(no subject)
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.
When it comes to social reform, America continues to evolve.
In 2009 we elected our first black president, legalized same-sex marriages in several states, and re-examined everything from health care to immigration. It's been four decades since the Supreme Court struck down segregation, relying on evidence that racially separate schools were inherently unequal. Today's Constitution and civil-rights statutes prohibit the state from discriminating on the basis of race or sex.
One thing that hasn't changed much, however, are the last remaining single-sex colleges like Smith and Mount Holyoke.
True, 150 years ago when women were excluded from male academies, colleges and universities, affirmative action was needed to create these special schools. We owe a debt of gratitude to women's colleges for taking an early stand to fight discrimination, raise awareness of gender issues, and crack the glass ceiling in government, business and even academia itself.
But today, schools like Smith and Mount Holyoke, Wellesley and Mills, are hypocritical in their fight against gender discrimination since they are among the few remaining U.S. institutions allowed to exploit a federal loophole that permits them to segregate their own admissions on the basis of sex.
Starting in the 1960s, private male U.S. colleges and universities voluntarily went coed to keep up with a changing society. Today Harvard is fully integrated and presided over by its first female president, Drew Gilpin Faust. Ruth J. Simmons, a black woman and former president of Smith, heads Brown. And Dartmouth, spoofed in "Animal House" for its frat boy misogyny, opened its doors to women in 1972. Rather than weakening these institutions, coeducation made them stronger and better able to prepare leaders for the modern world.
Even peers of Smith and Mount Holyoke reconsidered single-sex education long ago. Sarah Lawrence went coed in 1968 to "take risks, and go against the grain ¿ intellectually, emotionally, artistically and politically." Vassar followed suit in 1969, "in defiance of conventional wisdom." Wheaton in Massachusetts accepted men in 1987, "out of a commitment for equality and diversity for all." One has to believe that these schools were run by rational and intelligent people who carefully considered the pros and cons of single-sex education before rejecting a century of tradition.
To fight declining interest in women's colleges ¿ they're down from 300 in the 1960s to about 60 today - Smith and others are recruiting young women from the Middle East, according to The New York Times. Predictably, school officials tout their many distinguished alumnae. But again, are single-sex schools the best ambassadors to call on nations like Dubai that repress women? Wouldn't it be better for foreign students to matriculate at coed schools that share mainstream American values, and that do not subtly condescend towards the other half of humanity strictly on the basis of sex?
Women's colleges also tout that they provide a choice in the marketplace. Maybe, but the private Augusta National Golf Club in Georgia makes a similar argument as to why it restricts membership and the Master's tournament to men only. Both institutions may be legal but being stuck in their sexist ways doesn't make them right.
Nor is there empirical evidence that today's young women do better in the classroom when set apart from more aggressive and assertive males. This might have been true in the past but it's not true now, according to Wendy Kaimer, a women's issues expert. Today's women are thriving at coed colleges and in their careers.
Perhaps the most hypocritical myth is that these colleges exist for women. Look behind the scenes and you'll discover that schools like Smith and Mount Holyoke haven't been all-female for decades. Thanks to Five College cross-registration and exchanges like MIT-Wellesley, there are men on campus everywhere: in the classroom, among the faculty and administration, even informally in dorms.
To base your brand on being a school run for women is disingenuous. If you truly believe in single-sex education, either return to the 1950s and bar male students at the door (a silly non-solution) or stop deluding yourselves and go coed. And don't worry. Institutions like Vassar discovered that their endowment had far more to fear from Wall Street than from old-school alumnae who threaten to stop donating.
Finally, the messages on Smith's website show how intellectually dishonest the marketing rhetoric at these schools can get. For example: "At Smith, women are the focus of all the attention and all the opportunities." How does that make Peter feel after taking the bus from UMass to Northampton to attend a biochemistry class? "At Smith all the leaders are women." What signal does this send to the second class citizen men who are Smith department heads or who work with President Carol Christ in administration? "At Smith, the ¿old boys' network becomes an ¿ageless women's network.'" Smith should practice what it preaches in diversity class. This is sexism, pure and simple, and in a recession, smart people do not limit their network to one sex.
"Only as the sexes become less separate have women become more free," says Wendy Kaimer. It's time that the remaining single-sex colleges embrace inclusive 21st-century values instead of building bridges to the exclusive 19th.
Behind cut number two: Malika's response to this article.
