Enloes's Surprise

I thought it reading Enloes introductory chapter to her book, The Curious Feminist, was a great way to end our readings for this class. She discusses the unpredictability of events, particularly those regarding women's issues, and the dangers of assuming knowledge. She stresses that we, as thinkers and activists, continuously be surprised by what is going on around us, and, most importantly: respond accordingly.

"It is often in the classroom that a feminist academic is most routinely tested in her commitment to acknowledging surprise." I thought this quote was a great way to connect her reading to the experiences we shared by taking this course. I think, personally, taking WMST was a great way to spark my interest in relating women's issues to other disciplines and areas of study. I agree with Enloe that women's issues can be the root of a variety of social problems, and thus it is a major importance to work actively to eradicate gendered marginalization, oppression, and degradation.

I think Enloe would agree that while studying feminism and women's issues, this is not enough. Often times, i believe that academics get lost in their own world and are unable to carry their knowledge into the real world. What i got out of this reading, and the majority of readings we had throughout the course, is that studying and engaging in an academic setting is not enough. Now that we, as students, have the background knowledge, we must take this into our real lives and make changes on a grander scale.

A daunting, but important, task.

To lead with curiosity...

When I was reading Enloe's introduction to her book entitled Being Curious About Our Lack of Feminist Curiosity I thought what a great piece this would have been to read at the beginning of the semester. I thought it did an excellent job of summarizing key issues that surround the problems with modern feminism and how we must move forward in the future to avoid any repetition. As I continued to read, however, I realized how much of the text I would have passed over and not appreciated had I read it at the beginning of my woman's studies "career". The ideas of patriarchy and need for curiosity would have just not been as profound.

I think our entire class has been sparked by the notion that we are all curious feminists to some extent who want to know more about our modern culture, how we got to where we are, and how we are moving forward in the future. I like, then, how Enloe envelopes this idea of curiosity and how in fact a lack of curiosity "saves mental energy". If we just accept everything for what it is, we will not need to think about how it came about to what it is today and therefore we will encounter no problems with it from here on out. But this is just silly. If we accept such words as "natural", "tradition", and "always", three words Enloe ideally would prefer us to challenge, we make concepts "immune to bothersome questioning" and allow our social, albeit patriarchal, system to continue functioning in an unhindered manner. As Enloe further points out:

"So many power structures ... are dependent on our continuing lack of curiosity. 'Natural,' 'tradition,' 'always': each has served as a cultural pillar to prop up familial, community, national, and international power structures imbuing them with legitimacy, with timelessness, with inevitability."

For example, "It is natural for women to take on the more feminine professions such as secretary or babysitter". This implies that the roles women are destined to be in have been so forever and thus need not be questioned, thus perpetuating the said power structure which ultimately favors masculinity to the highest degree.

Perhaps a 180 from this discussion of curiosity is Enloe's enriched chapter on The Surprised Feminist. She mentions how the feeling of surprise is an undervalued attribute which we can all learn and grow from. It is, dare I say, natural to not want to be surprised because that means that you were not "all-knowing" to begin with and thus your credibility has been minimized. As a feminist, however, Enloe argues that to be surprised is necessary to succeed and adapt for the future. No one can predict the future. Thus when new extraordinary occurrences appear, we will yes be surprised, but be able to analyze them and say how they have followed within the fundamental structure we have seen so far and how we can build from it.

All in all, what I took from these two chapters were that it is important to be curious because without curiosity our world would be routine and at the same time we must allow ourselves to be surprised in order to prepare for what we can only imagine lies ahead.

Why Do We Care?

This reading really brought the class full-circle to the questions of why we are here in a women’s studies class thinking about women’s experience in the world. We were all a bit curious (or at least I was) about why gender-based oppression exists and what we can do about it, and the lack of an answer even at the end of this course should generate more curiosity (or cynicism in some). Curiosity usually results from intrigue and unrest (may include frustration with the status quo). So we become more curious, learning about how systems operate, how we can make an impact or change, being aware all the time, ready to consider, analyze, and question different ideas and practices. Curiosity battles complacency.

