Just, you know, in case you were worried, they address that fear in the lede of this article that is supposed to be celebrating the continued relevance of women's colleges:
Kateri Benjamin, a 2009 graduate of Barnard College, hadn't planned to attend an all-women's school, but the high-caliber academics, sophisticated student body and opportunity to live in New York beckoned. Still, her friends didn't make her choice easy. "They said, 'Are you a feminist? All feminists are lesbians. You're going to come back a lesbian,'" laughs the 22-year-old New Jersey native.
The article goes on to (sort of) debunk these assumptions and paint both feminism and women's colleges as sensible and empowering. So why am I burned up by one stupid paragraph in a larger article supposed to be favorable for women's colleges? Well, because that one paragraph (the lede, after all) perpetuates a stereotype so constantly used to discredit them. As those who spend time in or around women's colleges are undoubtedly familiar with, a public fear of feminism and lesbianism are hurdles that women's colleges are expected to address before they can be evaluated for their academic and professional merits, and this article is no exception. In public examination of women's colleges, the F word and L word are always lurking nearby.
I have no doubt that Ms. Benjamin encountered a lot of these kinds of sexist, anti-feminist and homophobic assumptions. They are sadly very pervasive. (I recently graduated from a former women's college that went coeducational more than three decades ago and I still encountered the "that school is for lesbians" meme.) But Heidi Brown's article focuses on these assumptions before addressing the academic qualifications of these schools. She makes the journalistic decision to present "You're going to come back a lesbian" as the norm, as the most noteworthy perception of these schools, before acknowledging impressive job placement statistics. Therefore, even in an article trying to celebrate women's colleges--which frankly, doesn't happen enough--it manages to relegate the important and oft-ignored qualities of these institutions to secondary status, reinforcing these sexist, homophobic and anti-feminist seeds.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Forbes: Women's Colleges Not Just For Feminist Lesbians.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15534
Wouldn't the trend towards fewer women-only universities only serve to increasingly radicalize the remaining institutions which aren't simply being absorbed by a larger nearby co-ed school?
At the same time how does a women's college manage to prepare its students for the reality of the working world? Their students will have to engage on a regular basis with men not simply in a social setting, which the schools argue they provides, but in a workplace environment.
I attended a woman's college for two years (at which point we went coed), and I have to say, when we went co-ed, tons of people were wondering the same thing: if we're going to a single-sex school, how will we learn to deal with men?
Going to a woman's college was the best choice I ever made - those two years did wonders for my confidence, which then did wonders in helping me deal with anyone, male or female.
Plus, it's not like the fact that it's a woman's college means there are no males there ever. We have male faculty and staff, there are males in the surrounding town, etc. As for a work environment, many of the students where I went did work study, or worked off campus, and thereby dealt with men in a professional context.
Out of curiosity, does anyone ever ask a student at Hampden-Sydney how they'll ever learn to deal with women, socially or professionally, if they go to an all men's college?
Plus, it's not like the fact that it's a woman's college means there are no males there ever. We have male faculty and staff, there are males in the surrounding town, etc. As for a work environment, many of the students where I went did work study, or worked off campus, and thereby dealt with men in a professional context.
I'd argue that none of that is quite the same. Yes, there are people in the faculty and staff but thats different from a relationship with a coworker in your career.Further work environments (barring an internship or co-op program, and those usually aren't viable until at least three years in) for most college students typically means low paying service sector jobs, which will not have the level of ego, pride, or vested interest in the job. Similarly the fact that one of the librarians is a guy, or that there are male townies, or that there are guys at parties doesn't seem to prepare you for actually working collaboratively in a much more in-depth manner.
Working with fellow students in your major is much more similar to the workplace because all of the motivations, the egos, and many other things are far more present.
Out of curiosity, does anyone ever ask a student at Hampden-Sydney how they'll ever learn to deal with women, socially or professionally, if they go to an all men's college?
I have seen it suggested quite frequently that a men only university is sexist and/or suggests the men can't compete with women. A fairly common agreement seems to be that they are poorly socialized for dealing with women. I have seen that implication in universities where men are simply more numerous without it needing to be single sex.
I'm not sure how working with someone in your major makes for working with someone professionally, but some woman's colleges also have male students, sometimes from other colleges, sometimes not. I'm not sure about other schools, but we had a program with other local colleges, and so we did have students - some male, of course - from Liberty University or Lynchburg College in our courses. Albeit, not in every class, and not everyone had a class with a guy, but it happened, and no one had any issues dealing with the guys in a social or classroom context.
I also wasn't implying that going to a party with a townie or interacting with a male librarian was equivalent to working with them professionally - that was another point for social interactions.