(Many different arguments I could make here - I will agree with Emily Everett '09 who responded: "Mr. Pohl cites Smith's large percentage of international students as proof that single-sex education isn't marketable domestically, although to most it simply shows that Smith's message appeals on a global scale." Simply reducing the problem of Smith's "domestic marketability" to their recruits overseas is doing a disservice to the American students who attend Smith and the international students who attend Smith. But I am not well versed on our domestic vs. international problem. All I know is that we received and accepted the highest number of applicants in Smith's history, though I realize that is also a phenomena that all colleges have been seeing. However, we must be doing SOMETHING right, and I don't very much care if it works domestically or internationally.)
This "single sex colleges are discriminatory" argument is tantamount to one of my favorite "reverse racism" arguments: "Why isn't there a White Entertainment Channel?" (Or really, why are there still historically black colleges? --I have yet to see an op-ed piece on this, though I've no doubt a few exist, but I have seen many on women's colleges. I know that federally, you can't discriminate acceptance based on race, but the fact of the matter is, HB colleges exist and they are still majority black.) Because there is a need for a BET. (I know that this comparison is ridiculous, but bear with me. Just imagine the Boondocks while you're thinking about my BET argument.) Every other major media outlet is DEDICATED to white people. White people's lives, white people's hobbies, white people's makeup, white people's clothes. But the moment a TV channel or magazine or website is dedicated to black people, or Latino people, or Asian people, there is an outcry. "Why don't you integrate? Why can't we all get along?!" --it's not that we don't want to. That is the eventual goal, isn't it? But it's because we CAN'T. We're still pointed out for our skin, our hair, our way of dressing, the way our ass won't fit into a pair of GAP jeans or the way our eyes don't look good in the same shades of makeup that CVS has out on display. Mainstream America does not serve us, and so we must serve ourselves. (Note: I do not mean to reduce racism = sexism. They are not equals. However, they both contain undeniable parallels to each other.)
Similarly, mainstream America does not serve women. It's true, the rates of women going to college is steadily beating the rates of men in college. Women are starting to beat men in standardized tests. Women are flowing into the workplace, numbers increasing, higher than ever before. But if that's the case, then why are women leaders so sparse? Why is it at any major university or college, men will be the leaders in organizations, clubs, majors? Why is it that when they graduate, even in 2009, a woman leader is SPECTACULAR, rare, amazing? Why is it that women - not blacks, not Asians, not Latinos - are the most underrepresented demographic in the American Congress? WE ARE 50% OF THE POPULATION -- but our numbers don't show! We are not commonly accepted as major leaders! We are not commonly accepted as capable of doing things that men can do! Why is it that men can dominate politics and finance like it's nothing, but a woman is reviled and mocked because, well, "let's hope she's not menstruating when she makes major decisions!" Why is it that the STATE OF OUR GENITALS still dictate what we can and cannot do? I will accept that due to sexual dimorphism, that yes, there are some physical things that we cannot do as well as men. I will even accept that men's brains and women's brains are often wired differently, though in no substantial way that we can prove. But I will NOT accept that we cannot succeed in science and math. I will NOT accept that our "monthly flows" prevent us from being motherfucking amazing leaders. And I WILL NOT accept that sexism and chauvinism is dead, that inequality doesn't breed itself in our society, and that women's colleges are not necessary.
No one likes to be told they have privilege, and men are no different. Many men don't like to be told that they still hold an immeasurable wealth of privilege over women, even upperclass white women - they don't like to be reminded that there are still unequal wages in this country, that the glass ceiling very much exists, that areas such as science and finance are aggressively dominated by men, that old boy's clubs hold power like no other. That only a few years ago, the president of Harvard remarked that women are just inherently not good at math or science. No one likes to be told that they hold the power over another group, that they are inadvertently repressing someone.
What everyone needs to understand is that it's not your fault for being born in your position, whether it is overprivileged or underprivileged. What IS your fault is that you continue to perpetuate the oppression. I'm not just talking about active forms of oppression, like former President Summers' remarks, or paying unequal wages, etc. I'm talking about refusing to believe that there is oppression, refusing to believe there is a problem. When a woman can't run for president without being called "too ambitious" or "ugly" or "cunt" more than she is called out on her actual politics, there is still a problem. To put it in easier terms, (as in more visible terms) it's like denying that racism is a problem when the darkest woman you will ever see in the media is Beyonce Knowles, and even she gets photoshopped to lighter shades of beige when she's on the cover of a major magazine. Pretending that the problem doesn't exist solves nothing, and just leaves resent in its wake. Only by recognizing that yes, there is a problem, and yes, it will be difficult and arduous to fix it, but it can be fixed, can you really solve our major problems. And some believe that they can never be solved - and maybe I am one of them - but the least we can do is try, which is what we've always done.