Enloe writes that we should be open to surprise and acknowledge what is complex and problematic and embrace indeterminacy, messiness, and slippages. Instead of engaging in belief perseverance and holding onto our views until the bitter end, we should be flexible (but not naive), modifying our beliefs with new developments that we discover through our curiosity, and admitting when we are wrong (because we are often wrong, and never seem to acknowledge it enough). This curiosity transcends feminism and includes caring about animal rights, educational rights, health care rights, and any other issue you might be passionate about.

I have fallen into cynicism more than a few times this semester, in this class (you may, or may not, remember a post from early February titled “Social Constructs and Symbol Systems: Why are they valued?,” in which I basically said that systems should not exist), regarding educational issues (what kind of measurable impact are nonprofits having in education, dismay at funding cuts and budget deficits across the nation for public schools), and regarding religion (that’s a can of worms for another day). Though I am nowhere near having things figured out, talking to other people and continuing to ask questions about important issues, like Enloe suggests, keeps me occupied, informed, and socially conscious.

Leading the Way: Lead Post

Allison Attenello: "Navigating Identity Politics in Activism"

I loved the opening paragraphs of Attenello's essay. She begins by describing that each person should "locate themselves." By this, she means that everybody should be able to recognize and acknowledge their bias. This includes race, class, religion, gender, etc. By being aware of one's "privileges," a writer can start to try to be as unbiased as possible, although Attenello says that writing/activism will never be entirely objective, because the way in which someone writes or what they strive for is based off of who they are as an individual. This notion led her to become "obsessed" with identity politics, "the idea of that a diverse group of people could be bound together by a set of shared experiences and that these experiences could produce a particular set of identity." I thought that this was a great opening for it acted as an admission of her inherent bias (although she would try to overcome it) and it also opened the door for her thesis that these identity politics can be both valuable and harmful in regards to activism. It promotes people working together to obtain common goals, but it also has a narrow scope and may exclude the goals/desires of those who identify differently.

She then went into a discussion about her work in the New Brunswick area. A racially and economically diverse city in central New Jersey, this story struck me close to home. The demographics reminded me of Colgate. With the presence of Rutgers University in New Brunswick, the town is seemingly divided between the local and temporary (student) populations. In New Brunswick, the problem which prompted Attenello's work was the serial rapist who target both local hispanic women and the female student population. The police response and media coverage was focused nearly in its entirety of the student attacks, which marginalized the local hispanic women. This is a serious issue which left the rights of the locals unappreciated and frightened the locals that they would not be as protected as their student counterparts.

In order to combat this violence against women, particularly in the hispanic community, Attenello attended a meeting which she assumed would be a thriving hub of activism and discussion. Instead, she was thrust into a leadership position and speaking with and on behalf of a community which she did not belong to. After learning that violence against women wasn't even their biggest concern, Attenello felt especially undeserving of her role and the challenges it presented. Working with this group allowed her to cross the divide which separated the college students from the local hispanic/immigrant population. Doing so gave her a new insight into the identity politics of a group very different from her own. Which, in her own words, "made [her] a more thoughtful, open-minded, and effective activist."

I didn't really agree, however, when she asserted that she was an "illegitimate" leader of the Unidad de New Brunswick because of her outsider status. She asserts that because she didnt share any of the identity characteristics with the rest of the members she was unfit to represent them. I think that this is a little unfair. He compassion and her willingness to speak to the members and gain an understanding, in my mind, would be enough to make up for her inherent differences. I think that she was a valuable leader for the organization for all the resources that her "outsider" status brought to the group. I do appreciate her acknowledging that by being in a leadership role she was preventing another member from stepping up and gaining empowerment through their own leadership. For the latter reason, i understand and support her stepping down.

