Bittina Weblog

Before I try to decipher what this article is saying, I feel I should present my overall views on "affirmative action" or whatever you, the reader, feel like calling it. I'll get to this article's effects of me later; these are just a mixture of things I have felt or feel now. I've always felt affirmative action was unfair ever since I got into the whole "college search" world. If a member of a minority group applies to the same college as me, I thought, and they have the same qualifications as me or are even less qualified, would they get in over me because they are a minority? I never even thought of the male/female "affirmative action" going on because really, there are more women than men in college now, so I didn't even think colleges needed to admit more women since it was already being done. So did I feel threatened by affirmative action? Sure I did. Does this mean I don't want minorities in college? Of course not! They should have an equal opportunity. Now, the only conflict of opinions is on what "equal opportunity" really means.

To some, an "equal opportunity" means having color-blind applications for things like college and jobs. Ethnicity (or even names, as some names are associated with ethnicity--take the surname Garcia, for example) would not even have a space on the application, only qualifications would be given. However, as brought up by Pincus's article, this may not be enough. Pincus brings up the fact that blacks were discriminated against in the 1950s housing boom, and so their descendants now may not live in the same upscale neighborhoods as whites, or have the extra money to move since the 1950s generation was not able to get loans from banks, making them economically poorer than whites. So maybe being color-blind isn't enough. I'm not a sociologist, so I can't really say, but it seems to me that affirmative action still isn't really the way to go. It's sad that we can't find a solution, but it's truly sad that we need this solution at all.

However, I do have to say that Pincus's article enlightened me about my previous beliefs that I would get denied to a college because I wasn't a minority. I never knew how much opportunity really was (or wasn't) taken away from whites by affirmative action, and now I know it really isn't that much at all. Therefore, I'm not ever going to use that in my argument against affirmative action again.

While I went on a tangent from my original plan up there, I still have something to say about my beliefs, and these ones haven't changed. In 11th grade, I had to read an article dealing with affirmative action in my AP American History class. This article affected me greatly, mainly because it was easy to understand (unlike this one...) and I'm sorry to say that I don't remember the title or author to share with you. One thing that I drew from that article is that affirmative action isn't entirely what the civil rights activists of the 1960s wanted. Affirmative action gives privileges to people based on race...isn't that still racism, even if those people are minorities? The civil rights activists didn't want minorities to get jobs or get into college because of their race, they just wanted their qualifications to be acknowledged, and to not be held back because of their race!

So basically, what I'm trying to say is that affirmative action really isn't that bad for whites, so we should stop complaining about "our opportunities" getting taken away. However, I still don't think it's the solution to our racism problems here in the US. After all, affirmative action is still generating animosity between people and is even making white people more racist, since they feel the minorities have stolen their spots. Both sides of this argument are very heated; I wanted to mention how biased Pincus is, basically calling his opponents uneducated, but an article written from a different point of view would be just as biased. While I can't propose anything better than affirmative action (since a color-blind world "obviously" can't work according to Pincus), I really wish we could find a solution that truly is fair and gives everyone the same opportunities.

I thought this article was very interesting, partly because I often found myself nodding along, but also because I sometimes read statements with skepticism, because I didn't find those statements to be personally true. I don't remember being ignored by teachers, and I don't have any brothers yet I think my parents would have encouraged us equally to be active. Of course, at this point I remember an important point from one of my research articles: these are statements remarking on general behavior and general actions. They're not meant to totally define everyone's experiences, yet they occur often enough to be statistically significant. To quote Deutsch, "we can't fight injustice if we refuse to acknowledge it exists." If we ignore what we deem a "minor" injustice because it does not affect us personally, we allow that injustice to continue to occur, and therefore are helping injustice everywhere instead of fighting it.

I was specifically moved by several statements, but I'll only talk about a few so this doesn't get too long-winded. Number 4 is particularly relevant to our women in science topic. As evidenced by our Nobel Prize book, many women, namely Marie Curie, felt the pressure to succeed not just for themselves but for all women, so as not to hurt others' chances. I have thought about number 24 before and been equally saddened by it then and now. While I certainly don't condone being promiscuous, I do believe it is unfair that men can get away with such behavior (and this behavior may even be seen as positive) while a woman is scorned.

