This Date in UCSF History: ‘Is the second sex second class on campus?’
Originally published in Synapse on October 29, 1971.
Gary Wilson, General Services employee: “I think the question should be reversed. No, because the women up here act like they’re stuck up. Whatever click they’re in, that’s it. They’re not coming out of that click for any man. I find married women more sociable... because they are probably more involved in sexual contact than a woman who is not married and this gives them more familiar feeling with a man.”
Bill Kane, Associate Research Assistant, Dept. of Anatomy: “I don’t think so in terms of technical people here. You have more women than men here in technical positions. They receive the same pay as men. I don’t know about the other administrative people. But I suppose we’re going to be male chauvinist pigs no matter what we say. I think that there is equal treatment here on campus.”
Katharine Schneider, Staff Rep, School of Dentistry: “Yes I do. Why? Where do I start? It’s really an important question because I’m campaigning against the sexual objectification of women. It started as a movement against some posters in dentistry that we felt exploited women. The posters aren’t the whole issue. They’re just a symbol of the lack of respect for women in dentistry.”
Gerry Batti, Secretary, School of dentistry: “Yes I do think they are. I’ve just been aware of things denial hygiene students were selling their bodies as objects to dental students at the picnic and thinking it was very cute. I don’t know if it becomes a sexual thing but they would have to clean or do housework or something like that. I think their level of consciousness is very low.”
Kathy Bramwell, Managing Editor, Synapse: “I don’t think men are second class. I think they should be liberated.”
Mike Jensen, Medical Student III: “No, they’re not. It’s really an individual matter. You really aren’t the second sex unless you think so yourself. Some girls seem to be happy being the second sex. That’s too bad for them.”