Attenello closes her passage with a clear and concise conclusion. She says that working with Unidad de New Brunswick was an empowering experience which widened her scope of identity politics. She learned how different communities handled and viewed things, and also learned what her particular privilege awarded her as a white, college-educated woman. She brought up the role of power dynamics in relation to her seemingly authoritative identity, something which she still struggled with while working in Costa Rica. She concludes by stressing the importance for activists to be negotiators, an appeal which seems to be very important for not only her own work, but for the work of all activists!

Shira Pruce: "Blurring the Lines that Divide"

Pruce also talks about the role of bias in her essay. She opens by describing her own identity. She is Jewish, a woman, and a leader. These characteristics would later spur her activism (and her bias). While visiting the death camps in Poland, Pruce became personally effected by the horrors she was able to see and became an even stronger activists for Jewish rights. In particular, she spent a year in Israel during which time (the early 2000s) the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was reaching new heights of terror. She notes, something which i found particularly interesting, that although she was in Israel and experiencing these attacks of terror firsthand, she was still an outsider due to her status as a tourist. She also notes that this perspective gave her a particular bias. Her anger and fear, for a long time, prohibited her from being objective while discussing the conflict. Her personal connection, yet her inherent distance, led her to see her own biases, and more importantly, acknowledge them and try to work past them.

After returning to the United States, Pruce was again facing attacks on Israel. This time, however, the attacks were made by her fellow students who called for the utter destruction of Israel in order to alleviate the US's problems following 9/11. After returning to Israel, she gained an important knowledge: after her previous emotionally driven experience, Pruce was given facts and figures to supplement her cause. She would later bring this rationalism back to her campus when she organized with fellow members of her community to bring awareness and fight anti-Semitism.

Importantly, Pruce began to expand her activist horizons: she no longer entirely identified as a Jew, but she also characterized herself as a woman. She realized that patriarchy was the root of many of the problems which she faced. Her marginalization, which she didnt dare talk about before her womens/gender studies, proved to her that there was work to be done not just for Jews, but for women as a whole. By characterizing women as the "other" to the male norm, patriarchy can be manipulated to make advances for women.

After participating in the Institute for Women's Leadership, Pruce was given opportunities to further her skills as an activist. This was put to test when an anti-Zionist group threatened to hots a conference at her university. In response, Pruce gathered many Jewish organizations together and had an extremely successful conference which gained public and political support and would later go on to inspire many other advocacy groups to this day. She later went on to discuss her time when rallying women together to go to Washington to support women's rights. After getting attention from NOW, Pruce was able to get over 10 buses worth of women to go and support the cause.

This was particularly important not only because of the attention Pruce was able to bring to the cause, but also because of the bridge she was able to build with another activist. She had previously known a Palestinian woman, whom she had disagreed with regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but found that they were able to unite under their common bond as a women. Pruce was able to take this realization and use it as a way to bridge the women of both Israel and Palestine. Hopefully, by having them discuss and work together for their common goals, they might be able to be more peaceful/understanding when talking about those issues which divide them.

After making the permanent move to Israel, Pruce found herself working for the Israeli Parliament, in particular in a Jewish-Christian coalition aimed with the betterment of Israel in mind. Although she said she was "in the closet" regarding her feminism, Pruce asserted that she was able to interact with people who could otherwise be considered her adversaries and work with them for a common cause: Israel.

She continues by discussing the Israeli-Hezbollah war and cease-fire, which she saw as evidence to a lack of a female voice and a clear lack of respect for human life. She also was given the opportunity to work on LGBT rights in Israel, an area which needs much support and activism.

She concludes by saying that all of these areas in which she fought so hard, whether it be for her Jewish or her female identity, were spurred by her desire to increase the female voice in leadership and activism. She further stresses the importance of women to stand up and cross the boundaries which would otherwise limit their voices and leadership. She says that it is these women who will bring about the most positive change throughout the world.