In closing, all I can do is quote Shaharzad Akbar's Ivy Day '09 speech: "I learned that it was okay to be a woman, to feel and to act like a woman in public, and that this was a strength, not a weakness. Leading an active public life would be challenging, but ultimately more rewarding, and I could do it just as all these remarkable women had done before me." Whether the institution of single-sex education is outdated or not - whether it is eventually outvoted or not - this is what Smith taught her and me, and what I hope every women's college student learns in her time spent in undergrad.
In addition to these thoughts, there are immediately three things I want to add.
1) The author of the original article is MALE. I would still strongly disagree with the article had it been written by a woman, but I feel like men don't actually have a clue when it comes to things like women's health concerns, abortion, or women's colleges. Yes, we have vaginas (which Firefox spell check tells me is NOT a word ://////) and uteri. Yes, you have penises (which Firefox spell check says is spelled perfectly fine) and testicles. We don't tell you what to do with yours; why do you get to tell us what to do with ours????
2) Shaharzad Akbar was in my anthropology class this semester. Very smart, nice girl. She's from Afghanistan. It puts some perspective on her quote and on Mr. Pohl's disdain for Smith's recruitment of international women.
3) SMITH DOES DISCRIMINATE. Don't get me wrong. I actually like Smith a lot. It has given me more opportunities than I could hope for. It provides me with an environment which makes me feel safe, as a woman. I like that I can say "I LOVE eating meat!" and no one cracks a joke about my sexual activities. But seriously. The school discriminates. EVEN AGAINST WOMEN. Smith has a policy that we only accept WOMEN into the college. The long and short of this is that you have to be born female. You can undergo a sex change while you're here, that's fine. But only if you're going in the female-to-male direction. Why don't we admit men who associate with and even turn themselves into women? I overheard a conversation once about this. One of the Smithies says, "It's because they've been men for part of their lives; they've known the privileges that have been denied to women." I say BULLSHIT. A man who wants to be a woman? A man who has always associated with the girls, wanted to play dress-up not football, wanted to kiss the boys has known worse ridicule and discrimination than the average Smithie. --There are exceptions; don't go hating--
I know, I said I was going to be brief, so I'm wrapping it up. There are definitely pros and cons to single sex higher education. But, in my opinion, women's colleges do more good than harm. And they're still NECESSARY.
Finally: Look at Radcliffe! Going co-ed turned them into a vestigial limb that is now NON-EXISTENT.
ETA:Behind cut number 3: anamuan lays some things about sexism out quite nicely.
Here is a regrettable fact for you: some men really, really, really hate women. I've met them! They are very scary! They do things like hit women, and rape them! We all agree that those things are bad, and based in woman-hating, right? (Right, Ned? Right, Gus? Good, I'm glad you follow me.) It's hard to miss how much they hate women, with the hitting and the raping and all.
However, the vast majority of men, in my own personal experience, do not hate women. They like women. They have the best of intentions toward women. They even agree that hating women is gross and bad, when it takes the form of hitting and raping. Also? The vast majority of those men? Still totally sexist.
For example: they assume they have the natural, God-given right to fuck a different girl every week, yet think that ladies who get around are "kind of slutty." (This is especially fun when you are the "kind of slutty" girl who has made the choice to fuck them - for which choice they must, of course, condemn you.) They don't broach serious topics with you, out of respect for your tiny lady-brain, but when you raise those topics, they lecture and condescend and talk over you even when it's apparent that you know more than they do. They don't see why they can't talk publicly about whether or not they'd "hit that"; they know that rape and domestic abuse and stuff like that is bad, but don't see why they can't tell jokes about it; and, you know, it's not that they hate women or anything, but they don't see why they can't call someone a slut or a tease or a cunt or an uptight bitch if she is, you know, acting like one. Also? They know it's not PC? But they think that women, with their emotions and hormones and stuff, are... um... crazy.
