Women's college students protest admittance of men

Stampyhead

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Sep 3, 2004
2,294
30
London, UK
http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/09/09/coed.vote.ap/index.html

I may be way off base here, but doesn't this seem hypocritical? If this had been a men's college that decided to admit women any resistance to it would be called sexist. And why the protest? What goes on in women's colleges that they don't want the men to know about?
LYNCHBURG, Virginia (AP) -- Amid boos and shouts of "traitors" Randolph-Macon Woman's College officials announced Saturday that men would be admitted to the 115-year-old institution starting in 2007.
 

Counterfit

macrumors G3
Aug 20, 2003
8,201
0
sitting on your shoulder
Flip this around: One college is still all-male, and decides to become co-ed. Some resistance is given from the students, but the loudest voices are militant feminists saying "It's about time! Down with men!" etc. This would hypothetically be coming from the same people complaining about double standards. Double standards indeed. :rolleyes:
 

erickkoch

macrumors 6502a
Jan 13, 2003
676
0
Kalifornia
Stampyhead said:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/09/09/coed.vote.ap/index.html

I may be way off base here, but doesn't this seem hypocritical? If this had been a men's college that decided to admit women any resistance to it would be called sexist. And why the protest? What goes on in women's colleges that they don't want the men to know about?

A long time ago I read someplace that the basis for an all female school was that girls/women tend to do better in the classroom without males. Males tend to be more aggressive/assertive in getting the teachers attention, females tend to ask fewer questions with males present, etc, females feel less intimidated in an all female environment. Also, all female institutions are a throwback to a time when women were excluded from many colleges and universities so they needed their own schools.

I think there may be some truth to these theories but I think integrated schools are probably best because we live in an integrated world, more or less. Women have to learn to deal with men, even if we are jerks much of the time.
 

CorvusCamenarum

macrumors 65816
Dec 16, 2004
1,231
2
Birmingham, AL
Counterfit said:
Flip this around: One college is still all-male, and decides to become co-ed. Some resistance is given from the students, but the loudest voices are militant feminists saying "It's about time! Down with men!" etc. This would hypothetically be coming from the same people complaining about double standards. Double standards indeed. :rolleyes:
Didn't that happen at The Citadel about a decade or so ago? And the girl who sued to get in quit after a week?

You're right, it is a double standard. Modern feminism stopped being about equality long ago.
 
L

Lau

Guest
Stampyhead said:
What goes on in women's colleges that they don't want the men to know about?
Massive lesbian orgies.

<googles admission requirements> :p

I dunno. I was going to say that it could be due to the fact that male colleges in the past tended to be the really good traditional ones, and so to not accept women at the time denied them of having the top notch education that men could have, but the article says it's a pretty high standard college in itself.

I think the animosity perhaps comes from the fact that these colleges were set up because of the negative reactions in the past to women in education and because of the male-dominated education system at the time. Opening male colleges to female entrants at the time meant that it was breaking down some of that negativity, whereas letting men into a female college is seen as reverting to that previous system in a way.

I don't know how I feel about this. It does seem less discriminatory to me to have all-female colleges, than it does all-male colleges. It surprises me to write this in a way, because I would have seen myself as someone who doesn't discriminate between the two. Maybe it's because of the lesbian orgies.
 

zap2

macrumors 604
Mar 8, 2005
7,241
1
Washington D.C
God, some feminist have gone over board, they stopped try to get to equal rights, which they pretty much have.(Of course they will always be the few sexist left, but thats for every type of people. Someone is going to hate based on you color of skin, race, or sexual orintation.) And now some are going overboard and what to not be equal but have MORE rights then men, which is starting to fight the whole reason they are doing this, for EQUAL RIGHTS.
 

iGav

macrumors G3
Mar 9, 2002
9,025
1
Equality works both ways.

Some would do well to remember this.

That is all I have to say on the matter.
 

mkrishnan

Moderator emeritus
Jan 9, 2004
29,777
12
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
Blue Velvet said:
Really? What took its place then?
I'm sorry, love, but I think this is true, in the US, as well... Radical feminism really got bushwhacked by "difference feminism" right around the time of the struggle to get an Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. That Amendment would have done so much for equality in the US. Of course, it didn't make it into the Constitution. Difference feminism at that time got caught up trying to create a differentially beneficial "equality" -- to try to allow for an equal rights amendment without equalizing areas in US law where women are advantaged (such as selective service). And the end result is that radical feminism started to really die out in the US... It took twenty years to reach the current malaise where radical feminism is almost completely unrepresented... but I think that was their Rubicon and this was the end result.
 

thedude110

macrumors 68020
Jun 13, 2005
2,478
2
A lot of presumption in this thread.

Would anyone seriously argue that we don't live in a patriarchy? Men have much more certain access to power -- and a much more certain belief in their access to power. It seems to me that where we have one group with immediate access to power and another group with a more circuitous access (and far less certain access) to power, we have a definite cultural power inequality.

