qialah

Smithie: My D and I recently visited Smith, and I'd be interested in your reactions to my impressions:

I didn't get the sense at all that Smith was academically different than any quality LAC. Because of the 5-college consortium it sounded like many classes had one or two men, which was pretty similar to some of the more gender-lopsided colleges we visited. In any case, collegues of my H who are professors at Smith say they don't see much difference in the quality of the discussion between all-women's classes and mixed sex classes. In addition, Smith women compete very successfully with men for internships, externships and study abroad, which are significant pieces of the college experience.

Where Smith "feels" like a women's school is in the clubs and extra-curricular leadership arena. In my experience most women tend to move back and forth between "co-ed" and "women's" worlds --either because they work full time and do volunteer work related to their kids, or they take time off to be SAHMs for some period. (There was recently a New York Times article about high powered grads of Ivy League schools who were opting out of their high powered careers to be home with kids.) The reality is that though the employed world is co-ed, the volunteer world--especially related to children is almost exclusively women--the SAHD movement notwithstanding. To me, this makes a Smith education a very "real life" experience.

To value a women's college because it empowers women to succeed in an inherently sexist world seems awfully anachronistic to me--something we would have said back in the days of Betty Freidan and Gloria Steinen. I guess I see Smith in more a post post-feminist world: The value of a women's college is because it allows women to learn and enjoy functioning in both a co-ed world and a single sex world-- which in reality is how most women today will live their lives.

Keilexandra

Smithie - Actually, I just got back from interviewing with a Scripps alum who really crystalized what I love about the school; I'm definitely applying and might well end up choosing it over a coed LAC like Oberlin.

qialah's perspective is interesting. I guess I would agree with her in that the traditional "empowerment" of a women's college seems anachronistic and devaluing of what women can achieve today without special help.

teenage_cliche

qialah: I'm still a prospie, but your take on this sounds very interesting. I've never thought of it that way before, and as someone who thinks she's going to want to have children and work at home for several years I think you're onto something.

I've posted on this thread only sporadically, but I'm a current high school senior who wasn't originally too into the idea of women's colleges but who LOVES Smith. The truth is that I realized that I liked all the aspects of the school besides it being all-women's, and then I realized that the all-women's thing isn't really a big deal for me personally. I think I'm going to be a women's studies major, though I'm not 100% sure of that, and so even if I went to a coed school I'd probably have mostly women in plenty of my classes.

Keilexandra

To elaborate, I fell in love slowly with Scripps (just ask Student615) but my visit definitely confirmed a previously nebulous gut feeling. The extremely close consortium provides, for me, all the benefits (both social and academic, though I care more about the social community aspect) of a women's college without the drawbacks (again, social more important than academic for me). Scripps maintains a very close relationship with majority-male Harvey Mudd, where I would certainly take CS courses, and computer science itself is a heavily male-dominated discipline.

Kei-o-lei

Keilexandra said: "Kei - I have never made the case for elimination of single-sex institutions; I simply challenge the notion that a woman who chooses not to attend a women's college is automatically giving up some sense of future self-worth or opportunity."

I understood your thread to be in part putting up a "straw woman" - what you termed a "lame defense." I offered, in your terms, a less lame rationale for women's colleges.

Kei

Keilexandra

The title of the thread was actually taken directly from the article that I quoted in the first post. It was perhaps an inadvisable choice, as on my own initiative I would probably have chosen more politic words. I did understand that the article, and its title, would be controversial; thus I hoped to spark debate. If you return to my OP, I quoted particular parts of the linked article that I agreed with. Specifically:

SmithieandProud

To qialah, I guess I would say my experience with Smith is a little different than maybe what you saw on your tour. Certainly there are men in many of the classes (it's a college, not a convent), but I wouldn't say there are men in most of the classes, or that their presence changes the dynamic much. Honestly, in most of my gov classes the men sat in the back and did not participate unless absolutely forced, I think they were a little sheepish and nervous. Not sure if that's the same in every class (Smith's sports economics class had a huge and active male contingent from Amherst), just in my experiences. It's very case by case.