They don't hate women, though! They haven't hit any, or raped any! So, if you call them "misogynist" or "sexist," they will check to make sure that they don't remember any hittings or rapings, conclude that they haven't done those very bad things, and dismiss you. They forget that condescending to women, objectifying them (not fantasizing about them sexually, but defining them as objects that are only good for sexual fantasy or sex), and thinking about them in terms of demeaning stereotypes is also sexism. That's just normal bro-stuff! They are normal!
Yes, Virginia and/or Ned Hepburn and/or Gus Menary, sexism is normal. It is a huge part of culture. Men are raised with male privilege, which allows and encourages sexism, and disallows women from challenging it (or stereotypes them as "militant feminists" who are angry and bitter and un-funny if they do). Every man, I am telling you - along with, unsurprisingly, many women - has some sexist attitudes that he needs to address, even if he is the nicest and most well-meaning man in the world, because every man is raised in this current world, where the norm is sexist. I know several men who are very nice and well-meaning, and I like them very much, and on occasion I have had to point out that they are being sexist! Because I get that it is not conscious! I have had to be like, "excuse me, friend/boyfriend/coworker/what-have-you, I understand that you mean well, but please back the fuck up, stop treating me like a girl, and start treating me like a person." The guys who are actually decent people listen, and stop with the sexist behaviors! The others... well.
Part of male privilege is that you don't have to listen to people when they call you out on your sexism. There are so many, many, many convenient stereotypes that you can use to dismiss them! And the world will back you up! That is what "privilege" means! So, your commitment to listening and changing the way you behave - your commitment to not being sexist any more, and to not getting defensive when people point your sexism out to you - really doesn't rest on anything but whether or not you are a good person. Whether or not you genuinely care about women enough to listen to them when they speak about things that are disrespectful, hurtful, or holding them back. Or, whether you want to pay lip service to women being humans, and continue with the frat-boy/"ironic" lady-hating.
The question, Gus and Ned, isn't whether you're sexist. The next step isn't explaining why you are not sexist. You're sexist. It's obvious. You got caught out, and you got called out. So: the question isn't how you're going to defend yourself. (YOU CANNOT, AT THIS POINT, DEFEND YOURSELF.) It's how you're going to change.
I WOULD LIKE YOUR THOUGHTS!
Behind cut number one: Article from the Daily Hampshire Gazette.
When it comes to social reform, America continues to evolve.
In 2009 we elected our first black president, legalized same-sex marriages in several states, and re-examined everything from health care to immigration. It's been four decades since the Supreme Court struck down segregation, relying on evidence that racially separate schools were inherently unequal. Today's Constitution and civil-rights statutes prohibit the state from discriminating on the basis of race or sex.
One thing that hasn't changed much, however, are the last remaining single-sex colleges like Smith and Mount Holyoke.
True, 150 years ago when women were excluded from male academies, colleges and universities, affirmative action was needed to create these special schools. We owe a debt of gratitude to women's colleges for taking an early stand to fight discrimination, raise awareness of gender issues, and crack the glass ceiling in government, business and even academia itself.
But today, schools like Smith and Mount Holyoke, Wellesley and Mills, are hypocritical in their fight against gender discrimination since they are among the few remaining U.S. institutions allowed to exploit a federal loophole that permits them to segregate their own admissions on the basis of sex.
Starting in the 1960s, private male U.S. colleges and universities voluntarily went coed to keep up with a changing society. Today Harvard is fully integrated and presided over by its first female president, Drew Gilpin Faust. Ruth J. Simmons, a black woman and former president of Smith, heads Brown. And Dartmouth, spoofed in "Animal House" for its frat boy misogyny, opened its doors to women in 1972. Rather than weakening these institutions, coeducation made them stronger and better able to prepare leaders for the modern world.
Even peers of Smith and Mount Holyoke reconsidered single-sex education long ago. Sarah Lawrence went coed in 1968 to "take risks, and go against the grain ¿ intellectually, emotionally, artistically and politically." Vassar followed suit in 1969, "in defiance of conventional wisdom." Wheaton in Massachusetts accepted men in 1987, "out of a commitment for equality and diversity for all." One has to believe that these schools were run by rational and intelligent people who carefully considered the pros and cons of single-sex education before rejecting a century of tradition.
