That there are only 14 female U.S. senators and 60 U.S. congresswomen bothers me, but I understand that there are reasons, other than gender discrimination, for the inequality. I wish our society was not so unbalanced, but decades of second-class educations and second-class opportunities have created a second-class gender. History will not be reversed by my rage, and it is a far more pleasant and productive task to examine the future.
Fifty-six percent of college students nationwide are female, according to 2000 census data, and the trend toward more females is expected to continue. Colleges like Amherst still have slightly more males (51 percent male, 49 percent female), but nationally, many have begun to express concern about the dearth of male college students. The average female worker still makes 76 cents for each dollar a male earns, but I believe demographics are on our side. It is only a matter of time before qualified females so outnumber qualified males that the corporate executive echelons will be forced to turn to smart, motivated women. Current college enrollment ensures the wage gap's decrease; this cannot, will not, be a man's world alone 30 years from now.
Sounds good, right? No need then to be militant and motivated for change-the end of gender discrimination is near, indeed in sight.
Ah, but if Amherst College is the future, the situation is far more grim. Of the 24 sophomore, junior and senior senators that comprise the AAS Senate, only four are female. That's only 16 percent, just slightly higher than the U.S. Congress's 14 percent rate, and far below the percentage of female state legislators (23 percent) and female statewide elected executives (25 percent), using statistics compiled by the Center for American Women and Politics.
Simply put, that's pathetic. Few of the issues that prevent women from reaching real-world political office are present here in our egalitarian Amherst bubble. There are no worries about family or having babies, no concern for raising money and networking the old boys' club and presumably no entrenched sense of gender bias and intolerance for female senators. So what gives?
In last year's sophomore class senatorial election, there was a crowded field of 17 (10 male and 7 female). Turnout was high as well, with 288 students voting, almost three-quarters of the class of 2007. And yet, of the seven women, only one was elected. This, compared to the seven elected men, doesn't sound like a positive statistic.
The cynic in me would immediately concludes there must have been some sort of poll bias-how else can one explain such a gender-skewed result? Some (mostly male) friends have suggested that the females who ran were an unusually unqualified bunch. Perhaps-though two of the females not elected had a year's experience as senators. Others have said that this is just a classic case of women not wanting to vote for other women, and men sticking by their own. If such warped worldviews are held even by the educated at Amherst, then a gender-neutral society really is a delusion. In any case, my conclusions are merely conjectures, all impossible to prove.
What I know for certain is that right now the Senate simply does not represent our student body. Bureaucratic and aimless though the Senate may seem, it alone determines priorities on campus by doling out money to clubs and activities according to its sense of their usefulness. Having a more accurate representation of the student body will enable the Senate to more accurately discern the needs of our campus.
So, class of 2008, it is up to you to rectify the Senate's unrepresentative composition. Though I am tempted to advocate voting for any and all females no matter what-self-preservation may be at play, and there are only so many testosterone-dominated meetings I can take-that is not the solution. Those elected should be the best for the job, all issues of gender aside. But I do not think it unreasonable to say that the Senate needs more female senators, and perhaps some greater societal good would be served by taking gender into consideration (like an affirmative action program for female politicians). Needless to say, all voters should attend speech night and cast an informed vote.
Though the deadline has passed to be placed on the ballot, there is still time to make our Senate more representative. Female freshmen, declare your write-in candidacies. It's not hard-post on NOTE and the Daily Jolt, talk to your friends and fellow classmates and print up flyers with your name. Be willing to talk to people and walk the dorms-you truly have nothing to lose. At the very least, you will meet a whole lot of new people. I am eager to help any freshmen females considering a senate seat with their campaign.
Ten percent of 2003's graduating class held a political science degree. There are many politically active females on this campus, many with leadership roles. So many Amherst students envision themselves changing the world by working for the president or running for political office someday. If these qualifications describe you, you owe it to yourself and to Amherst to run for Senate and start making a difference here.
Female freshmen-the promised land of the Red Room, blessed by interminable meetings and parliamentary pretension, awaits you. Quite often, yes, the Senate is ineffective, but its potential to actually improve student life is great. We control a $600,000 budget, sit on faculty and trustee committees and play a role in almost every decision made on campus. This is a body with great power; the Senate must be representative for that power to be used responsibly. As the sole female sophomore senator and as class council chair, it would make me really happy to have a few more girls.