Women's college students protest admittance of men

[aloofman]

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.

I'm not saying the protesters are right, only that this change alters the school from what they had in mind when they chose to attend in the first place, that this might be partly what angers them, and that some advance warning might smooth things over.

 

[killr_b]

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.

Power is money, not gender or race. Men have all the money. So?

This is FOR SURE reverse sexism.

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.

Right on.

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.

Yeah, but if we did that we would need a women only school...


Power is available for those strong enough to take hold of it and master themsleves.

Sameness is not equality and men and women are not the same.
Equality is not determined by opportunities, but by conviction in your own accomplishments.

 

[aloofman]

Equality is not determined by opportunities, but by conviction in your own accomplishments.

Could you explain that?

 

[vniow]

Thread summary:

We've come so far that feminism is no longer necessary since men and women are treated as equals. But since they're not equal and more of "samemess" it all comes down to the individual. If you work hard enough you may just be awarded the same opportunities right? This is America after all.



So any women here actually believe this ********? Sorry folks, from this chick's perspective we are certainly not treated as equals or even similarly. We've certainly come a long way since the feminism of the 60s-70s but that doesn't mean we're there yet. I think that a single-gender school is crap for a number of reasons (probably different than the ones stated here) but it saddens me to a point that some posters beleive that we are treated as equals in society as of now. Its nice to think that but not when it doesn't match reality.

 

[aloofman]

Thread summary:

We've come so far that feminism is no longer necessary since men and women are treated as equals....We've certainly come a long way since the feminism of the 60s-70s but that doesn't mean we're there yet.

I would go so far as to say that the existence of a women-only college shows that feminism is still necessary.

 

[Blue Velvet]

Sorry folks...

I gave up on this thread days ago.

 

[thedude110]

Power is money, not gender or race. Men have all the money. So?

This is FOR SURE reverse sexism.

I have no idea what your first three sentences mean. If you're arguing that men have all the money because of historical and contemporary racism and sexism, you're right on target. But then that would make history power ...

I really don't believe there's such a thing as reverse sexism. Sexism is an overarching social construct that has in an explicit, historical way (and in a more implicit contemporary way) contrived to keep women from defining themselves (and from power). Women can be prejudiced against men and instiutions can be prejudiced against men, but until the majority of the western world is globally tilted against (white) men, a claim of reverse sexism (and similarly reverse racism) seems hard to defend.

Off to the political forum we go, anyways ...

 

[maxterpiece]

Thread summary:

We've come so far that feminism is no longer necessary since men and women are treated as equals. But since they're not equal and more of "samemess" it all comes down to the individual. If you work hard enough you may just be awarded the same opportunities right? This is America after all.

So any women here actually believe this ********? Sorry folks, from this chick's perspective we are certainly not treated as equals or even similarly. We've certainly come a long way since the feminism of the 60s-70s but that doesn't mean we're there yet. I think that a single-gender school is crap for a number of reasons (probably different than the ones stated here) but it saddens me to a point that some posters beleive that we are treated as equals in society as of now. Its nice to think that but not when it doesn't match reality.

I understand that there are a few people on here who wanna pretend the world is simpler and more fair than it is.

I also think that there are some people in this thread who are trying to talk about these issues - feminism, gender-equality, the relevance of single sex schools - in a sincere way.

I would prefer to hear your thoughts about the ideas being discussed than hear how upset you are with people being naive (to put it nicely). I think you will have much more success inspiring people to become educated on this issue by clearly and passionately expressing your thoughts on the topics, rather than blasting those who maybe haven't been exposed to the same realities that you have.

I know it's frustrating hearing people discount something as a myth when it is a reality for you every day of your life.

 

[mac-er]

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.

I believe your points got shot down by the fact that:
1. This woman's college is private.
2. Duke has no policy that says it is all-white. It doesn't exclude other races. And neither does Howard.

 

[emw]

Adding insult to injury:

To go coed, the school must now adopt a new name -- there already is a Randolph-Macon College, a former men's school in Ashland.

That being said, I'm torn a little bit on this issue. In my mind, we should offer a variety of educational options to cater to the differing needs of students, whether it's all-women, all-men, all-black, completely mingled, whatever.

I realize that's a simplistic and naive view, and everyone wants this so-called "equality", but guess what - we're not all the same with the same needs that can easily be categorized and forced into nice little folders.

Not all white males are the same. Not all black women. Not all lesbians. The fact that a state-funded institution might be interested in providing an avenue that ultimately improves the learning conditions for a specific group of individuals should not cause such an uproar.

A state-run institution has admission requirements that state a minimum ACT score or grade-point average or whatever. That's intelligence-discrimination, I tell you!

We should be looking to provide options that meet the needs of the people who will take advantage of them. We should not be trying to get every damn school in the country to be exactly the same.

 

[madog]

Bah. Why would men want to go to this college anyway? It probably only consists of home ec and sewing classes.


