Yale Daily News

Patently absurd. Olivarius-Mcallister's general demeanor aligns her more aptly with a rabid bloodhound than with Gloria Steinem. Camaraderie via nudity - that's a real resolution of these here sexist notions! Would that Yale's most outspoken feminists focused on productive efforts instead of petty faux-empowering merrymaking...

This article basically boils down to: "Feminism is thriving on campus because Olivarius-McAllister, who looks like an Austrian princess, dresses like a model for Dolce and Gabbana, converses as though she was built to bewitch you, and conducts herself with an abandon for universally acknowledged social norms that was till now exclusively the entitlement of globally recognized rockstars, is somehow making life a lot easier for all the other women on campus." I'm relieved to hear it. Maybe Olivarius-McAllister, Vogue, and Oprah should get together and coordinate all the terrific work their doing.

Frat parties are only as misogynistic as the people at them. If you hate the CEOs and Secretary hos theme so much, go as a CEO! Yale women go dressed like that because they are actively seeking sexual attention (not necessarily physical, maybe just a sense of appreciation) from the subset of people to whom they might be attractive. What's wrong with that? As a woman, there are times I WANT to turn heads. By learning to take control of our own sexual feelings, make good choices, and operate socially in the way in which we feel most comfortable, THEN women will be making progress in the "misogynistic" Yale social scene. Hand-wringing isn't going to cut it. The burden for sexual assault falls on the aggressor, and on the aggressor alone. By bemoaning the systemic preparations for sex they seem to think exists, the Women's Center is setting back the cause for sex-positive women. Way to go, guys.

That comment is ridiculous. If DKE threw a party called "Plantation owners and Slaves" there would be outrage, and it would not cease to be insulting if all the black kids dressed as plantation owners. The Women's Center explained this to me and I am grateful for their brilliance.

Sex-positive women are one thing. Women or men who are positive-about-sex-inequality is another. I thank God that the Women's Center knows the difference.

Thankfully the Greek scene at Yale is rather pathetic regardless. Sure the 'secretary hos' theme is sexist, but the party will be lame anyway. All the more reason not to go. I wish this article had addressed more substantial issues (e.g. the tenure system, mentioned midway through and then dropped just as suddenly) because, as I see it, there are plenty of weekend alternatives to frats. (I haven't been since september 2004, and as a man I never felt the need to join one.)

PS. Dear Women's Center Board, another important step toward empowerment: supply all underage women on campus with fake ID's!

I'm looking across the street to the Afam Center right now -- what a beautiful space! The Women's Center needs a better building, no? More events, more dances, more presence, more power to them!

I didn't make it to the all-girls naked party, but a friend of mine said: "at a naked party, it's not the guys I'm worried about." In other words, she's not as concerned about men judging her body as she is other women. I thought that was a fair, and pretty accurate, point. Any thoughts?

Have we reached a standard working defenition of feminism yet? The article's called "Feminism is not a bad word", but I still don't understand what it means. Maybe that's part of the problem? The closest this article gets is the assertion that non-sexists are feminists. If that's all there is to it, then hell yeah I'm a feminist. And if it means getting naked, then bitch bring it on! Then again, I'm not racist but I don't call myself a black activist... I'm confused.

My favorite is how Beta's parties are all named after natural disasters. It reminds me of Stephane's 'Disastrology' calendar in that film 'The Science of Sleep'. Speaking of, what pop culture needs is more actresses like Charlotte Gainsbourg. Super snarky, really smart, dirty hair, imperfect teeth, smoking all the time...F you, Hollywood.

“The Women’s Center is a great resource at Yale, but they seemed to be less inclusive than we hoped to be with Women’s Leadership Initiative because they do believe in certain ideology and certain lines that we really wanted to steer away from.”

The "certain ideology" of... feminism?

Re a couple posts ago about the naked party, I see what you mean, and I wonder if people are any less judgemental if there aren't boys around. I didn't go either, so I don't know. By the way, as a side note, what were the bouncers like?

I think that this article unfairly represents Chase Olivarius-McAllister as nothing more than a wild, glamorous character and the Women's Center as the locus of her radical feminism. Olivarius-McAllister is actually an extremely poised, demure young woman, who writes much louder and much more often than she speaks. Furthermore, the Women's Center is perhaps the most consistent producer of solid intellectual content on campus. Indeed the whole of the Women's Center Board conducts itself with an admirable professionalism that is most unusual for undergraduate organziations across this campus. I commend the seriousness with which they take their work, though I disagree with aspects of it.

The bouncers were hot. It was Olivarius-McAllister and Lorraine Van Kirk.

For those who didn't go to the party:

The bouncers were members of the board, who took turns sitting out in the cold. We had curtains everywhere, a changing room, etc. As someone with major body issues myself, I've never felt more comfortable. Zero judgement, from what I could tell. I'd say there were more like 20-30 people at the party. Most had never been to a naked party before.

So just because Olivarius-McAllister "looks like an Austrian princess, dresses like a model for Dolce and Gabbana, converses as though she was built to bewitch you, and conducts herself with an abandon for universally acknowledged social norms that was till now exclusively the entitlement of globally recognized rockstars, is somehow making life a lot easier for all the other women on campus." So because she is popular, leggy, and blond, her feminist activism is necessarily less serious?