I also notice number 25 a lot, and it was recently brought to my attention again while reading about proper concert attire for my Wind Symphony concert, which is Sunday at 3:15 in the Campus Center auditorium, be there or be square. The instructions for men were simple: a black tuxedo, or a suit that you can make look as close to a tuxedo as possible. There were some clarifications for what exactly makes a tuxedo, and what the boys should please please try to get, but really their attire is simple. The instructions for women, however, took up a good page explaining what is or is not appropriate concert attire. Nothing low-cut or with high slits, because it's distracting. Plain black, no white accents anywhere. On and on and on, because for women there is no "basic" dress wear. I was able to find black pants and a "safe" black blouse, and I already had black shoes (with a not-too-high heel). I'm not saying anything against Doc Hepler's instructions, just about the social atmosphere that makes these instructions necessary. Women always have to be careful what message their clothing sends to other people about their morals, while men are pretty much free from this concern.

I could continue, especially about the "skinny culture" we have to face and about aggressive women being labeled as bitches, but this really is getting long. Overall, I found Deutsch's list intriguing, as I now wonder if men have ever thought of these statements before. I have, since I am a woman and I notice these injustices. But as a white person, I had never thought much about McIntosh's list involving race, so does the same thing apply for the gender list? It would be interesting to hear from one of our male peer leaders discussing this list...

After reading the list of "Typical Statements" and their clarifications from Jane Elliot's website, I felt enlightened. I learned that basically I can't ever react to a "race issue" or say anything remotely related to diversity without somehow denying a person's struggles, or denying the problem, or denying responsibility for the problem. Now, I'm not saying the list of clarifications didn't make sense--it did, but a few of them really seemed to be digging deep to find what was wrong with that particular "typical statement." Of course, my stupid ignorance probably means Jane Elliot is going to break into my room with a flame-thrower the instant I post this blog. Lucky for me, there's a fire extinguisher on the wall right outside my room, so I'll be ready.

This isn't to say I disagree with Elliot, because I actually thought she brought up a lot of good points in her lecture, and I thought her experiment was fascinating. But really, isn't my slightly puzzled reaction to her "statements" and "clarifications" pages the epitome of what Peggy McIntosh is talking about? I'm white, therefore I have been programmed by society to accept my privileges without question, even to the point of not realizing that I am privileged. It also doesn't help that I'm from the sticks. According to Wikipedia, my township is 99.08% white. I've always known that my area wasn't very "diverse" but only now am I realizing just how unfortunate that is for me and other kids from my high school, because we've never been exposed to anything else. I try to be open-minded and accept diversity, but as I'm being open-minded am I also being prejudiced at the same time? Like Rachel said in class, during the lecture I began to ask myself if I've been racist all this time and not really noticed. Obviously, I don't want to be, but after listening to Jane Elliot speak and reading McIntosh's article I feel the need to reevaluate my thoughts.

My favorite part of McIntosh's article was near the end, where she stated that "disapproving of the systems won't be enough to change them." I think this is completely true for every issue we have in our country today. To keep this on track, I'll only elaborate about power and prejudice, not all the other potential issues. I have power that I've been taught to overlook by society, and I don't think it's fair for me to have power solely because I'm white. I can disapprove of this power, but just talking about it isn't going to change anything. As I think about this, I'm reminded of our parents' generation, who were known to be very outspoken when it came to social issues. Aside from being outspoken, they actually tried to effect change in our world. Why can't we finish what they started? There is still prejudice and unfair power, and we're still unhappy about it, so why don't we get our act together and actually do some good instead of talking about it? Well, it would be a lot of work, that's why. Restructuring society doesn't happen overnight, but really we need to start somewhere. I only hope we can pull it off.

The first thing I noticed about these two articles was that while one was written by a man and the other by a woman, they both basically had the same perspective. This way, the issue of gender bias need not come into play when discussing the articles. Aside from that, I was very surprised and disappointed with the way the Chicago Sun-Times article ended abruptly when it seemed like it was leading into at least one more paragraph.

On the other hand, I really liked the blog "Chivalry: Lesson One," mainly because I agree with the author's views and have thought about this point before. I think it is extremely important to remember that when feminists want "equality" with men, they are not asking to be treated like a man. The blog author goes on to say that chivalry is still fine, but after saying what feminism is not, he has failed to say what feminism is. After all, society's idea nowadays is to make everything completely gender-neutral, which can't work for everything. So, if that's wrong (because women still want to be treated as women), how should we define feminism and the equality it reaches for? I can't offer any hard-and-true answers, but it seems to me that when women say we want to be treated as a man's equal, we mean that we still want to be treated as a woman, but also as a person no less capable than a man. When I say no less capable, I don't mean in terms of opening doors, etc. If a man wants to open a door from me, I'll say thank you and go through the door. What I mean is that women want to be treated with respect. I really think everything comes down to the respect issue with feminism, because this way a man can respect a woman's intellectual abilities and also show respect for her by opening doors for her.