I think your perspective is very interesting on the question of anachronism. From my point of view, I think it's a little anachronistic to think of the "coed" and "women's" worlds as being seperate. For example, as seeing volunteering and working with children and other unpaid labor as part of a "female sphere" and paid labor as part of a "coed sphere", though traditionally that has certainly been the case without question.

I think one of the great values of a Smith education, or any women's college education is that it really teaches/encourages/forces you to see your gender sphere and your "life sphere" (if you will) as one thing. And to insist that the male gender do the same. I guess I don't think we're living in post-feminist world at all, and if we were, surely that would mean that we wouldn't be moving back and forth between coed and single-sex spheres any longer. I think that empowerment is still very much an important part of the value of a women's college education, because women's colleges are empowering. Thinking critically about how the world around you is constructed, and what your role in it could be, should be, and is, as a human being but also as a woman, provides you a degree of power and control over your life that I think our foremothers certainly lacked.

Gender is such a central issue at a women's college that it opens your mind to thinking about gender, gender roles, gender spheres, in ways that I think at a co-ed school you don't have to grapple with as often. Not because there aren't people at co-ed schools who think thoughtfully about male-female relations, gender equity, and so on, but because at a co-ed school the issue of gender and the roles of the sexes are just one among many other issues.

Just a few thoughts I wanted to throw out there, though again, found your post very thought provoking.

Keil, I'm glad you like Scripps, I hope you'll be very happy there. I still think your attitude is poor.

qialah

I think that's a good point about gender being a central issue at women's colleges. I guess the question is then: If your "gender sphere" and your "life sphere" are one thing, why does gender matter?

I went to college in the era of consciousness raising groups and firmly believed that women and men could and should co-exist in a single world. We completely rejected the legitimacy of the whole "women's sphere" thing. However, I think feminism has really moved in a much more positive direction these days in that it's now OK to see benefits to an exclusively women's world (and it's interesting for me, almost two generations removed from you guys, to hear your ideas).

I agree that women's colleges are empowering, but I would say that they empower in a way explicitly value both exclusively women's communities as well as co-ed communities. That's something that doesn't happen at co-ed schools.

I totally hear you about artificial separations between co-ed and women's worlds. Maybe your generation will be different. My experience is that they really are separate and really do offer very different rewards and challenges. Perhaps I'm more sensitive to this having watched both my mother and my mother-in-law live a good 20 years as widows within an almost exclusively female world.

Keilexandra

Smithie: You may, of course, have whatever opinion you like regarding my attitude. My opinion regarding your opinion is that you are irrationally biased; that, of course, counts for exactly the same as your opinion, namely not at all.

I also agree that women's colleges are empowering. What I don't understand is why women's colleges are exclusively MORE empowering than coed colleges, for any given woman.

I echo this question:
In my own limited experience, the gender sphere and the life sphere are still very much separate, and feminism has a long way to go before changing that; but it IS changing, slowly, surely. Men are crossing the border into the female sphere, just as women have breached the border into the male sphere (what is now simply the coed sphere), and IMO that's a good thing.

SmithieandProud

qialah - I would say that gender still very much matters. I guess the point I was trying to get at via invoking spheres was that in the middle of second wave, it seems like a lot of focus was put on how women could succeed in the "man's world". Whereas I think a lot of young women and young feminists today are trying to focus on how women succeed and interact with the world period.

Now this is not to say that there are all gender biases are erased and women are as free as men to go as far as their talents will take them, without concern for discrimination and with equal standards being applied to all (I wish that were the case), but that I think young women are no longer just interested in how to step into the worlds that were once forbidden to their gender, but also are exploring what the next step is. Once you get into the boardroom, the engineering lab, the doctor's office, the senator's desk, what happens after? We still have so much work to do to get more women and girls even into these fields of course, but as more and more women enter the workforce, and more and more with expectations that the workforce should accomodate their roles as mothers and volunteers rather than be separate from it, new questions are being born and explored.