Tuesday Post

I had a couple of striking thoughts when I was reading Pruce's chapter in relation to my life. First of all, I got a smile on my face when she immediately mentioned how she visited Poland to study the history of her family and how they were affected by the Holocaust. I am in a class called Borderlands this semester in which we are studying unknown lands in and around this region so it was a nice breathe of fresh air that an American wanted to identify with her roots through Poland as opposed to say Germany. Moving on, I was greatly touched by her discussion about living abroad the year before college and how it changed her life. I think any abroad experience for an adolescent is life-changing and eye-opening so I fully agree with her recollection. Although I did have a (beyond) amazing time studying abroad in Ireland traveling and meeting new people, I think it is safe to say that I had quite a different experience than Pruce. She was 100% culturally involved in her time in Israel and took advantage of having first hand resources at her finger tips. For that, I am a little jealous, but am glad to know that such experiences are being had.

It was also interesting to read Pruce reflect on her time in college and how she became so involved in issues she believed in. It made me reflect a little bit about my four years at Colgate, as I will be graduating in a couple of weeks now, and how (again)  I have a very different experience. Though I would not change my time at this campus for anything, I do wish I had grown a passion for something, a cause, course study, subject, etc., and ran with it. As Pruce points out, college is a great way to make your mark and have people listen to you. Where else will you have such a diverse mind set of people either ready to listen or to challenge you?

News Flash: Male Primogeniture

News Flash ARTICLE: A Proposed Change to the Royal System of Ascension

As a young girl, I, like so many other kids, often dreamed about being a princess or meeting a prince. I can vividly remember watching my sister perform as Sleeping Beauty in her fifth grade play where she was able to sing and dance with her fifth grade Prince Charming. This lust for a monarchical life seems to be a thread which connects all countries and ages. I am sure my grandmother and mother alike had similar dreams when they were young, and I would not be surprised if one day my daughter looks longingly into the future hoping to one day be a princess or meet a handsome prince. In America, even though we have a tradition of disdaining royalty, we seem to be enthralled with European, and particularly British monarchies. As we have seen before with the American fascination with Princess Diana and her traditional role, we seem to throw feminist logic out the window.

This brings me to the purpose of this News Flash. In just a few days, Prince William will marry Catherine Middleton. This union is important for many reasons. Not only is a prince marrying a non-royal (every little girl’s fantasy!), but the marriage also will bring about changes within the royal government, especially regarding women’s issues. This paper will delve into the new proposal by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, who suggests a change in the rules of royal ascension. This paper will argue, that the traditions of monarchy are rooted too strongly in a patriarchal structure, and only by making drastic changes, such as those proposed by Clegg, will the traditional institution be a valid supporter of women’s rights and equal opportunity of the sexes.

When one thinks of age-old tradition, monarchy immediately comes to mind. Within this system, one typically regards the King as holding true power. But in as early as 1553, England had a reigning Queen, without a King. This was Queen Mary I, who was one of only six women (including the current Queen, Elizabeth II) to rule over England. However, despite the fact that Queen Elizabeth is currently the head of Britain’s constitutional monarchy, one cannot assert with good faith that the monarchical hierarchy is free from gender bias. In fact, one of the oldest rules of the monarchical system is that of male primogeniture. As this 300 year-old law states, the throne will always go to the firstborn male son (Daily Mail). This means, that if a girl were born first, even if she would be physically and mentally able to rule, she would fall behind all of her younger brothers in line to the throne.

Already, five European monarchies have eliminated the rule of male primogeniture; Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Denmark (Wikipedia). With all the change which will inevitably be discussed after the upcoming nuptials, it has been suggested that a change be made to the male primogeniture rule in the UK. Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, suggested earlier this month that if William and Kate’s first born was a daughter, she should be the first in line for the throne. Clegg has asserted that his “own personal view is that in this day and age the idea that only a man should ascend to the throne ... would strike most people as a little old fashioned” (Carpenter). Women across the world seem to struggle with eradicating the beliefs of many which confine them to traditional, gender-biased roles. Making a change to the royal rules of ascension would be a major upheaval of traditional values. Such a change would recognize that ruling a country should not be contingent upon one’s gender.