Afterall it's scientific fact that women have smaller brains, the world is flat, and the sun revovles around the earth. Put these women back in the kitchen where they belong. I want dinner.

 

[maxterpiece]

I believe your points got shot down by the fact that:
1. This woman's college is private.
2. Duke has no policy that says it is all-white. It doesn't exclude other races. And neither does Howard.

One could argue that the current socio-economic environment in America prevents all but the smallest percentage of minorities from attending Duke. Minority families are rarely alumni (which, believe me, is a huge deal to a school like Duke), minority families, on average, have less money - Duke is pricey. There are a wealth (no pun intended) of issues that are woven together, all related to the fact that the avg. minority's family has no role model who went to college, doesn't go to as good of a school, doesn't get to take an SAT test prep course, may not speak english as their first language... etc etc.

Now i'm not saying that all of these handicaps exist for all minorities, or that these handicaps cannot be overcome. All I'm saying is that, because of these conditions, rich white kids with Duke legacies are completely right in expecting that they aren't gonna run into too many minorities at Duke. Except as janitors or cafeteria servers.

 

[Counterfit]

Sexism is an overarching social construct that has in an explicit, historical way (and in a more implicit contemporary way) contrived to keep women from defining themselves (and from power).

Sexism is not necessarily at the disadvantage of women, although it is by far the most common form. As such, sexism can't be reversed. Similarly, racism is not necessarily at the disadvantage of black people, but it is the most common form in the U.S., usually along with an immigrant group (currently those from the Middle East).

 

[mactastic]

Were the VMI and Citadel students not just as offended as these women are the the integration of their school? I recall a lot of grumbling from the male students at these institutions at the time. Not all of course, just as not all of the women at this college are protesting the change here.

One of the big differences between the cases of VMI and the Citadel and this school that people seem to be missing is that in this case the college is voluntarily admitting the opposite sex. The Citadel and VMI were forced into it by a lawsuit. The second major difference is that both of those schools are, AFAIK, supported by public money, unlike this school.

There is no excuse for a school that takes taxpayer money to discriminate. By that same token, however; a school may discriminate if it is a private institution. Would any critics of this school's students argue that Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, or the Boy Scouts of America, or Catholic seminaries be forced to accept atheists or openly gay persons? I think not.

Are private organizations not allowed to discriminate? Of course public pressure can be used to try to change opinions and thereby effect change, but laws?

Unfortunately, the distinction between the rights of private organizations and the obligations of organizations that accept public money are often overlooked by people trying to make a point.

 

[cait-sith]

Remember, arguing on the internet is like winning the special olympics.

How's about those new nanos?

 

[Frogurt]

Were the VMI and Citadel students not just as offended as these women are the the integration of their school? I recall a lot of grumbling from the male students at these institutions at the time. Not all of course, just as not all of the women at this college are protesting the change here.

One of the big differences between the cases of VMI and the Citadel and this school that people seem to be missing is that in this case the college is voluntarily admitting the opposite sex. The Citadel and VMI were forced into it by a lawsuit. The second major difference is that both of those schools are, AFAIK, supported by public money, unlike this school.

There is no excuse for a school that takes taxpayer money to discriminate. By that same token, however; a school may discriminate if it is a private institution. Would any critics of this school's students argue that Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, or the Boy Scouts of America, or Catholic seminaries be forced to accept atheists or openly gay persons? I think not.

Are private organizations not allowed to discriminate? Of course public pressure can be used to try to change opinions and thereby effect change, but laws?

Unfortunately, the distinction between the rights of private organizations and the obligations of organizations that accept public money are often overlooked by people trying to make a point.

I wouldn't argue that they be forced to accept those people, but as a former Boy Scout I can say that I am disgusted that they don't accept gays and atheists and hope they change their policy. Similarly I disagree with the Catholic churches stance on gays and women and Jerry Falwell in general. So while it is the right of a private institution to discriminate, they are not in the right when they do so. Harvard is a private institution, so why was it imperative that they admit women? There were the Seven Sisters for women weren't there?

As an aside on the whole equality issue, from my own somewhat recent personal experience (I am 25), there is more discrimination against men in education than the other way around. I had no male teachers (outside of PE) till 8th grade and only one male math (the subject we always hear winging about) teacher in high school. In college I saw women get prefferential treatment all the time. For instance our registrar was a real jerk to any men who came in, but was all smiles and nothing but help for women. I also remember my department chair getting called down when 2 women dropped out of the major a few weeks into the program, but no castigation for the 5 or 6 men who also did. Again, I am just stating my personal experience.

 

[MrSmith]

Thread summary:

We've come so far that feminism is no longer necessary since men and women are treated as equals. But since they're not equal and more of "samemess" it all comes down to the individual. If you work hard enough you may just be awarded the same opportunities right? This is America after all.

So any women here actually believe this ********? Sorry folks, from this chick's perspective we are certainly not treated as equals or even similarly. We've certainly come a long way since the feminism of the 60s-70s but that doesn't mean we're there yet. I think that a single-gender school is crap for a number of reasons (probably different than the ones stated here) but it saddens me to a point that some posters beleive that we are treated as equals in society as of now. Its nice to think that but not when it doesn't match reality.

