(Untitled)

[sillyandmorbid]

Below are two cuts I am stealing from Malika. And then, briefly, my own opinion on the matter. Not f-locked so feel free to link anyone to this or repost or whatever.
I WOULD LIKE YOUR THOUGHTS!

Behind cut number one: Article from the Daily Hampshire Gazette.

Comments

[malika]

Re: #3, that is definitely a point. Smith does discriminate, and often does not properly address acts of prejudice that happen on campus (i.e. race and class issues). As for the MTF issue, I myself am a little torn about it. If there are FTMs on campus, then there should be MTFs - but I do understand why people would be uncomfortable with someone who is transitioning from a biological male to a female being on campus. Luckily, Smith has many singles and the option of giving a MTF student their own single is an easy one to provide (which was the issue when my friend's ex, an FTM, was basically HOMELESS for six months because Barnard refused to give him a fucking single cuz his assigned roommates were uncomfortable with him as a student

[malika]

also lol: Radcliffe? forget that. look at Barnard, imo. they basically have none of their own freaking resources and their diplomas say "COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY". even their facebook network says Columbia. BULLSHIT

[sillyandmorbid]

Yeah, Barnard is definitely in the "vestigial limb" phase. lol

this is neither organized nor elegant, but it is still true.

[anamuan]

to be honest, i couldn't bring myself to read the entirety of the article in one go, because it just made me so angry. (What may surprise the author most about this is that this anger actually has nothing to do with my period. I'm angry because sexism, which is a key component of this article, is wrong.) The author spouts nonsense. The whole thing is a big 'omgomg but the poor boys/men! they suffer so since women have started getting actual rights!' Smith, and other women's colleges serve a very important function: making a space in this country, and in academia, where it's not all about the boys. Because mainstream isn't for everybody. it's for the white, middle-to-upperclass straight male. What this article is about is a man finding a space where he doesn't have as much privilege as he's used to, and being butthurt about it

addendum

[anamuan]

random thoughts:
what the fuck does having boys from other colleges in the classroom have to do with anything? i mean, ok, i can see how that would relate to 'single sex college?' but not how that supports his point in any way. it's like 'smith is ALL FEMALE and THAT IS BAD! ...except for the fact that there are some boys there already. IN CONCLUSION, MORE BOYS, LESS WOMEN PLS!'

another thing to note is how industries that gain women lose in terms of average salary. is this because the work is steadily worth less money? i don't think so--it's because women are valued less as workers.

this article makes me want to donate money to smith. i am not an alum. do you think that will be a problem? also, note to self, get money.

also, i plan to post links to this.

point for malika, actually women make up 51% of the population of the US, as of the last census data i've seen

Re: addendum

[sillyandmorbid]

Plus it's not like there ARE lots of boys running around campus. I've had...3 classes that had boys in so far. (Danielle has had 4. She's a Smith alum and has only had 4 classes with boys in.) One of them was Chinese I. He was a high school student. One was Calc 114. There were 3 high school boys and a high school girl. One was BIO 154; there was a senior from UMass.

Also. I know that it would be sexist even if a woman wrote it. It would be all the more sad if it were written by a woman. But men writing this kind of stuff just really gets me mad

Re: addendum

[anamuan]

i really still don't see what his point was about the boys on campus. 'they are there anyway, so you should admit them'? i mean, it's not Smith (or any other women's college) is supposed to be this ALL FEMALE BASTION like a non-religious nunnery or something. but limiting admissions to women ensures that the school's resources really do go, first and foremost, to women.

It would disadvantage us by probability alone
but he wants you disadvantaged! that's the point of this article!

also, sort of related, want your school to have more female match/science majors? hire female professors.

[anamuan]

i hauled myself out of bed to add this last bit.

aside from the blatant sexism ('Men's Rights Activists' aren't calling for equality--they're calling for a stop to the eroding of their unequal privilege), the author of this article seems to be making a basic logical error.

Since 'separate but equal' was proved untrue, the author conflates the ideas of 'integrated' with 'equal'. separate=unequal, ergo integrated=equal. There is, however, no logical constraint on all integrated situations automatically also being equal situations. not all cases of integration are without discrimination. For example, look at the world the end of legal racial segregation in the US. I don't think anyone would reasonably be able to argue that racism ended with racial segregation.

i'm going to resist the very strong desire to make cracks about men being more logical or reasonable than women, by virtue of their penises/lack of vaginas and go back to bed now.

[sillyandmorbid]

I love you. Night night!

[anamuan]

i also valiantly resisted jokes about two heads being better than one XD. i think i deserve a cookie~

[anamuan]

i read this today at pandagon and it really made me think of this post, and explaining what 'consider Peter' is really about"

Last night, the single male secretary in Sterling Cooper complained that he works in a “gynocracy”. What he means, of course, is that having female peers in the secretarial pool emasculates him, and unless he gets special privileges for being male, he’s being oppressed. It’s the same line sexists use now, pointing to places where they feel that men are getting unduly fair treatment, and suggesting that nothing less than being held above women means that men are being oppressed.