Changing Gender Norms: The Facilitation of Empowerment Through Shifting Gendered Spaces
By Nina Brown
The late 1960s and early 1970s marked a time of significant change in social norms and expectations across the nation and within Centre College. One of the most significant shifts on campus surrounded changes in gender surveillance, marked by revolutionary shifts in the division of gendered space on campus, a division that had defined differential gender rules and expectations throughout Centre’s history. These shifts, while at times may have seemed sudden, were facilitated by long-term student advocacy for and conversation about increased student autonomy and a decreased gap between the treatment of men and women. Such conversations were initiated, in part, by shifts in campus space itself which facilitated growing conversations about differential treatment on the basis of gender in part because it became more visible. These conversations similarly tracked onto changing norms in the broader context of the 1960s and 1970s counterculture movement. Overall, the mixing of gendered space and spheres led to the social empowerment of Centre women in particular, facilitating the eventual questioning of broader, structural inequality beyond Centre.
The campus and atmosphere of Centre College changed significantly in 1962, as the campus grew to include women’s dormitories, abandoning the long-standing women’s dorms at the previous Kentucky College for Women (KCW) campus. The construction of the new dormitories marked a distinct shift in gender inclusion on campus, as women were not only integrated into the classroom but into campus life itself. While the dorms for men and women remained in completely separate quads and buildings for at least a decade following the shift, it seemed to prime the campus for change surrounding gender norms and expectations.
Immediately after the move, many of the rules and norms surrounding gender remained more or less the same, with differential rules for men and women outlined in the student handbook.[1] A majority of these separate rules centered on issues regarding curfew and dress. The student handbook maintains these rules all the way through the turn of the decade, as the 1970-1971 school year points to the differential extension of institutional control on the basis of gender, noting that “Men’s housing is open on a twenty-four hour basis, while women’s residences are closed and locked at stipulated hours.”[2] These differential rules for women were rationalized as necessary for “the common protection of the residents”[3] and characterized by some interviewees as maintaining the norms of distinct gendered spaces of the past: “There were different rules for men and women. It was, those were the remnants of the old KCW. Definitely different rules.”[4] Other rules regarding dress largely tracked on with the norms of the past, with both men and women held to the college’s “standard of dress” which included formal dress code for dinners but which is revealed to have been much more restrictive for women. One student publication, the Harpoon featured an article criticizing the reality that women were still not permitted to wear pants: “The women are not supposed to wear slacks to informal parties, because their purity must be observed at all costs.”[5] This quote points to the perceived rationale behind gendered rules of the college, to uphold appropriate behavior in order to reflect Centre as a prestigious institution through the behavior of students. Within that same article, the students articulated frustration with the rules and their perception of their goals: “Centre is becoming a machine which produces ladies and gentlemen of a false and mythical character… I doubt that the girls’ dorms would metamorphose into Bourbon Street brothels if the girls were permitted to wear slacks to parties.”[6] While this commentary came significantly before any changes to women’s regulations came, it demonstrates the desire for change from at least some of the student body early on.
As noted above, despite some evidence of early frustrations with the rules even before the integration of campus, most of the gendered norms remained the same following the move from KCW. The distinct separation of genders remained fairly stark, centering the women’s dormitory as a central space for the maintenance of close female friendships. Betsy Wilt, a 1965 graduate, was a sophomore when women transitioned from living on the KCW campus to the new dormitories. When reflecting on the differences between her first year and the rest of her time in the dorms she expressed that “It wasn't all that different… we were in more modern dorms, but we were still with the women.”[7] Other women, like Peggy Carthrae (class of 1966) echoed her sentiments immediately following the transition, noting the close knit, female friendships facilitated and maintained by dorm life as an exclusively female space: “We didn’t have sororities at that time, but each dorm was kind of like its own sorority. You know, we were all really close in the dorms.”[8]
While dorm life remained the center of homosocial life and bonding at the beginning of the 60s, by the end of the decade women had begun pushing for an even more integrated campus, questioning the distinct differences in rules between genders. This push was inevitably initiated by the new physical closeness between genders on campus which further revealed differently distributed rules between genders. The Harpoon noted a move towards such demands in an article entitled “Modest Proposals for the Women of Centre College” which was brought forward by students advocating for more relaxed rules for women, specifically under the goals to “make the women of Centre more responsible and mature members of the community.” through the extension of curfew and the relaxation of dress code.[9] While these changes weren’t implemented by administration at the time, it set the stage for eventual change in the early 1970s. Crit Luallen who graduated in 1974 noted the quick changes that took place during the first four years of the 1970s:
In those days when I got there, it was very strict. There were curfews every night...By the time I left, all that was out the window. And you know, the curfews were gone. And there was much more of an honor code about coming in and out and being responsible about it. There were no men allowed above the lobby level. When I came, by the time I left, you know, men were allowed to come and visit in the rooms. It…It was a time of change, you know, this is the early 70s.[10]
Overall, as noted by Luallan, the early 1970s saw the strongest and most stark move towards collapsing many of the rules for women, especially in relation to gendered spaces like the dorms. A Cento article from 1970 detailed a “self-regulatory dorm” proposal that would give students more autonomy over “visitation, women's hours, [and] quiet hours.”[11] It’s important to note that while the proposal is targeted towards rules for the campus generally, this proposal would predominantly affect the women on campus, as men already had many of the living privileges that were being pushed for. The article notes that the initial proposal, for full self-regulation was shot down, but worked to assure students that if reworked, more leniant rules were on the horizon.[12] This proposal is one of the first, clear and formal pushes for shifting the rules. Much of the concern surrounding the proposal surrounded parental perception as Centre had a long-term history of acting “in loco parentis,” ie acting as an extension or stand-in for parental guidance and control for college students who had left home. The Cento article notes that this shift was especially radical as “the college [would no longer] regard itself an instrument of parental authority, empowered to exercise the same sanctions and rewards over students that a parent might… there seems now a greater willingness to interpret the responsibility of the College as extending directly to students and not to parents.”[13] Thus, in the proposal of and genuine consideration of these housing shifts, the relationship between students and the college as an institution changed, allowing for the centering of students as independent entities with unique concerns. With such a shift, there was a simultaneous move away from the perception that the college was responsible for “protecting” women differently from men, much of the reasoning behind different rules, positioning them in a more equal status with their fellow classmates.
The proposal was ultimately approved, with edits, the next year. This led to a number of changes to campus life, notably allowing for upperclass women students to choose between types of housing, some with more open visitation hours than others.[14] Further, all upper-class men’s dormotories were self-regulated and were allowed to set their own visitation hours.[15] One of the most radical changes, however, was the introduction of a coed dorm in Breckenridge Hall, with men and women living in the same building but on separate floors. George Ella Lyon, who graduated in 1971, offered her unique perspective on living here during the first year, an experience she paints as a radical abandonment of norms in previous semesters: “by my senior year, we had the first Coed dorm and I was the RA for the girls, so you know that's a long way to come. The signing in and out [of dormotories] and all of that division and then and then of course what was going on in terms politically in the country is the social justice issues, the Vietnam War.”[16] Her connection of this radical time at Centre with broader radical realities in the United States points to the broader cultural shifts that inevitably influenced the thinking and desires of students on campus.
As men and women began to mix in space, living not only on the same campus but with some in the same building, there also seemed to be a shift in the relationships between the genders, with a shift away from segregated homosocial relationships. This included a distancing from traditional male-female relationships being dominated by courtship and dating, something partially initiated by the loosening rules about visitation, as previously, women could only have male visitors if they signed in and out with the dormitory house mother, rules that were outlined as “dating privileges” in student handbooks.[17] Crit Luallen notes this change in her interview, pointing to the changes in regulations and norms surrounding social life between men and women: “I mean, when I got to Centre, you didn't really go out of your dorm for anything social unless you were invited on a date by a guy. And they had to call you and they had to come get you at your dorm and take you wherever. By the time I left that had sort of gone out the door.”[18] This change in space regulation and subsequent gender relations was especially evident in the coed space of Breckenridge as friendships between men and women became more casual and relaxed. Sharon Morisi, class of 1974, noted this in her interview:
The coed dorm I think was one of the first when I was on campus... I really liked the kitchens that we had so we could get together… It was a lot of fun... And in fact… there was a group of us that made a point of moving into the co-ed dorm... and we were working on a number of different things but we had we all made an agreement we would get together at 9:00 for hot chocolate and peanut butter crackers just to kind of take a break and talk about what was going on and about was related to classes and and so on and so forth so.[19]
This quote points to the symbolism of living in a coed space which many wanted to participate in as a way to facilitate discussion around changing norms. These shifting norms surrounding heterosocial relationships were also noted by Crit Luallen who saw them as healthy:
There were more informal groups of men and women together… So I think that was another important change that happened that I think was a healthy change. Because you could develop relationships between the men and women that weren't necessarily tied to the outcome of some kind of romance or marriage. It was much more of a healthy way of looking at who your friends were, and being very open and broad minded about friendship.[20]