The Prime Minister himself, David Cameron, seemed to hesitatingly support this course of action. He said he supported the idea “in principle,” but stresses the importance of taking time to make such big decisions, and the need to consult with the other countries which are under the umbrella of the Queen’s rule. (Carpenter). Being the politician he is, he seems to e straddling the fence somewhat on this issue. He neither wants to alienate the royalists nor the feminists. His concern with his political reputation may get in the way of his full support for women’s rights. It is unfortunate to think that he is considering ignoring a major step in the right direction in fear of the unease of a minority of traditionalists.

Making this change would not only effect the United Kingdom, but it would also directly effect the other 15 countries which make up the jurisdiction of the English monarchy. While, according to some reports, most members of the UK would not oppose such a change to succession rules, there are voices of dissent coming from other countries in the jurisdiction. Canada, for example, where the Prime Minister, although he did not outwardly disapprove of taking such action, asserted that it was not his “top priority.” Similarly, Australia does not seem to be on board with this issue. Down under, “opponents of a change in succession laws fear that republican politicians -- that's republican as in anti-royalist, pro-republic politicians -- would use the change to remove the queen as head of state in that country” (Carpenter). Again, it seems that women’s rights are placed on the back burner. People loose focus on the true meaning of changing the law, and instead focus on the inconveniences it may bring about.

The debate regarding the male primogeniture brings up many of the same issues we have looked at thus far in class. While many British women are vocalizing their support, many others are being too apathetic regarding this issue. For example, Ms Dun, a 25-year-old accountant claimed she does not consider herself a feminist and that she “likes equality, but [does not] want it weighted too much towards the woman. The whole idea of going around and shouting about being equal isn’t [her] style” (Carpenter). The problem is not just apathetic women, there are also clear, and strong, voices of opposition coming from men. In today’s modern society, one would hope that the younger generations would be supportive of such a change and it would be the older, more traditional older generations that would need convincing. However, 29 year old George Juer, a graduate of one of Britain’s most prestigious schools, argued against making this change. According to him, “they [the government] shouldn’t change the law just for equality’s sake.” If you ask me, changing laws for equality’s sake is generally a pretty good idea! He goes on and later says, “I’m not anti-Queen, but … why change something that’s worked perfectly for so long?” He closes his argument by stating that his “girlfriend agrees” (Carpenter). As we have discussed in class, men seem to have a strong belief that in order to raise the standing of women, they themselves will need to be lowered. It is important to stress that women gaining equity does not mean that men will have some of their rights “taken away.” Being able to have a first-born female have the right to the throne over her younger brothers is a great way for women’s equity to reach the monarchical system. Hopefully, male members of Parliament will not think along the lines of Mr. Juer, and will instead push this change forward.

In conclusion, if the British monarchy wants to remain a viable entity in the 21^st Century, then they need to join the bandwagon and promote the full equality of women. In order for the British monarchy to maintain its support, it behooves them to show that they are willing to make progressive steps so that the whole monarchical system does not collapse due to inequalities. Throughout its long history, the monarchy in England has been steeped in patriarchy and sexist traditionalism. If male primogeniture is denounced, women will have made great strides towards full equality. Hopefully, this would have a trickle effect which would promote women’s rights throughout all areas of the government, the business world, and social politics.

Works Cited:

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/gail-walker/how-queen-proves-women-have-as-much-right-to-rule-as-men-15144441.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1377498/Succession-rights-Kate-Middleton-Prince-Williams-1st-baby-Queen.html

Newsflash #3: Sexual Assault and Title IX on College Campuses: Public Versus Private Issues

This video will give a clear overview of the current situation on Yale's campus:
CNN News Video: Yale's "hostile sexual environment"

Breaking: DOE's Office for Civil Rights to investigate Yale for "hostile sexual environment" (3/31/11)

Saporta: A justified claim (4/1/11)

Students, admins react to Title IX complaint (4/4/11)

Miller updates on Title IX investigation (4/6/11)

Administrators believe Yale did not violate Title IX, Miller says (4/7/11)

