From a Woman of the College

The motivation behind Women’s Week has always baffled me, but I took direct offense at the insinuations of a recent op-ed on the subject. Shauna Shames ’01 claims that Women’s Week “helps women to feel like they are equal citizens of this college.” Pardon? I am an equal citizen, and I need no assistance in being made to “feel like” one. In fact, that statement, along with the article’s emphasis on “women’s issues,” made me feel less equal than any other comment has in my time at Harvard.

True equality demands treatment as an ordinary member of society, yet the entire purpose of Women’s Week is to promote women as a special interest group. The very notion of a certain status or identity that unites all Harvard women emphasizes gender division, while women who largely define themselves according to their gender detract from the notion of equal status. Far from erasing gender barriers, the Women’s Week principle of targeting women as a separate and distinct group merely propagates gender inequality.

As far as “female empowerment” is concerned, excessive focus on the “female” has a detrimental impact on “empowerment.” Empowerment demands success regardless of gender and has been achieved by many women at Harvard. None of my Harvard experiences has indicated the gender gap in leadership positions that the forthcoming Women’s Center report promises to show, as women hold top spots in every one of my extracurricular activities. Indeed, both the UC president and vice president are currently women, as is the president of Harvard. But these women have been elected due to their abilities, not their gender.

Gender equality demands that women should not be defined by their sexuality, but by their characteristics and achievements. Harvard women have accomplished much in a wide range of non-gender related roles, and Women Week’s attempt to reduce these achievements to “women’s issues” frankly detracts from their status as equal citizens. While female-focused activities are not necessarily a bad thing—organizations such as Women in Business and the Circle of Women, for example, enable real impact—Women’s Week seems to solely focus on allowing women to wallow in their sexuality.

The need for a Women’s Week is further diminished by the lack of issues that unify all women at Harvard. Such lack of cohesion is demonstrated by Women’s Week’s effort to link disparate topics such as “strength training” and “women in music.” Indeed, the one issue that truly unites Harvard women is the inherent sexism in the college’s social scene, yet this matter is given no attention during the week’s programs. The dearth of concerns that unify Harvard’s women suggests that there is no need for us to be upheld or treated as a special interest group and that doing so is more likely to create women’s issues than solve them.

Women at Harvard share two defining characteristics: their sexuality and their choice of college. To emphasize “woman” over “Harvard student” brings women further from equal status, not closer.


Olivia M. Goldhill ’11, a Crimson editorial writer, is a government concentrator in Pforzheimer House.