Where the empowered gather to exclude the disempowered you have discrimination (men's colllege). Where the disempowered gather to exclude the empowered you have revolution (women's college).

Such that:

Where two standards are not equal, a double standard does not exist ...
 

Lollypop

macrumors 6502a
Sep 13, 2004
829
0
Johannesburg, South Africa
Its amazing what the world sometimes does in the name of equality, over here we had this huge anti rasism tide, what we did was to give preference to the previously disadvantaged.... if you look at it from a technical perspective, we simply replaced one form of rasism with another... this story seems very much the same to me... a school was created to bring equality to the world, now that the US claims to be equal and the school wants to be taken equal and open their students resist, effectively creating a counter inequality...

on a side note.. why dont they just allow gay guys in... :rolleyes: :cool:
 
L

Lau

Guest
thedude110 said:
Where the empowered gather to exclude the disempowered you have discrimination (men's colllege). Where the disempowered gather to to exclude the empowered you have revolution (women's college).

Such that:

Where two standards are not equal, a double standard does not exist ...
Excellent point.
 

Allotriophagy

macrumors 6502a
Sep 5, 2006
917
0
The time of major gender discrimination is not long over. And we have yet to see the small insidious inequalities fully disappear. For women, the major one is equal pay, which like for like is still as varied as 20% in some countries when compared to men.

There exists yet a place in education for single sex education, but not in the future. Here in England, the dissolution of such institutions at Oxford and Cambridge continues apace. A few still exist but are under "threat" of evolution, but mainly because there are still problems existing which make this, in some respects, a "man's world".

It is interesting to note that the college in question here has decided from within to admit men, as have the colleges here in England. There is no pressure from men, banging on the gates and jeering "Let us in! Let us in!". No, the pressure comes from the lessening need for this kind of institution, from the whole majority of other institutions admitting men and now women, which creates an economic need for more admissions.

The VA college can't afford to carry on exercising what were once very noble and high-minded principles and they realise this.

People don't like change, especially the change of institutions which they feel helped them enormously. Change is inevitable, though. Rather than fight it, these people would be better off preserving records of what was achieved during the period of importance for that institution, instead of trying to essentially continue what may as well be a school for dodos.
 

mac-er

macrumors 65816
Apr 9, 2003
1,454
0
Blue Velvet said:
Really? What took its place then?
Ducks and runs for cover.:eek:

I can see the female point of view in this. They paid and wanted to attend an all-women's college. Though, at the same time, would they rather see the whole thing shut down?
 

decksnap

macrumors 68040
Apr 11, 2003
3,070
70
Dude said:
A lot of presumption in this thread.

Would anyone seriously argue that we don't live in a patriarchy? Men have much more certain access to power -- and a much more certain belief in their access to power. It seems to me that where we have one group with immediate access to power and another group with a more circuitous access (and far less certain access) to power, we have a definite cultural power inequality.

Where the empowered gather to exclude the disempowered you have discrimination (men's colllege). Where the disempowered gather to exclude the empowered you have revolution (women's college).

Such that:

Where two standards are not equal, a double standard does not exist ...
At no level of my modern existance have I seen anything less than full equality across the sexes. Elementary school, high school, college, and the professional world. So it's hard to agree with this theory. Maybe 30 years ago.
 

nbs2

macrumors 68030
Mar 31, 2004
2,713
485
A geographical oddity
mac-er said:
I can see the female point of view in this. They paid and wanted to attend an all-women's college.
I'm sure the cadets at the Citadel and VMI paid to attend an all-male school. And those at Duke paid to attend an all-white school. And at Howard an all-black school. Your point got shot down (primarily) by the feminists during the Citadel/VMI era, pointing out that sexist policies in a school receiving public funds becomes state-sponsored discrimination.

As an aside, common law in the US allows for discrimination in the law that will benefit women, but does no permit that discrimination when it helps to propagate "traditional feminine roles." For example, a state cannot require that women receive maternity leave and men not receive paternity (the idea of a woman's place being in the home). Here, I think the school ran the risk that any specialty programs that they had someone could argue were designed to promote education in that traditional role, cutting off funding from the government and killing the school.
 

DZ/015

macrumors 6502a
Mar 23, 2003
875
21
New England
thedude110 said:
Where the empowered gather to exclude the disempowered you have discrimination (men's colllege). Where the disempowered gather to exclude the empowered you have revolution (women's college).
As the father of 3 girls, I must say you are way off base. Discrimination based on gender, age, race, religion or any other reason is wrong. Period. Anyone who complains about the integration of this (or any) institution is a bigot.
 

xsedrinam

macrumors 601
Oct 21, 2004
4,347
1
In addition to concerns and attentions which address equality issues, IQ measurements, and scholastic achievement, I'd like to see Emotional Intelligence mainstreamed in to the required, academic curricula on either side of the issues.
 

