ABOUT GIRLS

There’s an intriguing article in the December ’05 edition of Advocate, a National Education Association, (NEA), publication; it’s entitled “Abolishing ‘Effortless Perfection.’”  The statement highlighted on page one of the article is “Women undergraduates feel pressured by a fraternity-dominated social culture to achieve ‘effortless perfection.’” (Compare this to the “boy code” – William Pollack, et al. – and the socialization messages usually conveyed to males starting in their boyhood years regarding not looking weak and the imperative to succeed; i.e., “failure is not an option.”) 

Using Betty Friedan’s exploration in The Feminine Mystique of the “problem that has no name” as the starting point, the NEA author refers to a 2003 report provided by Duke University’s Women’s Initiative: Its most controversial conclusion was

that women undergraduates feel pressured…to achieve “effortless perfection.”  These women felt they must be “smart, accomplished, fit, beautiful, and popular” all without visible effort, and when they can’t attain this ideal, their sense of failure is manifested through self-inflicted wounds and eating disorders.”  

These statements are both alarming and a sweeping indictment not only of undergraduate college culture in general but of the perception of it – and themselves - on the part of undergraduate females.

Some piercing questions need to be asked and some points require clarification:

Although not one of the original “Ivy” campuses, (actually IV campuses), Duke can be considered part of that cluster.  Of all undergraduate campuses in the U.S., how many have a “…fraternity-dominated social culture…?”  And what does that mean?  That “Greeks” rule?  That males rule on these campuses to the detriment of females?  That there has been so little progress before and since 1963, (the publication date of The Feminine Mystique), that opening higher education to females has not made their lives or self perception any better than it was when women were fighting to obtain the right to vote?  And, of course, who responded to the Duke Initiative survey?  I don’t have answers to all these questions; and, in fairness to the author’s discussion there are some points made with which I agree and which I will include here; but it seems to me that some of the same notes struck by Deborah Tannen in You’re Wearing That?, (see book reviews on this site), emphasizing the importance placed on physical appearance, etc., are resident in the notion of “effortless perfection.”  (And regarding “effortless,” is this also part of the “super mom/super woman” notion?)

Once eating disorders were recognized as fact and a persistent possibility in the lives of females, but especially young girls, the causes had to be determined so that treatments could be implemented.  Early in the exploration of these afflictions the causes identified included what’s known as “father hunger” – (could be re-labeled parent hunger) – and perfectionism and/or the Imposter Syndrome.  Recent and current data point beyond these, or other complicated causes, and look directly at the media and the messages regarding body image expectations, etc. these provide..  Anyone involved in Women’s Studies would be hard pressed to deny the increasing influence of the media and how damaging these can be and, as well, how the damage is affecting younger and younger girls.  If the NEA article is correct it tells us two things:  (1) that the problems identified regarding undergraduate females are as much brought by them to the campus environment as (2) these problems are perpetrated and/or fostered by that environment.  That being the case, the reality would be these do not dissipate once women exit the campus environment but stay with them when they enter the next phase(s) of their lives, including work/career and social involvements.  Then it is easy to postulate that the essential journey to personal authenticity is seriously sidetracked by the effort to achieve “effortless perfection.”  Where do we, can we go, from here?

The highlighted statement on page two of the referenced article is “Creating opportunities for women to cultivate their own voices is a rewarding pedagogic challenge.”  …their own voices: authenticity.  The author includes in a selection of suggestions or remedies the importance of modeling and mentoring – that female students need consistent exposure to (older) women who are both comfortable with and proficient at being “works in progress” – modeling – need (older) women to guide them – mentoring – in the ways of the world.  (To which the author refers as “‘gendered networks of influence.’”)  I salute both of these recommendations.  I also want to state my personal concern that this not devolve into gender warfare.  The NEA article is, to a degree, the opposite of the notion of the “war against boys” in that it discusses the serious disadvantage(s) to which female undergraduates are exposed.  Therefore, it is essential to look once again at the social justice inherent in applied feminism and emphasize equity.   When we diminish girls/women, we automatically create difficulties for boys/men.

I do not detect “effortless perfection” as a dominant theme on the campus at CSU-Fullerton.  Perhaps this is because it is a “commuter campus.”  Perhaps this is because it has a significant diversity component, which includes a substantial number of young women representing ethnic minorities and they are committed to achievement and do not present themselves as “shrinking violets.”  If anything, the notion of “effortless perfection” seems a concept more easily applied to the males in the student body in terms of the expectation “in the ethers” that they live up to the credo “Winning isn’t everything; it’s the only thing”, (Vince Lombardi), which often dissuades them from even trying.

I noted with interest the NEA author’s reference to a film which I enjoy using, “Whale Rider” and the inclusion of a statement made by Paikea, (the female lead in the film)" '…if knowledge is given to everyone we can all be leaders; we can all be strong.' "  This is a core component of equity.  Perfection is not.  The goal is excellence.  Let us go for it.