The Center for American Progress just produced a very fascinating report along these lines called "The Shriver Report: A Woman's Nation Changes Everything" addressing how the changing role of women is changing America and how public policy can respond. I highly recommend it.

And again, i think women's colleges are more empowering in that they bring together communities of women who are to some extent struggling with many of the same challenges inherent in being a female, especially one that is bright, driven, and talented. With the support of a community of people that really understand what you're going through, what kinds of questions you are asking about your role in the world and your future, comes what I think is a deeper level of thinking about gender and equality, and an acceptance and encouragement of that kind of thinking. And if knowledge is power, then being encouraged to search for greater knowledge about one of the most fundamental aspects of your identity can't help but empower you.

rocket6louise

Keil-I strongly disagree with the article you posted

As a smart, strong female, it is nearly impossible to speak up and be just that in a typical public high school. If you say what you feel with passion or assurance, you DO get labeled as a feminist or lesbian. Instead, you are to be timid, unsure, quiet and what not.

I don't think a women's college transforms you, but it would be nice to learn in an atmosphere where such feelings aren't present. In college, I want to be able to speak up and NOT worry that I am coming off as abrasive(even though I know that if a man would say it, it would be fine)

PS. I liked Scripps too, but Smith is my favorite

Keilexandra

^You're the perfect fit for a women's college, then. But I don't think is true for everyone or even for a majority of female HS students. Certainly my own experience has NEVER been even close, and I am very outspoken. I've never worried about coming off as abrasive; I just say what I think, and if someone doesn't like that, too bad for them. (Well, with some equivocation when talking to teachers, but that is common across both genders in my personal experience.)

SmithieandProud

^ I would disagree, I think your experience is much mire the exception rather than the rule. I went to an all female high school and prior to that my experiences mirrored rocket's. Smart girls who spoke up and were interested in things outside of what my peers saw as "normal" were shunned and discouraged as much as possible by peers. All female institutions on the other hand welcomed and encouraged our brightness and curiosity. This is not the only reason why I chose a woman's college (i picked smith not because it was all women, but because I fell inlove with it in its own merits), but it's a valid and important reason why many women choose women's colleges and I would argue why many of today's prominent female leaders are women's college grads.

Keilexandra

^ Well, that explains part of our difference in opinion. My personal experience may also be colored by my cultural upbringing, where I have had to assert myself vehemently in favor of studying the humanities and applying to LACs. That is, I would be a very different person today if I didn't learn how to be assertive early on. And certainly I have had no experience with single-sex education; the process was entirely self-initiated and self-sustained.

At the moment I attend a math/science public magnet; I'm not sure of the gender balance, but it is coed and curricularly focused on traditionally male-dominated fields. I have tons of female friends taking AP Chem and AP Bio, many of whom plan to pursue engineering. I, of course, am not in either course because my academic interests lie elsewhere; FWIW, my AP Comp Sci class has only 5 girls, all of whom are more introverted than me (and I am an introvert, albeit an argumentative one), and I've neither observed nor experienced any gender tensions, other than the guys being jealous of my friend applying to Carnegie Mellon's SCS school (because she'll have an easier time with admission).

SmithieandProud

I think you misunderstood. It is not that I or rocket (probably, can't speak for someone I don't know) grew up timid or unassertive, in fact if that were so, we never would have faced ridicule and scorn from our peers. We just both sought out environments where we could be our normal outspoken selves without having to suffer for it. Though again, that's only one small aspect of what I lived about smith, not the full story or even the main motivating factor behind my selection of it as a college.

And our difference is not rooted indiffering levels of experience with single sex education, not sure why you self initiation of you search makes a difference.