karen@randvax.UUCP (Karen E. Isaacson) (02/20/90)
There has been quite a discussion raging in soc.women and soc.men
about women only colleges. Some of the points raised in that
discussion include:
Pro -
o Women learn to be more assertive in such colleges.
After graduation, they tend to perform better in graduate
school and on the job.
Con -
o Non-assertive men need assertiveness training, too.
(Tangent: would these men benefit from attending a
college where the majority of the students were women?)
o Tit for tat: if we allow women only colleges, then we
should allow men only colleges.
For me, the issues raised are both logical and pragmatism. Logic
dictates that _any_ form of discrimination is wrong. So either
there should be no single sex colleges at all, or we should have
no problems with men only colleges. Pragmatism says that women
only colleges have good results (as several posters have testified),
and closing them down for "logical" reasons just seems silly.
If a women only college converted to co-ed, how much less effective
would it be for the women students that found it so rewarding?
Wouldn't that depend on how many men attended? I suspect that there
are relatively few men who would attend. (Aren't several of the
traditional women's colleges co-ed these days, and isn't the number
of men attending these institutions fairly small?) Does a college
or class have to be 100% female in order to empower the participants,
or would a smaller majority do? And would the average male student
at a women's college interact in the same way as the average male
student at a co-ed college? (I'd guess that there would be some
self selection, and that the male students at a women's college
might be less assertive than those at a co-ed college. Does anyone
have any experience or information about this?)
The other thing that has been troubling me about the discussion
is how quickly we all dismiss the potential benefits to men of
men only colleges. There's a tendency to assume we are talking
about schools like Harvard and Yale that were traditionally for
men. And yes, I'd be very disturbed about a "top" school (however
we define it) being single sex. But I don't think either Harvard
or Yale would revert, even if they had the opportunity. Times _have_
changed. So suppose we aren't talking about Ivy League colleges.
Suppose we are talking about small regional liberal arts schools
with good but hardly earthshaking reputations. What would be the
benefits to the students of a school like this if the students were
either entirely or mostly male? Would there be parallel effects:
women at women's colleges learn to be more assertive, would the men
at a men's college learn to be more sensitive or be in better touch
with their emotions or...? (I can't even pose this question sensibly --
I really don't understand what it is like to be a man in today's
society...)
--
Karen E. Isaacson
karen@rand.org or uunet!randvax!karenooblick@intercon.com (Mikki Barry) (02/26/90)
Karen brings up some interesting points. I am not surprised that soc.men and soc.women would be errupting with this now. My thoughts on the issue is that if there was equality, then separate schools for men and women would be wrong. However, as long as there is a power dichotomy, it is necessary to "even the odds" for those of us who are starting off from a weakened position. This is why the argument "if there are single sex colleges for women, there should also be for men" is actually an argument for giving those who already have the power the right to exclude. Case in point is the Virginia Military Academy where a *state* school is fighting an order to admit women. This is clearly a case of exclusion from power. On the other hand, an all women college would exclude men from attending, yet would not exclude them from a particular power base. Again, if there was an equal world out there, there would be no need for this type of additional help for women. Mikki Barry
izahi@portia.Stanford.EDU (Raul Izahi Lopez Hernandez) (02/27/90)
In article <2412@randvax.UUCP> twinsun!usc.edu!karen%rand-unix.UUCP (Karen E. Isaacson) writes: >What would be the >benefits to the students of a school like this if the students were >either entirely or mostly male? Would there be parallel effects: >women at women's colleges learn to be more assertive, would the men >at a men's college learn to be more sensitive or be in better touch >with their emotions or...? (I can't even pose this question sensibly -- >I really don't understand what it is like to be a man in today's >society...) Well, I can give you my position on such issue. I cannot see how a men-only college or university would be of any benefit to a student. First I buy the idea of men-only or women-only primary schools, but at the age at which students enter college, it is only beneficial to have interaction with the opposite sex on a daily basis in the study environment. In this environment team work, open minds and social interaction are a must. I'm no expert in sociology or psychology but I don't think that it can be scientifically proven that men-only or women-only high level education provides any benefit. I would dare to say that it could be damaging to the final assertion of personality to exclude the opposite sex in the education environment. |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Raul Izahi Lopez Hernandez izahi@portia.stanford.edu Graduate Student, EE Dept. "Nun, ich war und ich bin noch Student, Stanford University denn ein Student bleibt ewig Student!" -DG
rawdon@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Michael Rawdon) (02/27/90)
In article <2412@randvax.UUCP> twinsun!usc.edu!karen%rand-unix.UUCP (Karen E. Isaacson) writes: [Regarding single-sex colleges:] >For me, the issues raised are both logical and pragmatism. Logic >dictates that _any_ form of discrimination is wrong. So either >there should be no single sex colleges at all, or we should have >no problems with men only colleges. Pragmatism says that women >only colleges have good results (as several posters have testified), >and closing them down for "logical" reasons just seems silly. I agree, but hold that thought and see below... [Stuff deleted] >The other thing that has been troubling me about the discussion >is how quickly we all dismiss the potential benefits to men of >men only colleges. There's a tendency to assume we are talking >about schools like Harvard and Yale that were traditionally for >men. And yes, I'd be very disturbed about a "top" school (however >we define it) being single sex. Um, I think this fundamentally contradicts your "all or none" statement above. I find this to be discrimination on the basis of class ("classism"). If any college has the right the be single-sex, then ALL should. If one college is denied the right to be single sex, then all should be. Personally, I choose the former option, since I feel that preventing a private college from being able to make this choice is an invasion of privacy. (Public colleges should be unilaterally co-ed, since they are funded, on the bottom line, by people of both sexes.) > But I don't think either Harvard >or Yale would revert, even if they had the opportunity. Times _have_ >changed. So suppose we aren't talking about Ivy League colleges. >Suppose we are talking about small regional liberal arts schools >with good but hardly earthshaking reputations. I have a question I wish to pose at this point: Say we have this college you describe. Now, say, in fifty years (or some suitable period of time) it BECOMES a college with an earthshaking reputation like Harvard, Yale, Brown, etc. How would you feel about it if it were: - Male only? - Female only? > What would be the >benefits to the students of a school like this if the students were >either entirely or mostly male? Would there be parallel effects: >women at women's colleges learn to be more assertive, would the men >at a men's college learn to be more sensitive or be in better touch >with their emotions or...? (I can't even pose this question sensibly -- >I really don't understand what it is like to be a man in today's >society...) Personally, I think I'd be rather bored (frustrated?) at a male-only college... I also think that attending such a college would not have helped me overcome certain problems I had relating to women (a basic adolescent nervousness about relating to the other sex which it took me an unusually long time to overcome) which WAS helped by attending a co-ed college. -- Michael Rawdon | Stardom! Born in a trunk; Tulane University | Got my home, got my car, got stability New Orleans, Louisiana | Stardom! But I'm hollywood's son: rawdon@rex.cs.tulane.edu | All alone, don't admire anonymity ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- These opinions my own, and are not intended to represent any sort of objective truth, nor the opinions of any other individual or group. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
regard@hpsdde.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) (03/03/90)
Well, the real point is this. I'd be awfully surprised to see people who disagreed with single-sex institutions IF IT WERE POSSIBLE to insure harmful discrimination did not result from them. There isn't anything any more wrong with all-male than all-female, except that all-male has also meant powerbase and all-female has meant powerless. When we get to the place where these equations no longer apply, we will all be happier people. Adrienne Regard