2
   

Reverse sexism

 
 
Baldimo
 
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2004 09:58 am
College's Decision to Allow Men Irks Women

NEW YORK - A decision by Wells College (search), which has been all-women since 1868, to begin admitting male students in order to boost enrollment has riled female students.
Many students are threatening to leave the upstate New York college, but two have moved beyond threats and filed a lawsuit that says the decision to enroll men constitutes a breach of contract and fraud.
College administrators say the decision was necessary for the school's financial survival, because there aren't enough female applicants. Administrators don't want to admit men until the current freshman class graduates in 2008, and say the heart and soul of the school won't change.
"We are surviving as a college that will continue to educate women and will do so in a way that honors our history and meets the needs of current generations of students," said Wells spokeswoman Ann Rollo.
But many of the young women at the Aurora, N.Y., school say allowing men to attend would compromise the tight-knit community.
"We all leave our doors unlocked. We can run around in our nighties. It's all girls and we feel really safe and that will change," said student Starbuck Hersey.
A hearing on the lawsuit against the school is scheduled for Dec. 16. Until then, the school is actively recruiting male applicants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think it is a great idea that the school starts allowing men to attend the school. Men no longer have a place to be themselves so why should women. To restrict men from going to this school is reverse sexism and is being done by a group of women who I would guess would want diversity and only having women is a lack of diversity. Good for the school for coming into the 21st century.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 4,640 • Replies: 26
No top replies

 
ebrown p
 
  2  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2004 10:11 am
I agree with you here Baldimo.

It is nice for you and I to be on the same side of an issue once in a while, but I hope there is someone whith whom we can debate. It is a short thread when everyone agrees.

Anyone want to disagree?
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2004 10:32 am
I graduated from a Woman's College in 1960. In the '80's faced with a declining pool of possible students and a decline in the quality of students, the decision was made to go co-ed. I am still somewhat unhappy about this decision.

Women's colleges offer women a learning experience uncluttered by men. Unfortunately, the decline in quality enrollment for women's colleges is due in good part to prestigeous men's colleges becoming coed.

The students who are presently attending Wells applied to and were accepted by a woman's college. Changing the admission rules before the present freshman class graduates would be a breach of contract.

Personally, I'm in favor of all public high schools--both academic and vocational--being single-sex institutions--but that's another thread.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2004 10:40 am
I don't think I have ever been referred to as "clutter".

Baldimo's post addresses the issue of fairness.

I personally would not want to go to a single-sex college. College is supposed to broaden ones experience, not narrow it. I would also never send my children to a single-sex high school.

But if you want all female institutions, doesn't that also mean that we should have all male institutions? I don't see how you can justify one without the other.
0 Replies
 
DimestoreDiva
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2004 11:34 am
So I guess women sould be admitted to join August National, agreed Baldimo?
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2004 12:15 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
I don't think I have ever been referred to as "clutter".

Baldimo's post addresses the issue of fairness.

I personally would not want to go to a single-sex college. College is supposed to broaden ones experience, not narrow it. I would also never send my children to a single-sex high school.

But if you want all female institutions, doesn't that also mean that we should have all male institutions? I don't see how you can justify one without the other.


I agree with you on this one as well ebrown. For the last 20 or 30 years men have been told that they can't have their own clubs or schools and women have sued to have access to these schools and clubs. There used to be men's only workout clubs and those are no longer, but we are starting to see a plethora of women's workout only clubs and I would bet you a million bucks that a man could never get access to that workout club. Why is it that women now want what men had for many years? The ability to get away from the opposite sex and have no distractions, a place where men could be men. Now that the tables have turned, women have to reap what they have sown and that is an integrated society where you are around the opposite sex all the time. Thank you groups like NWO and the various other pro-female power groups.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2004 12:28 pm
DimestoreDiva wrote:
So I guess women sould be admitted to join August National, agreed Baldimo?


Is that the Country Club that hosts the big Golf matches?
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2004 12:57 pm
I have studied some of the effects of coeducation, and it definately has it's pluses and it's minuses.
From a pure skills and knowledge "learning" perspective, single-sex education is, in my opinion, far superior in the grade levels 1-9 or 1-12.
In terms of the attitudes one deveolps in a coeducatioal classroom, I find that far superior.

When kids are young and hormones are raging (I teach junior high), coeducational facilities are akin to social events and not positive learning institutions.

When kids are taught in a single-sex environment and then merged into a coeducational one, you merge the knowledge and skills they have without the positive (or negative) attitudes that can be developed through coeducation.

Talking about institutions of higher learning becomes a different arguemnt altogether. I'm interested to see some of the perspectives.


Michael Gurian of the Gurian Institute has some interesting brain-based research that supports a single-sex classroom.
0 Replies
 
Idaho
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2004 01:00 pm
Quote:
But if you want all female institutions, doesn't that also mean that we should have all male institutions?


Absolutely. I see nothing wrong with private organization being allowed to choose their membership.