RedTomato

macrumors 601
Mar 4, 2005
4,021
316
.. London ..
Discrimination still exists on a massive scale.

I have one friend in Brussels who is one of the top researchers in her own special area of social policy in the European Commission, which sets policy right across europe.

She is the best qualified person in her department (otherwise all male), and has a higher output than her collegues, and does the same job as them. She gets 33% less pay cos she's female.

I've told her to complain about this, but she's too much of a wallflower to do this. I've told her to leave, join a different company, but her field is so specialised that basically, there is one good company that does it, with all the contracts, and she's already there. She won't go independent either, I gather its not really possible in her field.

I see other examples of discrimination all the time - one university I studied at is the University of East London, which is rooted in a black community, where the vast majority of students are black, yet the professors and lecturers are overwhelmingly white and male.

Look at the UK parliament and the US Congress / Senate - overwhelmingly male.

As said above, a gathering of the powerful tends to reinforce that power, and a gathering of these with less power, that excludes the powerful, is often seen as a threat to that power.
 

sonictruth

macrumors member
Nov 18, 2004
60
0
Pennsylvania
My sister is a/an RMWC grad (1993). I know she is particularly upset by the possibility of a coed alma mater, but I'll have to ask in more detail after work about specifically why it is so troubling to her. (And no, she's not a lesbian, and no, she is quite 'conservative' with her sexuality, to her husband's dismay perhaps, and yes, I now feel a little sick in the stomach even thinking and typing this muck about my sis.)

Anyway, from what I understand from about 3 weeks ago, I know the school is only considering going coed out of survival. The number of women interested in the school has decreased over time, and rather than lower the quality of the admitted students, they would rather have better students of both genders. This makes sense to me, but it is still a great shame that it's necessary.

I loved visiting her school when I was in school (she graduated 1 yr after me) - great times - great stories. I was appreciated as a visitor, even very appreciated. But at the same time, I saw then and see now why women may want to be educated without men. There's nothing wrong with coed or single-sex education; they both have pros and they both have cons; different approaches for different people. It's all just a big shame to me that this approach is dying.

And one last question, what are the real differences between joining a fraternity/sorority at a coed school, or going to a single-sex school? Where should the line be drawn in separating the sexes in any situation? Slippery slope - I'm done now. I will post back later if my sister offers other thoughts that might be interesting...

[edit- added an extra line break between paragraphs]
 

aloofman

macrumors 68020
Dec 17, 2002
2,206
0
Socal
sonictruth said:
Anyway, from what I understand from about 3 weeks ago, I know the school is only considering going coed out of survival. The number of women interested in the school has decreased over time, and rather than lower the quality of the admitted students, they would rather have better students of both genders. This makes sense to me, but it is still a great shame that it's necessary.
The only thing I'll add to this: it seems to me that most prospective college students would want to go to a coed school. By being a female-only campus, they drastically limit the number of potential students they can admit, which means either they run out of students or the expand the potential student pool in some way.

I don't know that it is a shame though. I suppose it's a bummer for those women who went there partly because it would be an all-female student body. Maybe they could move the change back a few years, then tell incoming classes that the change is coming.
 

maxterpiece

macrumors 6502a
Mar 5, 2003
729
0
Single-sex (or race) institutions mostly don't exist today to prevent a certain group from having access to an opportunity. They exist to allow people the chance to study in an environment that they believe will allow them to accomplish/learn more. Some women maybe feel more comfortable studying without men around.

Likewise, this school opening up to men has nothing to do with any kind of discrimination. The school isn't choosing to do this because they feel it is morally wrong to continue to prevent men from enrolling. It also isn't choosing to do this because it has somehow lost respect for women who achieve more at a single sex institution. All it has to do with is the fact college bound American women, as a group, are less interested in attending a single sex school. It's just a matter of economics and to suggest otherwise is silly.

I thought it was goofy of hte article to tip-toe so delicately. It completely avoids any coverage of why any of the people are protesting. Why is there no response to the question, "Why don't you want men to attend this school?" Because that's the heart of the issue - these protesters have good memories of how the school served them, and those memories are not in conflict with the reality that has made the school choose to open its doors to men.
 

nbs2

macrumors 68030
Mar 31, 2004
2,713
485
A geographical oddity
aloofman said:
I don't know that it is a shame though. I suppose it's a bummer for those women who went there partly because it would be an all-female student body. Maybe they could move the change back a few years, then tell incoming classes that the change is coming.
I don't know that it is a shame though. I suppose it's a bummer for those men who went there partly because it would be an all-male student body. Maybe they could move the change back a few years, then tell incoming classes that the change is coming.

By taking out four letters from your paragraph, I just alluded to the Citadel/VMI/etc. And that, my friend, is the problem.