To fight declining interest in women's colleges ¿ they're down from 300 in the 1960s to about 60 today - Smith and others are recruiting young women from the Middle East, according to The New York Times. Predictably, school officials tout their many distinguished alumnae. But again, are single-sex schools the best ambassadors to call on nations like Dubai that repress women? Wouldn't it be better for foreign students to matriculate at coed schools that share mainstream American values, and that do not subtly condescend towards the other half of humanity strictly on the basis of sex?
Women's colleges also tout that they provide a choice in the marketplace. Maybe, but the private Augusta National Golf Club in Georgia makes a similar argument as to why it restricts membership and the Master's tournament to men only. Both institutions may be legal but being stuck in their sexist ways doesn't make them right.
Nor is there empirical evidence that today's young women do better in the classroom when set apart from more aggressive and assertive males. This might have been true in the past but it's not true now, according to Wendy Kaimer, a women's issues expert. Today's women are thriving at coed colleges and in their careers.
Perhaps the most hypocritical myth is that these colleges exist for women. Look behind the scenes and you'll discover that schools like Smith and Mount Holyoke haven't been all-female for decades. Thanks to Five College cross-registration and exchanges like MIT-Wellesley, there are men on campus everywhere: in the classroom, among the faculty and administration, even informally in dorms.
To base your brand on being a school run for women is disingenuous. If you truly believe in single-sex education, either return to the 1950s and bar male students at the door (a silly non-solution) or stop deluding yourselves and go coed. And don't worry. Institutions like Vassar discovered that their endowment had far more to fear from Wall Street than from old-school alumnae who threaten to stop donating.
Finally, the messages on Smith's website show how intellectually dishonest the marketing rhetoric at these schools can get. For example: "At Smith, women are the focus of all the attention and all the opportunities." How does that make Peter feel after taking the bus from UMass to Northampton to attend a biochemistry class? "At Smith all the leaders are women." What signal does this send to the second class citizen men who are Smith department heads or who work with President Carol Christ in administration? "At Smith, the ¿old boys' network becomes an ¿ageless women's network.'" Smith should practice what it preaches in diversity class. This is sexism, pure and simple, and in a recession, smart people do not limit their network to one sex.
"Only as the sexes become less separate have women become more free," says Wendy Kaimer. It's time that the remaining single-sex colleges embrace inclusive 21st-century values instead of building bridges to the exclusive 19th.
Behind cut number two: Malika's response to this article.
(Many different arguments I could make here - I will agree with Emily Everett '09 who responded: "Mr. Pohl cites Smith's large percentage of international students as proof that single-sex education isn't marketable domestically, although to most it simply shows that Smith's message appeals on a global scale." Simply reducing the problem of Smith's "domestic marketability" to their recruits overseas is doing a disservice to the American students who attend Smith and the international students who attend Smith. But I am not well versed on our domestic vs. international problem. All I know is that we received and accepted the highest number of applicants in Smith's history, though I realize that is also a phenomena that all colleges have been seeing. However, we must be doing SOMETHING right, and I don't very much care if it works domestically or internationally.)
This "single sex colleges are discriminatory" argument is tantamount to one of my favorite "reverse racism" arguments: "Why isn't there a White Entertainment Channel?" (Or really, why are there still historically black colleges? --I have yet to see an op-ed piece on this, though I've no doubt a few exist, but I have seen many on women's colleges. I know that federally, you can't discriminate acceptance based on race, but the fact of the matter is, HB colleges exist and they are still majority black.) Because there is a need for a BET. (I know that this comparison is ridiculous, but bear with me. Just imagine the Boondocks while you're thinking about my BET argument.) Every other major media outlet is DEDICATED to white people. White people's lives, white people's hobbies, white people's makeup, white people's clothes. But the moment a TV channel or magazine or website is dedicated to black people, or Latino people, or Asian people, there is an outcry. "Why don't you integrate? Why can't we all get along?!" --it's not that we don't want to. That is the eventual goal, isn't it? But it's because we CAN'T. We're still pointed out for our skin, our hair, our way of dressing, the way our ass won't fit into a pair of GAP jeans or the way our eyes don't look good in the same shades of makeup that CVS has out on display. Mainstream America does not serve us, and so we must serve ourselves. (Note: I do not mean to reduce racism = sexism. They are not equals. However, they both contain undeniable parallels to each other.)