While friendships in the 1970s were no longer limited to the homosocial norms maintained by homosocial spaces, there continued to be consciousness of gender disparity in space, with growing frustration with the limitation of female-dominated spaces. Such a desire was also likely linked to changing campus spaces as the dormitory no longer acted as a distinct and closed-off space for female relationships. Beyond this, these desires were also linked to the limitation of greek life to men which maintained differential power over social life: “the very the very fact that the men had fraternities… and we didn't have sororities changed a lot, because about what expectations were because the men, planned social events and held parties and hosted all kinds of things in fraternity houses.”[21] Such a formal yet voluntary homosocial space remained closed to women at the time, a reality that was frustrating for some due not only to the lack of social control but largely because there were limited spaces for the discussion of uniquely women’s issues. With the rise of feminism during the 1970s, women worked to create a female-controlled space to discuss current issues. This led to the publication of The Flame, a boundary-pushing, feminist newsletter. Sharon Morisi, one of the visionaries behind it, spoke about their reasoning for publication:
I think it was really important to have a community of women that were struggling with the same thing… When we decided to put together our little newsletter, “The Flame”, I think that the point of that was to begin to create a community of women. To share their experiences without a lot of judgement because we didn't have a community in the same way that guys had… guys at that point had fraternities there were no sororities on campus.[22]
The publication included features like “Sexist Textbook of The Month” and criticized Centre’s lack of women’s studies courses while facilitating discussion about systems of sexist oppression.[23] The first publication focused on its goals of creating sisterhood and advocated for the challenging of traditional gender norms, specifying that “Our acceptance of woman’s traditional and stereotyped role is based on fear… It is far easier to operate within clearly defined roles than to face the problems of a new orientation… to be liberated entails a commitment to use all our human potential.”[24] This perception stands in stark contrast to the assumed goals of older gendered rules noted in The Harpoon, which understood Centre’s goals as producing “ladies and gentlemen of a false and mythical character,”[25] character that was likely assumed to map onto traditional gendered roles.
We see the ways in which gendered questions on Centre’s campus moved from control of dresscode and curfews to questions regarding the oppression of the patriarchy, a shift that maps on closely with shifts in the gendered space on campus. While broader conversations about gender were inevitably happening beyond campus simultaneously, the gradual integration of Centre’s campus worked to expose the disparities between genders within the institution. Such exposure led to pressures on behalf of students for further integration, as evidenced by proposals for more autonomy for women students in 1967 and the eventual proposal of dorm-regulation reform in 1970. Further, the changes facilitated by these institutional pressures eventually led to even more radical questions about gender at Centre and beyond. Ultimately, gendered spaces at Centre, both physical and symbolic, structured student advocacy, the perception of self, and set the stage for a radical reimagination of the role of women at Centre.
Footnotes
[1] Centre College of Kentucky, Student Handbook 1961-1962, 1961, Centre College Special Collections and Archives, Danville, Kentucky.
[2] Centre College of Kentucky, Student Handbook 1970-71, 1961, Centre College Special Collections and Archives, Danville, Kentucky.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Betsy Wilt, interview by Natalie Warren, February 25, 2021, Centre College Digital Archives, Grace Doherty Library, Centre College, Danville, Kentucky.
[5] “Restrictions,” The Harpoon, Feb. 26, 1954, Centre College Special Collections and Archives, Danville, Kentucky.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Betsy Wilt, interview by Natalie Warren.
[8] Peggy Carthrae, interview by Aspen Waldron, March 4, 2021, Centre College Digital Archives, Grace Doherty Library, Centre College, Danville, Kentucky.
[9] “Modest Proposals for the Women of Centre College,” The Harpoon, Feb. 14, 1967, Centre College Special Collections and Archives, Danville, Kentucky.
[10] Crit Luallen, interview by Gus Crow, March 11, 2021, Centre College Digital Archives, Grace Doherty Library, Centre College, Danville, Kentucky.
[11] “Dorm Self-Rule Concept Is Changed,” Centre College Cento, January 23, 1970, Centre College Institutional Repository Collection, Grace Doherty Library, Centre College, Danville, Kentucky
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] “Changes in student life, governance keynote 151st academic year,” Centre College Cento, September 17, 1970, Centre College Institutional Repository Collection, Grace Doherty Library, Centre College, Danville, Kentucky
[15] Ibid.
[16] George Ella Lyon, interview by Brylin Isaacs, March 15, 2021, Centre College Digital Archives, Grace Doherty Library, Centre College, Danville, Kentucky.
[17] Centre College Women’s Student Government Association, Centre College Handbook: Women’s Division 1957-58, 1957, Centre College Special Collections and Archives, Danville, Kentucky.
[18] Crit Luallen, interview by Gus Crow.
[19] Sharon Morisi, interview by Caroline Lancaster, March 10, 2021, Centre College Digital Archives, Grace Doherty Library, Centre College, Danville, Kentucky.
[20] Crit Luallen, interview by Gus Crow.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Sharon Morisi, interview by Caroline Lancaster.
[23] The Flame, January, 1974, Centre College Special Collections and Archives, Danville, Kentucky
[24] “Why we need sisterhood,” The Flame, January, 1974, Centre College Special Collections and Archives, Danville, Kentucky
[25] “Restrictions,” The Harpoon.