As to Wells, if it is a financial decision then it's fine. If it's a political decision, then it's silly.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2004 01:07 pm
Idaho wrote:
Quote:
But if you want all female institutions, doesn't that also mean that we should have all male institutions?


Absolutely. I see nothing wrong with private organization being allowed to choose their membership.

As to Wells, if it is a financial decision then it's fine. If it's a political decision, then it's silly.


Well, I would agree that a private institution/organization should be able to choose their membership, but in the days of PC-ness and this sense of entitlement people seem to think they have with respect to memberships, it just doesn't seem to fly.

What do you think of these two examples?

1. A high school student a few years back took his high school and his school board to court for discrimination because he wasn't permitted to play on the football team.
He had no legs.

2. The Calgary Golf and Country Club in Calgary, Alberta still doesn't permit visible minorities to their course *unofficially*. They only sell memberships to whites.
0 Replies
 
Idaho
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2004 01:21 pm
1. Ridiculous. Can you imagine the liability the school would face if they let him play?

2. While I personally find their actions deplorable, I also wouldn't force them via government action. I would, however, publicize their policy so that community members can decline to patronize the businesses of members, should they so choose.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2004 01:48 pm
Idaho wrote:
1. Ridiculous. Can you imagine the liability the school would face if they let him play?


I was more appalled by the fact that a family would actually encourage such litigation.

Idaho wrote:
2. While I personally find their actions deplorable, I also wouldn't force them via government action. I would, however, publicize their policy so that community members can decline to patronize the businesses of members, should they so choose.


It's pretty low key...and it kind of attracts the older, wealthier...more, uh, bigoted clientelle. Those who know, don't seem to care.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2004 02:10 pm
"reverse sexism" is a kinda weird phrase. Sexism is sexism, period.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2004 02:18 pm
dyslexia wrote:
"reverse sexism" is a kinda weird phrase. Sexism is sexism, period.


Good point.
We've been trained to see it as a one-way form of discrimination...like racism--that only whites can be racist.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2004 02:36 pm
Quote:
1. A high school student a few years back took his high school and his school board to court for discrimination because he wasn't permitted to play on the football team.
He had no legs.


I don't see an issue with the kid trying to play ball. As long as the school has in writing from the parents an agreement that they will not hold the school responsible for injuries to the student. After that it is every student for them when it comes to making the team.

I have seen news footage of another player who had no legs and played in the linebacker position and did quite well. Granted he wasn't a powerhouse player but he was able to make tackles and even went and tried out for a NFL team.

Quote:
2. The Calgary Golf and Country Club in Calgary, Alberta still doesn't permit visible minorities to their course *unofficially*. They only sell memberships to whites.


I guess that is their problem. As someone else stated make it public knowledge that they operate that way and let the chips fall where they may. As noted, the people already there know about the issue and don't care. Let them be that way. One day they will see the light.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2004 03:19 pm
Re: Reverse sexism
Baldimo wrote:
"We all leave our doors unlocked. We can run around in our nighties..."

I shall dream lovely dreams of Wells College tonight.
0 Replies
 
MaryM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2004 03:20 pm
Wish there were a link. Question is whether the people suing will be affected by the change, to start in 2008. Even at that, it is hard to imagine anything in black and white that would require the campus to stay all girl. Evolution is a bitch.


I went to Mills college, an all girl school in Oakland Ca. 1967-69. Basically we missed the summer of love that was going on right next door because we were reading everything a greek ever wrote, trying to get a date, sneaking booze in (and the empties out), and writing home. I got to smell tear gas when I visited some friends at UC and that was the extent of my experience with the tumult of those times. Getting out of there and going to Hayward state next year was exciting, but the protest movement had been taken over by those who had missed the first cycle, and hey, everyone was doing it.

Anyway, no one wears nighties anymore.


Anyone think Starbuck Hershey is a real name?
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2004 03:29 pm
candidone1 wrote:
I have studied some of the effects of coeducation, and it definately has it's pluses and it's minuses.
From a pure skills and knowledge "learning" perspective, single-sex education is, in my opinion, far superior in the grade levels 1-9 or 1-12.
In terms of the attitudes one deveolps in a coeducatioal classroom, I find that far superior.


In Australia studies tend to show that boys perform better academically in a co-ed environment but girls perform worse, is that a cultural thing or is it the case in other parts of the western world?
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2004 03:41 pm
http://www.wstm.com/Global/story.asp?S=2628678

Quote:
Their lawsuit accuses Wells of breach of contract through its admissions process. The lawsuit says students were deceived into believing they would be attending a woman's college for four years.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2004 03:51 pm
Quote:
Peter D. Carmen, the students' lawyer, said while the college was actively recruiting females, the trustees had been developing the plan to admit male students.

The lawsuit _ filed in state Supreme Court, Cayuga County _ also alleges that campus tour guides were specifically instructed in their 2003-2004 training manual to say "no" when asked if the college was going coed.

"We're asking for very limited relief," Carmen said. "We just want the women who applied to, and were accepted by, a woman's college to be able to graduate from a women's college."


link
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Reverse sexism
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/20/2019 at 07:48:18