Similarly, mainstream America does not serve women. It's true, the rates of women going to college is steadily beating the rates of men in college. Women are starting to beat men in standardized tests. Women are flowing into the workplace, numbers increasing, higher than ever before. But if that's the case, then why are women leaders so sparse? Why is it at any major university or college, men will be the leaders in organizations, clubs, majors? Why is it that when they graduate, even in 2009, a woman leader is SPECTACULAR, rare, amazing? Why is it that women - not blacks, not Asians, not Latinos - are the most underrepresented demographic in the American Congress? WE ARE 50% OF THE POPULATION -- but our numbers don't show! We are not commonly accepted as major leaders! We are not commonly accepted as capable of doing things that men can do! Why is it that men can dominate politics and finance like it's nothing, but a woman is reviled and mocked because, well, "let's hope she's not menstruating when she makes major decisions!" Why is it that the STATE OF OUR GENITALS still dictate what we can and cannot do? I will accept that due to sexual dimorphism, that yes, there are some physical things that we cannot do as well as men. I will even accept that men's brains and women's brains are often wired differently, though in no substantial way that we can prove. But I will NOT accept that we cannot succeed in science and math. I will NOT accept that our "monthly flows" prevent us from being motherfucking amazing leaders. And I WILL NOT accept that sexism and chauvinism is dead, that inequality doesn't breed itself in our society, and that women's colleges are not necessary.
No one likes to be told they have privilege, and men are no different. Many men don't like to be told that they still hold an immeasurable wealth of privilege over women, even upperclass white women - they don't like to be reminded that there are still unequal wages in this country, that the glass ceiling very much exists, that areas such as science and finance are aggressively dominated by men, that old boy's clubs hold power like no other. That only a few years ago, the president of Harvard remarked that women are just inherently not good at math or science. No one likes to be told that they hold the power over another group, that they are inadvertently repressing someone.
What everyone needs to understand is that it's not your fault for being born in your position, whether it is overprivileged or underprivileged. What IS your fault is that you continue to perpetuate the oppression. I'm not just talking about active forms of oppression, like former President Summers' remarks, or paying unequal wages, etc. I'm talking about refusing to believe that there is oppression, refusing to believe there is a problem. When a woman can't run for president without being called "too ambitious" or "ugly" or "cunt" more than she is called out on her actual politics, there is still a problem. To put it in easier terms, (as in more visible terms) it's like denying that racism is a problem when the darkest woman you will ever see in the media is Beyonce Knowles, and even she gets photoshopped to lighter shades of beige when she's on the cover of a major magazine. Pretending that the problem doesn't exist solves nothing, and just leaves resent in its wake. Only by recognizing that yes, there is a problem, and yes, it will be difficult and arduous to fix it, but it can be fixed, can you really solve our major problems. And some believe that they can never be solved - and maybe I am one of them - but the least we can do is try, which is what we've always done.
In closing, all I can do is quote Shaharzad Akbar's Ivy Day '09 speech: "I learned that it was okay to be a woman, to feel and to act like a woman in public, and that this was a strength, not a weakness. Leading an active public life would be challenging, but ultimately more rewarding, and I could do it just as all these remarkable women had done before me." Whether the institution of single-sex education is outdated or not - whether it is eventually outvoted or not - this is what Smith taught her and me, and what I hope every women's college student learns in her time spent in undergrad.
In addition to these thoughts, there are immediately three things I want to add.
1) The author of the original article is MALE. I would still strongly disagree with the article had it been written by a woman, but I feel like men don't actually have a clue when it comes to things like women's health concerns, abortion, or women's colleges. Yes, we have vaginas (which Firefox spell check tells me is NOT a word ://////) and uteri. Yes, you have penises (which Firefox spell check says is spelled perfectly fine) and testicles. We don't tell you what to do with yours; why do you get to tell us what to do with ours????
2) Shaharzad Akbar was in my anthropology class this semester. Very smart, nice girl. She's from Afghanistan. It puts some perspective on her quote and on Mr. Pohl's disdain for Smith's recruitment of international women.
