Good intentions, perhaps, but with what ramifications? I have several questions for this award, but most of all I question whether or not this award actually enforces the stereotypical gender roles it may (or may not?) be trying to escape in the first place. Men are portrayed as active, powerful forces, who act as a necessary support to women. Women, on the other hand, come off looking passive and fragile-as victims in desperate need of supplementation only a true Wingman can provide.
Look at the reasoning behind the first two awards. (N.B.: My intention is not to cheapen these kind actions, but rather to look at the logic and language of the award.) The first is awarded solely on the basis of "rising above and beyond the call of duty when a fem ale friend fell ill this month. (He) helped her to her bed, provided her with water and escorted her to and from the bathroom-three times!" The second, while a bit more inclusive, still applauds the Wingman for walking women home at night. Think carefully; what sort of logic do we endorse when we applaud men for protecting women? For making them feel "safe, respected and beautiful," as if they cannot feel that for themselves? Although women are often victims in this phallocentric society, isn't there is something terribly wrong and dehabilitating in always presenting them as such?
If you're still skeptical, take a closer look at the language of the award: The recipients, besides the "limited edition" t-shirt, receive "mad props from Amherst women and the men who support them." Not only does this divide the population by gender, but it also assigns a role to each: man supports, while woman receives his support. As if there is no possibility of crossing over!
In my opinion, we should offer an award to those who keep the discussion open on gender, to those who keep questioning the strict binary system. As I see it, the current award not only directly enforces gender roles but also appears strongly hetero-normative. (After all, it is aimed mostly at women, those "enthusiasts" and "admirers" who celebrate men's "downright sexiness.") This award just perpetuates the myth of the coherence and naturalness of gender-that is, a biological female acting feminine and desiring men or a biological male acting masculine and desiring women. And what fun is that?
If the ultimate intention of the award is to minimize harm inflicted upon women, or to support men who don't fit into their stereotypical gender role (like "woman-as-victim," this is another assumption that may be a self-fulfilling prophecy), I would urge its creators and the Amherst public to consider the following. Is it not the case that this award makes profoundly stereotypical assumptions about gender? And in doing so, doesn't it actually harm those whose beings, desires and subjectivities do not conform to its assumptions? Upon reflection of these two questions, I can say this with certainty: Despite its good intentions, the Wingman Award falls fundamentally flat.
Kelly is a junior majoring in law, jurisprudence and social thought. She can be reached at krich08@amherst.edu.