As for the oddly cut-off Chicago Sun-Times article, I think what the author was getting at is that all this equality has made relationships more complicated. The expressions "who wears the pants" or "the man of the relationship" can either make a woman seem like the more masculine partner and the man seem more feminine. What were once terms of endearment now seem like insults to a woman's strength, even if they're not meant in a demeaning manner. This makes men more reluctant to be chivalrous, because they don't want to offend anyone.

I had an experience with this indecision before a school dance, when I had to reassure my boyfriend that it was OK to help me out of the car. We drove there in a tall SUV, I was in heels with a poofy dress, and basically I would have killed myself if I tried to get out on my own. He had opened the door, but looked very uncertain as to if he should offer me his hand. After I told him chivalry wasn't dead, he helped me down, all the while explaining that he wasn't sure if I'd appreciate the help or not.

All in all, I really think our society needs a re-education in chivalry. Go ahead and open doors, offer seats, just don't do it in a belittling way. Respect is key, because then we can have both. Men can be chivalrous out of politeness and respect, and they can also be respectful to women by giving us equal opportunities and fair treatment. We can have both.

Honestly, I really don't think I would have anything to do with science had it not been for these "pioneers" in science. I remember actually becoming interested in science in about 4th or 5th grade, but if I lived in a different time period that interest would have been discouraged. Of course, if someone tried to stifle my curiosity I probably would have tried to learn more about science just to spite them, but I'm not sure how far I would have gotten. My parents aren't scientists, so even if they supported my studies I would be teaching myself completely on my own. Knowing myself when I was younger (and even now...), I probably would have just given up the instant something was too hard for me. So if I ran across a difficult concept in my self-teaching, I probably would have skimmed over it and gotten myself even more confused, or just said "science is hard" and gone on to something else.

I would also like to say that I would have been infuriated to have been barred from high school, but I really can't be sure. Certainly, if for some reason back in 2003 I had suddenly been told "Sorry, you're going to finishing school instead of high school this fall," I would have fought for my education. However, I really believe I'm so passionate about my education because of the great set of teachers I had when I was young, and a lot of these teachers were women who had been inspired by others, such as Curie and Meitner. So, if I had grown up in a time where girls were discouraged from higher education, my teachers probably wouldn't have been quite so inspiring and supportive. This would have made me less willing to go to great lengths for an education. But who knows? If I got lucky and had a supportive teacher urging me along, I probably would have tried for something better than finishing school. Would I have succeeded? I don't know. I think I might have gotten through high school and maybe a bit of college, but it seems that these women faced more opposition the higher up they got. I think eventually I would have decided I'd had enough fighting for an education. At the same time, as I became more educated, I think I would have a bigger desire to keep going and gain even more knowledge.

I hate to say it's a toss up, but it really is. Would I have fought for my right to an education and worked hard even if I wasn't being graded? I'd like to think so. One thing I do know for sure is that I would have been unhappy hearing that I couldn't go to school because I was a girl. Hopefully, my past-self alter-ego would have done something about this unhappiness and found a way to get an education instead of whining about it. Really, someone's got to do it. Every movement needs to start somewhere, and without these early women in science we'd be nowhere, and I'd be in some class analyzing The Great Gatsby again. Either there would still be no women in science, or just someone else would have started the movement. Hopefully, the latter is true.

Well, I'm Anna. My favorite colors are blue, green, and orange. In fact, I have a very bright blue bottle of nail polish right now and I'm hunting for a good orange shade. I like to read, but I didn't get to read as much this summer as I'd like. Some of my favorite books are Madleleine L'Engle's Wrinkle in Time series, The Catcher in the Rye, To Kill a Mockingbird, Harry Potter, and The Count of Monte Cristo. I also like a lot of movies (the list is really long), and I live for music. I listen to a wide variety of music, from classic rock to punk, from indie to blues; basically as long as it's not country or rap I'll like it. I'm a fan of photography; I like to take pictures but I really like to look at others' photos. I love summer: swimming, camping, catching lightning bugs, watching thunderstorms, having campfires, and hanging out with friends. I'm not a fan of hot weather though; I prefer the cool fall air that recently rolled into Meadville.

Why am I interested in women in science? Well, I'm a chem major and I'm a woman. I'm not really a hard-core feminist, but at the same time I can appreciate what's been done for women's rights. I know we were oppressed even within the last several decades, but I don't think there's really any need for radical changes anymore. Still, it's very intriguing to me how few women there are in the field of science, math, and technology. Sure, female doctors are very common now and it's not really unusual for a woman to go into science these days, but there still have only been 15 women awarded a Nobel Prize. Hopefully those numbers will go up; I know it would be awesome to have someone from this class win a Nobel Prize one day!