3) SMITH DOES DISCRIMINATE. Don't get me wrong. I actually like Smith a lot. It has given me more opportunities than I could hope for. It provides me with an environment which makes me feel safe, as a woman. I like that I can say "I LOVE eating meat!" and no one cracks a joke about my sexual activities. But seriously. The school discriminates. EVEN AGAINST WOMEN. Smith has a policy that we only accept WOMEN into the college. The long and short of this is that you have to be born female. You can undergo a sex change while you're here, that's fine. But only if you're going in the female-to-male direction. Why don't we admit men who associate with and even turn themselves into women? I overheard a conversation once about this. One of the Smithies says, "It's because they've been men for part of their lives; they've known the privileges that have been denied to women." I say BULLSHIT. A man who wants to be a woman? A man who has always associated with the girls, wanted to play dress-up not football, wanted to kiss the boys has known worse ridicule and discrimination than the average Smithie. --There are exceptions; don't go hating--
I know, I said I was going to be brief, so I'm wrapping it up. There are definitely pros and cons to single sex higher education. But, in my opinion, women's colleges do more good than harm. And they're still NECESSARY.
Finally: Look at Radcliffe! Going co-ed turned them into a vestigial limb that is now NON-EXISTENT.
ETA:Behind cut number 3: anamuan lays some things about sexism out quite nicely.
Here is a regrettable fact for you: some men really, really, really hate women. I've met them! They are very scary! They do things like hit women, and rape them! We all agree that those things are bad, and based in woman-hating, right? (Right, Ned? Right, Gus? Good, I'm glad you follow me.) It's hard to miss how much they hate women, with the hitting and the raping and all.
However, the vast majority of men, in my own personal experience, do not hate women. They like women. They have the best of intentions toward women. They even agree that hating women is gross and bad, when it takes the form of hitting and raping. Also? The vast majority of those men? Still totally sexist.
For example: they assume they have the natural, God-given right to fuck a different girl every week, yet think that ladies who get around are "kind of slutty." (This is especially fun when you are the "kind of slutty" girl who has made the choice to fuck them - for which choice they must, of course, condemn you.) They don't broach serious topics with you, out of respect for your tiny lady-brain, but when you raise those topics, they lecture and condescend and talk over you even when it's apparent that you know more than they do. They don't see why they can't talk publicly about whether or not they'd "hit that"; they know that rape and domestic abuse and stuff like that is bad, but don't see why they can't tell jokes about it; and, you know, it's not that they hate women or anything, but they don't see why they can't call someone a slut or a tease or a cunt or an uptight bitch if she is, you know, acting like one. Also? They know it's not PC? But they think that women, with their emotions and hormones and stuff, are... um... crazy.
They don't hate women, though! They haven't hit any, or raped any! So, if you call them "misogynist" or "sexist," they will check to make sure that they don't remember any hittings or rapings, conclude that they haven't done those very bad things, and dismiss you. They forget that condescending to women, objectifying them (not fantasizing about them sexually, but defining them as objects that are only good for sexual fantasy or sex), and thinking about them in terms of demeaning stereotypes is also sexism. That's just normal bro-stuff! They are normal!
Yes, Virginia and/or Ned Hepburn and/or Gus Menary, sexism is normal. It is a huge part of culture. Men are raised with male privilege, which allows and encourages sexism, and disallows women from challenging it (or stereotypes them as "militant feminists" who are angry and bitter and un-funny if they do). Every man, I am telling you - along with, unsurprisingly, many women - has some sexist attitudes that he needs to address, even if he is the nicest and most well-meaning man in the world, because every man is raised in this current world, where the norm is sexist. I know several men who are very nice and well-meaning, and I like them very much, and on occasion I have had to point out that they are being sexist! Because I get that it is not conscious! I have had to be like, "excuse me, friend/boyfriend/coworker/what-have-you, I understand that you mean well, but please back the fuck up, stop treating me like a girl, and start treating me like a person." The guys who are actually decent people listen, and stop with the sexist behaviors! The others... well.
Part of male privilege is that you don't have to listen to people when they call you out on your sexism. There are so many, many, many convenient stereotypes that you can use to dismiss them! And the world will back you up! That is what "privilege" means! So, your commitment to listening and changing the way you behave - your commitment to not being sexist any more, and to not getting defensive when people point your sexism out to you - really doesn't rest on anything but whether or not you are a good person. Whether or not you genuinely care about women enough to listen to them when they speak about things that are disrespectful, hurtful, or holding them back. Or, whether you want to pay lip service to women being humans, and continue with the frat-boy/"ironic" lady-hating.
The question, Gus and Ned, isn't whether you're sexist. The next step isn't explaining why you are not sexist. You're sexist. It's obvious. You got caught out, and you got called out. So: the question isn't how you're going to defend yourself. (YOU CANNOT, AT THIS POINT, DEFEND YOURSELF.) It's how you're going to change.