Bad day?

I'm not aware of sexual discrimination involving anything other than pay and position in the work place. I'd like to hear from female members here if and how they are discriminated in other (real, not imagined) ways. I'm talking about wholesale discrimination against your sex, not about some old boy who pinched your bum (or 'fanny', but as an Englishman that's completely different imagery...) who is obviously representative of the whole male race . If these two areas are the only ways in which discrimination occurs then I think any discussion on sexism should concentrate on those two things and not wrap itself in circles talking about something that otherwise doesn't exist.

I'm curious. How does pay discrimination work? In the company's policy book is there a table with grades down the left hand side, and two columns for males and females, with higher figures in the male column? Or does everyone start equal and the males get higher increments? If so, when a pattern emerges why is there no involvement of legal authorities, only complaints in the media?

Regarding the school in question, it's a private college not funded by taxes (I'm assuming) so I believe they should be allowed to admit who they want if there's no law against it. But do girls leaving High School really deliberately choose a college because it's single sex? I mean, they must be interested in the other sex as human beings. Why would they deliberately cut off that part of real life? Surely the course content or even the school's prestige would be more important to them.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

So any women here actually believe this ********? Sorry folks, from this chick's perspective we are certainly not treated as equals or even similarly.

Well, I'm a young guy who grew up with incredible bitterness stemming from all the girls calling males idiots and saying females were the obvious superior of the two and being treated like dirt along with the rest of the guys through a lot of earlier school. Girls in high school often got preferential treatment, and laughed at "obviously inferior males". The generation of females I've grown up along with has taken the fiery feminism of old and put it into an environment where it's completely unnecessary and absolutely infuriating. And you know what? I could never do anything about it, because it was sexist.

I'm personally absolutely sick of all this feminism. It's gone overboard in my location and generation. I don't doubt that it needs work in other places, as I see news often about males treating females badly in the workplace and women getting lower salaries. Feminism still needs more support in a lot of areas. But that just also fuels things over here where there isn't that kind of problem.

 

[dornoforpyros]

eh I'm not sure what to make of this, on the one hand I think people should have the option of going to an all male/famale school if they choose.

However if enrollment isn't enough to sustain the school than the argument can be made that they are not needed.

So I guess in the end the individuals who choose to attend such schools should have to cover the cost of keeping them running, if the demand for such schools isn't enough to keep them running than I guess that would say on a whole, they are not needed.

 

[maxterpiece]

article in the NY times

link
headline: Institutions Hinder Female Academics, Panel Says
excerpts:
"For 30 years, the report says, women have earned at least 30 percent of the nation’s doctorates in social and behavioral sciences, and at least 20 percent of the doctorates in life sciences. Yet they appear among full professors in those fields at less than half those levels. Women from minorities are “virtually absent,” it adds.

The report also dismissed other commonly held beliefs — that women are uncompetitive or less productive, that they take too much time off for their families, and so on. Their real problems, it says, are unconscious but pervasive bias, “arbitrary and subjective” evaluation processes, and a work environment in which “anyone lacking the work and family support traditionally provided by a ‘wife’ is at a serious disadvantage.”"

 

[mactastic]

I wouldn't argue that they be forced to accept those people, but as a former Boy Scout I can say that I am disgusted that they don't accept gays and atheists and hope they change their policy. Similarly I disagree with the Catholic churches stance on gays and women and Jerry Falwell in general. So while it is the right of a private institution to discriminate, they are not in the right when they do so. Harvard is a private institution, so why was it imperative that they admit women? There were the Seven Sisters for women weren't there?

Sure, they're not "in the right" from yours and my perspective. But that's not what is at issue here, we're talking legalities. And from a legal perspective, you're right -- as a private organization the BSA, or Falwell, or the Catholic Church, can admit who they see fit to admit based on criteria that would be anathema to you or me, or anyone accepting taxpayer dollars.

As an aside on the whole equality issue, from my own somewhat recent personal experience (I am 25), there is more discrimination against men in education than the other way around. I had no male teachers (outside of PE) till 8th grade and only one male math (the subject we always hear winging about) teacher in high school. In college I saw women get prefferential treatment all the time. For instance our registrar was a real jerk to any men who came in, but was all smiles and nothing but help for women. I also remember my department chair getting called down when 2 women dropped out of the major a few weeks into the program, but no castigation for the 5 or 6 men who also did. Again, I am just stating my personal experience.

Don't take this wrong, but anecdotal evidence of one registrar, or your lack of male teachers, does not provide evidence of anti-male discrimination. And your tale of the department chair is also unconvincing in that we have simply your word that it all turned on the men-vs-women issue, and nothing else at all was involved.

If we give any weight to your anecdotal evidence, than we have to give the same weight to any anecdotal evidence of anti-women discrimination -- and I assure you, that isn't hard to come by.