Yale comments on Title IX (4/8/11)

"Strategy sessions" examine sexual climate (4/12/11)

Yale not alone in Title IX probe (4/15/11)

One atom of carbon. One atom of oxygen. One person forgets to turn the stove burner off and one stream of colorless, odorless carbon monoxide molecules spreads through the air. Barely discernible until someone is inexplicably overcome by fatigue, headaches, nausea. The symptoms of poisoning reveal themselves, and unless they are acknowledged and addressed, the victim succumbs to the eternal sleep. Similarly, sexual assault pervades college campuses, and when the symptoms reveal themselves, it’s often too late. One student is raped, another assaulted, and soon a rape culture is created. The damage is done, souls are crushed, and working to rebuild the individuals’ lives and heal the hurt takes time, guidance, care, and often legal endeavors. The problem is, the response to sexual assault on most campuses is reactive, responding to the problem after it has manifested itself, rather than proactive, addressing the issue before individuals fall victim to it. When thinking of carbon monoxide poisoning, the source of the problem is often a bit simpler to resolve, both reactively and proactively. The gas must be contained so that it doesn’t enter the air in concentrated amounts, so the leaky gas valve must be sealed and the gas supply must be shut off. However, issues of sexual assault and harassment prove more difficult when generations of societal messages that condone the gender performance of masculinity through power over others (usually women, but also men) must be overturned. For this reason, legal efforts that attempt to address public demonstrations of sexual harassment only target the symptoms of a rape culture, not the source of the problem. Efforts that address and give voice to private, less visibly obvious instances of sexual assault will have more long-lasting and significant impacts as universities and colleges attempt to shift attitudes so that safe sexual environments are experienced for all.

Recently, sixteen Yale students and alumni filed a complaint against the university stating that Yale did not respond adequately to a number of public incidences of sexual harassment on campus or to private incidences of sexual assault. Examples of these incidences include: Delta Kappa Epsilon (DKE) fraternity students chanting “No means yes! Yes means anal!” in the residential area where most first-year women live (who are the most common victims of sexual violence on college campuses); male students who ranked Yale first-year women by how many beers it would take to have sex with them; Zeta Psi fraternity student pledges who stood outside the women’s center with a sign reading “We Love Yale Sluts!;” and private instances of sexual assault in which students reported their case to the university’s Sexual Harassment Grievance Board and were discouraged from pursuing the case through the police or more punitive on-campus disciplinary boards. Because Yale is not maintaining a safe sexual environment for women, the complainants are contesting that Yale is not upholding Title IX, the civil rights law that protects against discrimination on the basis of sex in educational programs which receive federal funding. As a result of this complaint, the US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights is conducting an investigation of Yale’s practices and potential violation of Title IX.

Ironically, the public displays of sexual harassment continue to receive more media attention, even when the media acknowledges that this should not be the case. Saporta, a Yale student, expresses in a column in Yale Daily News, that “many students feel that so much focus on public incidents of sexual harassment, which they see as examples of ‘boys being boys,’ takes away from what they feel is the far more pressing matter of physical sexual assault on campus.” Saporta accuses these students of failing “to see the connection between public acts of misogyny and private acts of violence.” While I agree that there is an inextricable link between public and private acts of sexual assault/harassment and I only see benefits resulting from the OCR’s investigation to protect student well-being on campus, I do not see this investigation as a solution to sexual climate issues on Yale’s, or any other school’s, campus. I see this investigation as beneficial if it encourages discussions and opens discourses up to women's issues, in classrooms and in casual conversations between students. Students initiated the complaint, and students are usually aware of what is problematic in the school environment and what specific issues need to be addressed. What message are the incensed Yale students conveying about the discourses present at their school when they alert the national authorities about possible breaches of Title IX? It seems to indicate that they do not feel they can make any progress by speaking and negotiating with other students, staff, and faculty. The reality is, national authorities can lay down the law and dictate Yale's conduct, but the national offices do not interact daily with the Yale community. Also, as Charlotte Bunch points out in her article "Whose Security?," those who dictate national decisions and efforts may have a broad and amorphous national agenda, rather than a clearly-defined and executed human rights agenda. Those in the campus community, students, faculty, and staff, must be on board and committed to change before change can even begin to occur.

