There has been
a tremendous dust-up in response to Susan Patton's (a member of the Princeton
class of 1977) letter to the Daily
Princetonian. In
her letter, Patton exhorts Princeton women to begin the task of husband hunting
in their freshman year, warning them that “[f]or most
of you, the cornerstone of your future and happiness will be inextricably
linked to the man you marry, and you will never again have this concentration
of men who are worthy of you.”
Below is my
response, a version of which was also published in the Daily Princetonian:
I
have to say that while I disagree with most of Patton’s assertions, I don’t
find them especially offensive. After all, women can take Patton’s advice or
leave it. While Patton’s tone does seem overwrought and off key in several
respects, I don’t find her message much different from any other piece of
alumni advice. In fact, I find myself uneasier with the assumption by some
women that Patton’s point of view is one that should be suppressed. I don’t
agree with much of what Patton says. But neither do I think that Patton’s view
should be silenced. Haven’t men told women to shut up long enough without women
telling each other (for it is mostly women doing the silencing) to shut up? I
for one think Patton ought to speak louder and longer to her points. If she
did, we might engender fuller and more constructive engagement on the issue of
women’s family lives.
I
am especially uneasy with the class and race privilege evidenced in the
outraged responses to Patton’s letter. There seems to be at work here an implicit
understanding that elite college women who look for early marriage with
classmates (or perhaps for any marriage at all) are turning their backs on
stellar opportunities or are being untrue to bedrock feminist principles such
as autonomy or equality. This is problematic because although women come in all
stripes, too often norms of feminism are shaped by the elite few. Feminism has
been and continues to be the province of the wealthy, the white and the
well-connected. Many of these women want to have it all or want a larger piece
of the pie. Other women might be content to get any of it at all or might be
content with some of the crumbs from the pie much less a piece of it. It is
difficult to frame a broad-based emancipatory feminist program in the face of
such starkly contrasting metaphors for female success.
The
contrast may be especially bleak when comparing wealthy, white women to black
women from poor and working class backgrounds. In the context of marriage, some
wealthy white women, for instance, may be far more likely to have access to
well-paying jobs or other resources that obviate the need for a spouse’s
financial support. Moreover, given a higher rate of placement in elite firms
and more frequent residence in upscale neighborhoods, wealthy white women who
do choose to marry may have far more opportunity to find a like-minded mate at
places outside of the elite colleges or universities that they may have
attended.
For
poor or working class black women and for some other women of color, there is often
less available in the way of career or spousal choice. Even equipped with an
elite college degree, highly educated black women from poor or working class
backgrounds often earn less than their white, wealthy counterparts, making it
harder for them to support themselves alone. Highly educated black women from
poor or working class backgrounds are also less likely than their wealthy white
peers to live and work in settings where there are large numbers of people who
share their interests or values. Yes, it may be possible to find a suitable
mate in other settings. I’ll call such mates diamonds in the rough. Then again,
it may not be possible. There are far more rocks in the world than diamonds in
the rough. While solid and dependable, a rock is, well, just a rock.
This
is not to say that elite colleges and universities are brimming over with cut
and polished diamonds in the form of highly suitable mates. But I think some of
us protest entirely too much when we eschew the seeming elitism of remarks such
as Patton’s “you will never again have this concentration of men who are worthy
of you.” Certainly I’d adjust that statement to read men or women;
heteronormativity is its own form of tyranny. And maybe Patton’s statement it
is a bit too emphatic; never is a long time, after all. But the fact is, even
if adopting the most anti-elitist stance possible, a lot of us do think this
way. We just don’t like to say it and if anyone else says it we cry foul.
Does
this mean that I would give my daughter the advice that Patton is proposing?
Absolutely not. If my daughter is lucky enough to attend Princeton or a school
like it, I want her to view her college years as a momentous first step in a
life full of grand possibilities of all sorts. Marriage may or may not be one of
them. But, I would also make sure that my daughter understands that for some
women, well educated or not, choices and opportunities, if they exist at all,
may be narrower and more constrained. Only with this sort of honest
acknowledgement of the conditions facing some women can we achieve significant
change for all women.
