Oh, God. Are you one of those types? One of those ... feminist Nazis?" This statement, postulated by a dismayed-looking friend of mine upon hearing the subject of this column, probably captures many students' reaction to the word "feminism." It's true; feminism is now thought of as "passe." After some women's overzealous actions in the name of feminism, it's understandable that doubt -- even a reticent eye-rolling -- should meet the enthusiastic preacher of women's rights. However, the popular image of feminism as "the bitterness of ugly women," (freely contributed by the same aforementioned friend) is enormously detrimental to women everywhere. Women should not feel that pursuing the advancement of their gender, in the ideal of equality, is outdated or embarrassing. The degree of need for feminism in the United States does not necessarily correspond to the prevalent attitude toward it.
At a recent meeting of "Women in Leadership," one of the very few groups that could be considered "feminist" on campus, a woman nonchalantly made a statement that I found incredibly alarming. She said, in essence, that women of today, in the 21st century, share all of the opportunities that men enjoy. What makes this contention so disturbing is that it shows how the modern American woman can become so entrenched in the casual subtleties of today's gender bias that she doesn't even realize it exists.
Sure, compared to our mothers, this generation of women benefits from many more opportunities. More women are now enrolled in college than men. My very presence on campus, as a female at Dartmouth College, demonstrates that women have advanced towards equal opportunity in the past few decades. We've made some progress, achieved some goals, and now everyone seems to think we should just sit back and relax, as if this is the highest degree of equality that's possible between men and women. Our progress is relative, and one example of a place for improvement manifests itself in the obvious inequity of U.S. political leaders. In the United States, a mere 14 percent of the House of Representatives and 13 percent of the Senate is composed of women.
If there is no longer a need for feminism, then why, in a poll from USA Today dated Oct. 1, 2002, did 40 percent of American girls doubt the possibility of a female president in the next 10 years and a dour 14 percent in their lifetime? Illustrating the lacking condition of feminism today, this survey offers a sad commentary on the confidence of young women in America; both in the abilities of their gender and themselves.
With Hillary Clinton conceivably running in the presidential race of 2008, a woman president for the United States is certainly plausible in the near future. Margaret Thatcher was elected the first woman Prime Minister of Britain in 1979, and served until 1990. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was elected President of the Republic of the Philippines in 2001. These are just a few examples; for historical perspective, Cleopatra in Egypt, Queen Elizabeth I in England, Indira Gandhi in India, Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan, Golda Meir in Israel -- all led their countries with skill and prowess. In the period from 1945 to 1995, the percentage of women in national parliaments increased four-fold. Hopefully, this trend will lead to the notion of women in politics as a societal norm rather than the exception to the rule. Female leadership in the highest position of stately power is not unprecedented, and the United States, usually the vanguard of progressive trends, has clearly fallen behind.
One example of the gender gap here at Dartmouth is evident in the imbalance of men to women at political discussions and organizations on campus. In the World Affairs Council and First Year Forum, I would estimate the ratio of men to women at a dismal five to one, at best. I entreat all politically minded Dartmouth women to participate in these events. In the name of logic, I refuse to believe that Dartmouth women are simply less interested in politics than Dartmouth men.
I believe that women of the 21st century haven't achieved equality because we are not offered jobs, salaries, tenure or, in some parts of the world, respect at even vaguely equal proportions to men. I doubt anyone would argue that women have achieved equality throughout the world, but in my opinion, gender bias, like racism and ageism, exists even within the progressive American culture. By no means should we buy into the idea that there isn't a need for feminism anymore.
If women in the United States do feel that they have achieved personal equality here, then there is always somewhere else to look where women are just starting their struggle for parity. Women in our position, privileged students in middle-class America, aren't discriminated against in remotely the same manner as, say, Saudi Arabian women, who aren't allowed to drive or to vote. This is why we should avoid becoming complacent; Dartmouth women can be role models to women all over the world. The United States is arguably the world's foremost cultural influence, and American women possess great potential to initiate worldwide change by utilizing this position. It would be a far greater tribute to the American suffragettes, who campaigned to empower today's women, to aid other women in achieving equal rights than to disdain the very concepts of the feminism that allows us to have even a small political presence.
Dartmouth is at the forefront of new ideas, and the next generation of leaders will emerge from our men and women. Here is the question I pose to all Dartmouth women: Which of you will set the standard for the rest of the world? Who among you will convince the next generation that a woman can, and will be, president of the United States in our lifetime?
