girls have a certain reputation ... really arty, earthy, feminist types." At the time I was wearing a Ralph Lauren sweater and Citizen jeans. Earthy? Arty? Not exactly. Feminist? Well, if their narrow definition of "feminist" meant that I stick pins in male voodoo dolls wearing Columbia t-shirts, scoff at the only guy in a Barnard women's studies lecture, or spit at males I see walking through the college gates, then no, by all means, I am not a feminist in their sense of the word. I was, however, raised with the notion that regardless of my gender, I was capable of pursuing any goals I had set before me. For other women, such as my mother, the possibilities were more limited. "Just marry a vet," my grandparents would tell her whenever she spoke of her career aspirations. Well, she did indeed marry a veterinarian-my father-but only after becoming one of the first women accepted into the University of Pennsylvania's Veterinary School. My mother was and is a feminist in the sense that she believed she was just as capable as any man was of practicing veterinary medicine-but she didn't need to burn any of her bras to get her point across. Actually, no scholar has been able to find evidence that bra-burning ever occurred. Most likely, the same sexist media commentators who coined the condescending term "women's lib" fabricated this myth during the 1968 Miss America Pageant protest (in which some protestors burned Miss America effigies) in order to make the feminists seem like nut jobs. In the same sense, some might label me a "Barnard feminist" as a way to undermine any issues I raise. To those few, I say this: Hate my column, but hate it in its own right. Hate it because you don't agree with the opinion or hate it because there's a typo. But know this: when I am discussing gender issues, I am not speaking as a Barnard spokeswoman; rather, I'm writing as an over-achieving, slightly insane yet intriguing student who happens to attend an all-women's college-in a word, as Abby. But I will inevitably write about women. And when I do, I hope to dispel rather than affirm the Barnard femi-nazi or man-hating stereotype. I like men but I like myself-in a non-narcissistic way of course-too. So when I hear that the top women CEOs are paid less than the highest-ranking male CEOs, or that a woman is refused emergency contraception by a pharmacist, I of course will protest. But the issue isn't just about me; it extends to equal opportunity in general. Just as African-Americans fought for desegregation during the fifties and sixties, just as homosexuals are fighting for marriage now, women are continuing to argue for the same rights that men have in society. If by using this term, Columbia students mean to say that Barnard girls are advocates for women's advancement, then yeah, I'm a feminist. In that case, aren't they feminists too? As Erica Jong once wrote, "I would like to see a world ... in which phallocentric mythologies were perceived to be as bizarre as the most absurd excesses of militant feminist rhetoric, and in which consciousness had become so truly androgynous that the adjective 'feminist' itself would be puzzlingly obsolete." Unfortunately, our world consists of a pro-life president who ironically proclaims "W. stands for Women" as he tries to overturn Roe v. Wade and promote the ABC (Abstinence, Be Faithful, Condoms) plan in an AIDS-stricken Africa. And, in the aftermath of an unnecessary war waged in the rhetoric of women's rights, a still-present Taliban can disembowel a teacher for educating girls in Afghanistan, and legislators can murder women for honor crimes in Iraq. When women across the globe cannot leave their homes without fearing rape or abuse, why should we, here at Columbia, be afraid to say we are feminists? http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/53506#comments Opinion Sun, 28 Jan 2007 23:00:00 -0600 Abby Bernstein 53506 at http://www.columbiaspectator.com http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/53153 To non-natives, Massachusetts is a liberal haven of Birkenstock-clad hippies and married homosexual couples. While I won't deny these stereotypical images, or my own tree-hugging roots (my mom once stopped the car so that I could retrieve the gum I spit out the window), other areas of the state offer a different (read: conservative) demographic. Embarrassingly, my own western Massachusetts town of 5000 people voted for Bush, and when I went home for Thanksgiving, Bush-Cheney '04 stickers were still on a number of cars. While these markers are kept mostly under wraps, governor Mitt Romney's recent push for a ban on gay marriage has revealed the hidden reactionaries of my state. Standing on the steps of the statehouse before hundreds of opponents to same-sex marriage, Romney recently announced that he would order a ballot question defining marriage as between a man and a woman if legislators fail to vote on the matter when they reconvene in January. In spite of two years of evidence that same-sex marriage has not destroyed the heterosexual family, 170,000 Massachusetts residents signed his petition that claims the contrary. In the same week that Romney gave one of his famous "save the children" speeches, the U.S. Catholic bishops, the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina, and the Presbyterian Church (USA) also took steps backward in gay rights. Decrying gay marriage as a sin marching across the nation, the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina voted not only to push homosexuals off the altar, but out of the seats of the church congregation as well. In Washington, the Catholic bishops who claim to be "respectful" toward gays and lesbians (according to americancatholic.org) passed the "Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination," a set of rules that essentially label homosexuality a disease that gays should not let out in the open air. Forget gay marriage-these church officials won't allow gays to unlock the closet door, let alone allow them to walk down the aisle. If Romney succeeds in his ban, my home state would not only affirm the conservative attitude toward homosexuality, but would also become the laughing stock of liberals. What bothers me isn't that a Mormon governor trying to push his religious and possibly political agenda (to garner conservative support for the 2008 presidential campaign), but that he is undoing the image that so many in Massachusetts have worked hard to uphold. Being the first and only state to legalize gay marriages, Massachusettes set an example for other states to follow. Even Vermont, another state stereotyped often for its liberal views (refer to satirical movie Thank You For Smoking in which the Vermont senator, played by William H. Macy, dons a suit and Birkenstocks) settled for civil union over gay marriage. Giving gays the option of civil union is like giving the losing team the last-place trophy; though it's better than nothing, civil union is nevertheless a symbol that they've lost the game as it grants them fewer rights than those entitled to the winning team of married heterosexual couples. By revoking the rights of gays to marry, Massachusetts legislators would not only be sending this message of failure to gays in my state, but to those in other states as well. And, if the supposedly most liberal state of them all couldn't succeed in legislating gay marriage for longer than a hamster's life span, how would other, more politically divided states fair? What's worse: Romney is now garnering support from more politically moderate residents to sign his petition by claiming that Massachusetts legislators violated the Constitution when they voted to recess instead of voting on his ban. Perhaps Romney needs a lesson in Constitutional Law 101: legislators cannot put the rights of a minority up for popular contest. As much as Romney alleges that state legislators are practicing tyranny over democracy, his own ruling would be an imposition of the will of those in power on the people. As a citizen of Massachusetts, I've witnessed Romney's poor legislative decisions not only in his gay marriage obsession, but also in his cutbacks to state funding that left police and teachers out of jobs, shut down programs that helped the elderly and the homeless, and caused my town's library to close down for a year. I'm counting the days until January, when Duvall Patrick, a fervent supporter of gay marriage, will take over as governor. Still, Romney has enough time to do some definite damage to the rights of homosexuals. If we can keep Romney's hands tied and mouth shut until we say goodbye (and good riddance), Massachusetts can preserve itself as the prototype for political progress. http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/53153#comments Opinion Mon, 04 Dec 2006 23:00:00 -0600 Abby Bernstein 53153 at http://www.columbiaspectator.com