Hollow Feminism

More women...Yeah, more women! No, this isn't the pig. In fact, this phrase represents a glimpse into the deterioration of gender politics at Harvard.

This enthusiastic call for more women was recently interjected into a conversation I had with a fellow Crimson editor. We happened to be discussing whether The Crimson needed more women editors. Evidently, the female student standing near us had already made up her mind on this issue. She was so sure of her opinion that she felt compelled to enter our conversation.

Her demand for greater female representation didn't surprise me. But her application of this belief was a bit unsettling. She explained to me that since there were too few women on the paper's staff, The Crimson should appoint more women editors. I began to explain that all Harvard students were more than welcome to comp, but again she interrupted.

Her logic functioned thus: To alleviate disparity, The Crimson should automatically elect female editors--including herself, of course. I thought she was joking. Yet she was quite clear in her belief that the comp would be unnecessary and tedious. She, and other women, deserved their editorships immediately--without any hassle like a comp.

This argument puzzled me. The following day I was fortunate enough to continue this enlightening discussion. She criticized The Crimson by offering two examples of technical errors: lines missing from stories and misplaced continuations. When I asked how these mistakes would be remedied by the presence of more women on the staff, she jumped up from her seat, demanded that I cease to patronize her and stormed off.

It would have been easy to dismiss this episode as merely a matter of miscommunication or, perhaps, conflicting personalities. Yet, as I pondered the encounter, I began to realize that this minor event in my chaotic life represented a greater and more distressing phenomenon at Harvard.

As support for gender equality in America becomes an ingrained conviction, many advocates no longer feel compelled to consider the logic behind the belief. Consequently, a goal which is generally laudable becomes reduced to a reactionary mantra, indiscriminately employed.

At Harvard, a clear example of the misapplication of this egalitarian principle is Women Appealing for Change, the group seeking the admittance of women by final clubs. The logic evidently runs thus: Final clubs are bad, therefore "more women."

It appears that the goal is a foregone conclusion: Women must be included in equal measure in all activities. On the surface, this egalitarian attitude is consistent with fundamental American ideals. But a process of reasoning once led people to believe in this concept.

Now, apparently, the belief has become instilled so deeply into the hearts and minds of today's young feminists that the process of reasoning behind the belief is irrelevant. The outcome is a hollow mantra, which is applied indiscriminately to any and all situations as an instant and legitimate cure.

Are we seriously supposed to believe that the courageous young feminists of WAC have purely egalitarian motives? The movement for women (and more women) in final clubs apparently reflects this commitment. After all, as Francie Walton '94, a WAC organizer, explains: "This is the logical step toward ending elitism."

Yet the quality which makes final clubs so appealing is their elitism. Without an exclusive selection process, a final club would just be a random group, without the perks final clubs now offer.

And WAC wants these perks; in their manifesto they cite "access to the support of club alumni" as a crucial advantage they are denied. Intent on joining the elite, their egalitarian rhetoric rings hollow.

Is it too much to ask that students at Harvard first consider their aims before invoking the now-canonized dogma "more women"?

The problem apparently stems from the source of the conviction. "More women" no longer represents the conclusion to a long process of serious thought. Rather, it has become an emotional response--no thought necessary.

This observation does not mean that people who chant "more women" never think. Rather, those who chant "more women" are so certain of their cause that they often fail to appreciate the logic behind the goal.

After all, we don't want "more women" in jails or in plane crashes. Despite these clear exceptions, the conviction has become an indiscriminate attitude.

Thus, we should not be so surprised that the logic is often haphazardly misapplied, since the reasons for the conviction have long been lost in a cloud of passionate political slogans.