Amid the Title IX violation claims, many people at Yale have become defensive, which does not help the community progress positively from these allegations. The first article in Yale Daily News concerning the recent complaint, explains that "the Task Force on Sexual Misconduct and Prevention [was] commissioned in the wake of the 2008 'We Love Yale Sluts' incident" ("DOE's Office for Civil Rights . . . ," 3.31.11). This task force was created reaction to an incident, when it could be argued that it should act proactively constantly so that "We Love Yale Sluts" incidents do not occur at all. The Dean of Yale College, Mary Miller, cited "several committees, reports and other measures taken by the University toward correcting sexual misconduct on campus in the past three years" ("Students, admins react to Title IX complaint," 4.4.11). The presence of initiatives does not ensure that they are operating effectively or when needed by the community. However, the Women's Center at Yale seems to be approaching women's issues, specifically sexual assault, in more promising ways. The Women’s Center, in an undertaking unrelated to the Title IX accusations, has held a week-long series of “strategy sessions,” which “are geared toward brainstorming ways in which Yalies can combat sexual misconduct” (“‘Strategy sessions’ examine sexual climate,” 4.12.11). Although students initiated this complaint, student discussions about the campus's sexual climate in safe campus spaces can allow voices to be heard. I wish the article had further explained the conversations occurring in these meetings, though they seemed to be movements in the right direction.

In our Women's Studies Center at Colgate, these encouraging, open, and honest conversations seem to happen without much inhibition. While Colgate is not a model school for low instances of sexual assault, there are niches and safe places (I think of Yes Means Yes seminar, Safe Zone trainings, brown bag lunches, lectures, Take Back the Night march and speak out) where at least some students feel comfortable sharing their ideas and thoughts about sex and sexuality on campus. We are also fortunate to have considerable faculty and staff support, in the aforementioned spaces and in one-on-one conversations with adults and role models on campus (which larger schools with more students and less staff per student cannot provide). In conversations with other Colgate students I encounter in women's studies courses and events, the "dichotomiz[ation of] 'public' and 'private'" (73) that Enloe points out, with public pertaining to that which affects the political realm and private pertaining to women's and personal issues, does not present itself as two discrete categories. Rather, women's issues are given voice and it seems likely that sexual harassment and assault will be resisted, not tolerated.

As Jonah Gokova suggests, “men need to change their attitude towards sex . . . [by] begin[ning] to see it as an opportunity to communicate mutually with women, rather than as a chance to dominate and conquer” (Freedman, 421). This communication needs to begin before sex, in large-group and small-group discussions about how sex can be meaningful and respectful to everyone involved. Professor Claire Potter of Wesleyan University notes in "A Letter to My Students: Stop Rape Now By Doing These Ten Things" that "men need to talk to other men about why men rape and and women need to talk to women about why they insist on making rape a private matter." Conversations need to occur across difference, gender identification and others, to address the impact that rape and sexual assault has on campuses and what campus community members find important to address. National forces can contribute to changing the campus sexual climate, but a community of students, staff, and faculty must be committed to the goals of decreasing sexual assault and harassment at both private and public levels, appropriately punishing sexual attacks when they occur, and cutting off the fuel supply (overturning myths, interrupting harmful social messages and constructs) of ideas which perpetuate rape cultures on campuses.

Works Cited

Bunche, Charlotte. "Whose Security?" The Nation. 5 Sept. 2002.

Enloe, Cynthia. The Curious Feminist: Searching for Women in a New Age of Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004. Print.

Freedman, Estelle B. ed. The Essential Feminist Reader. New York: Modern Library, 2007. Print.

Yale Daily News articles that are linked above from March 31 to April 15, 2011.