I'll say it off the bat: I am a man, and I belong to a fraternity. To a lot of people, that will mean that my opinion is less worthwhile. That is fine, but I am still going to state it. I think that people like Olivarius-McAllister actually hurt the feminist cause. No amount of brilliant writing or witty argumentation or willingness to fight for what you think is right (sometimes known as courage) is going to persuade most of the men at yale that pornography is designed to subjugate women, or persuade women that being fashionable is participating in prostitution. That is because those ideas are ridiculous. I mean, ever since the Women's Center had its "frats" discussion, the Women's Center and Olivarius-McAllister particularly have been the target of innumerable accusations, most of them profane, and all of them bitter. I have to agree that Olivarius-mcallister's talents are undeniably unique, but history will show them to have been futile, as long as she keeps on advocating radical ideas. The Women's Center doesn't get that just because Olivarius-mcallister is incisive, stunning, and powerful, doesn't mean that her futile advocacy of radical ideas won't actually hurt feminism, by making it seem inveterately hostile to men, impossible for any woman who isn't iconic to practice, and in the end mean that small, important, non-radical but still feminist changes take place. WLI seems, from what this article says, much more likely to enable real change for women through their efforts to help women work for prestigious banks like Goldman Sachs and in recognizing that its better to have fraternities at Yale be your friends and your husbands than your enemies and your eulogists.

Feminists who behave in the manner of Chase Olivarius-McAllister cannot hope that their flagrant violations of propriety, of Western ethics, of traditional femininity, will impress any of Yale's numerous conservatives. We grow in number each year, in power each decade, and impatient with ambitious, deluded, and inordinately confrontational "feminists," each time that we spot them with their kind or, as often, alone, staring at happy couples, aware that they aren't as strong as they'd thought, and unable to find a young polite man to open the door for them.

Is feminism really such a bad thing?

I think people keep looking to Olivarius... Or the more radical feminists... What about the more moderate ones?

Feminism means being proud of yourself as a woman, knowing your strengths and weaknesses, allowing people to treat you with respect while treating others with respect. Allowing a man to treat you with respect is not antithetical to feminism, it is actually the point! Without feminism or respect for the self, a woman can make herself more vulnerable to ABUSE from men... With self respect and pride as a woman, she can pinpoint extremely abusive behavior... That's the whole point!

I love it when a guy pays for my meals or holds my hand, etc. I'm also a proud feminist. If a guy even hits me once, I'm breaking up with him! It's about not allowing men to control your dignity! That's what feminism is! It isn't necessarily bra-burning or going to the extreme! It's about respecting yourself as a woman!

Also impressive is the extent to which the current Women's Center Board clearly enjoys working together. I think that they have a peculiar kind of working chemistry which has distinguished the Women's Center and its role on campus during their tenure from its role in years past. This is an excellent example of feminism in action - of women liking women and do daring things as a consequence - for which I as a man have grown to feel grateful for. I went to the Frats talk and while it riled me, and the board as individuals appeared divided in their opinions, I now realize that I ascribed a false perception of females-as-bitchy to their interaction as a board. Protracted interaction with some members of that board - particularly Stacey, Hannah, and Chase - has singlehandedly expunged that false impression of female friendship and shown their interactions with each other to be unusually intellectual, warm, arguementative, and joke ridden. I am really grateful to them, to the Women's Center, for correcting the very false, very insidious image of women and their friendships with each other - as a man.

This seems a lot less relevant to the article than I'd thought it would be, but as many of the previous comments have seemed a little sexist and blinkered, I thought that this new information, or so far unstated opinion, might still be valuable.

(Also, Chase Olivarius-McAllister is a very sweet, good-humored, and HUMBLE, humble person. Just needed to say it.)

Women's Center at the YPU was crazy. As incendiary an idea as the naked party. What will they do next? For the last year, the Women's Center really has been the hotbed of hot ideas on campus. I genuinely cannot wait to see what they do next and I am so glad that this article was the cover of scene.

Re Women's Center at the YPU: Mansfield was a total jerk about it (shame on him!), but the students there were generally pretty appreciative. Most members of the YPU aren't as complacent or conservative as some of the guests it invites, or as the image of political-hacks-in-suits implies.

Anyone who enjoyed this article, and doesn't believe it's fair that choosing to dress or act in a particular way makes you culpable for any disrespectful or harmful assumptions people make about you, should consider the roles other stereotypes ("frat brothers," "YPU tools," etc.) have on their own thought.

What's most shameful about this dialogue is the idea that empowered women with uninhibited personalities somehow set back feminism. Feminism isn't just about making women equal to men...that reveals a stunning lack of ambition. Feminism is about women celebrating their femininity and simply not feeling that they have to mask their personality behind an outdated notion of female behavior. To accuse 'radical feminists' of setting back feminism is to reduce feminism to perpetuating existing gender imbalances. Nobody ever accuses men of setting back maleness by being radically masculine.

I find Chase Olivarius-McAllister to be unbelievably attractive

Chase, as her last name indicates, is surely the product of parents with feminist consciousness, and they obviously did a great job raising her. Feminism is nothing new and the Yale Women's Center has a proud history. What is great is that a new generation of women has so much originality, verve and fun. Rock on, Casey.

I would like to bring up something that's relevant but not about Chase, the Women's Center, or WLI.

Last week I was invited (via facebook) to a charity event for Prostate Cancer organized by a group of undergrad men. Students buy tickets to the event at a bar, and the money goes to charity. A great cause.

However, one man who was invited had written on the wall, "Is this a "no chicks" thing, or can we invite box?" to which another man replied, "no, it's anyone; invite as much box as your want." (those posts have since been deleted)

Although most would see the joking nature of such comments, they still contribute to an atmosphere where lewdness is an accepted social norm.