Again, I can't speak for other woman's colleges, but internships were encouraged from the get-go, and I knew a lot of people who also did summer research programs, some off campus, some on. In fact, if you didn't have three or four internships or summer research by your senior year, the career counseling center was generally shocked, because it was basically the norm.
Also, what do you mean by service sector jobs? Because while some work-study would certainly reflect low-paying jobs, not everyone got those (although everyone got paid minimum wage). We had people working in the dining hall, in the admissions office, in the President's office, and in IT.
And thank you for answering that - I'd never heard instances of men being accused of being "improperly socialized" with women or something for going to a men's college, whereas I constantly hear "but how will you learn to deal with men?"
Albeit, not in every class, and not everyone had a class with a guy, but it happened, and no one had any issues dealing with the guys in a social or classroom context.
But a token guy, who was exceptional by virtue of being one who would attend a class taught at your school, hardly seems like it would really test anyone nor give them an indepth knowledge in dealing with men in a more realistic environment.
Also, what do you mean by service sector jobs? Because while some work-study would certainly reflect low-paying jobs, not everyone got those (although everyone got paid minimum wage). We had people working in the dining hall, in the admissions office, in the President's office, and in IT.
Most of the jobs university students had, including the ones I had as a student were pretty poor jobs and were taken to pay for rent, food, and alcohol, and didn't attach much of an ego.
Working with other students in my major was a closer approximation to working in my career then working at a video rental store or coffee shop. I certainly talked and interacted with my coworkers in the other environments but it wasn't the same type of situation.
Back when I was working in a video store, renting a movie out to someone didn't require coordination at an intellectual level with the other members of the store. There wasn't much I could do to rent the movie in a better way and while I could be hardworking at the end of the day I wasn't building a career I simply had a job.
While I socialized with my coworkers in this environment there wasn't any stress of could we get the job done, nor did we have to learn any particularly difficult concepts, nor was therre any type of an adversarial relationships. Doing mock negotiations for a course on international trade carried significant egos with it for the men and the women in the course. It was much higher stress, much more competitive and there was a feeling of being able to do better or worse. In contrast to most of my work during university it was a whole different world. If the course had not been as diverse as it was, it would have been less interesting and it wouldn't have prepared me as well.
And thank you for answering that - I'd never heard instances of men being accused of being "improperly socialized" with women or something for going to a men's college, whereas I constantly hear "but how will you learn to deal with men?"
Most times I'd heard it, it was in reference to the men's universities, not to a particular persons choice. Single sex universities and programs were much more present, more common, and more acceptable for women then for men. I knew only one person who attended a single sex university for men, I knew quite a few people who had attended a single sex program/university for women.
I don't recall ever doing any work with people from my major only, but whenever I worked on a group project for a class, it was a lot more relaxed than when I was actually working with someone at my job, or the way I act with my co-workers now. Not that we were slacking, but it certainly didn't seem on par with working at a professional level, although since I haven't had an actual "group project" to do at work, I can't be sure. Also, I think most of us at school tried to get any difficult concepts down on our own, or with a professor, rather than trying to tackle it as a group, but that might just be school/community atmosphere at play.
Honestly, I just don't think attending a woman's college somehow impaired my, or anybody else's, ability to work with men, or deal with them socially. We're all people, after all, and going to college prepared me to deal with all kinds of people, with all kinds of opinions and differences, even if they were primarily female. Going to a woman's college also, like I said, gave me more self-confidence, and I think that, more than just "practice" dealing with men in classes and in my major did more for helping me deal with people, in and out of a professional context, today. Plenty of graduates from my college, and other woman's colleges, have gone on to further education - generally coed - or careers involving male coworkers, and I don't believe any of them have ever gone, "Shoot, if only I'd gone to a coed school!"
But, really, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
I don't recall ever doing any work with people from my major only, but whenever I worked on a group project for a class, it was a lot more relaxed than when I was actually working with someone at my job, or the way I act with my co-workers now.
Perhaps some of the poli sci simulations we did for courses simply became exceptionally high stress activities. Sometimes far more so then many actual workplace activities.
after all, and going to college prepared me to deal with all kinds of people, with all kinds of opinions and differences, even if they were primarily female.
Thinking back over my college experience, if there had been either no women, or no men, it would have been a significant detriment to the educational experience. Even if I had left in all of the people I would have otherwise met in social events, in internships, or in a wide variety of other activities, it would have not been able to meet people with the same diversity of experience.
Its not necessarily something that you would notice you were missing either, merely an exposure to a point of view which was not otherwise present, different life experiences, different priorities.
But, really, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
Most likely
It seems you failed to read the original article the post links to, which does a great job of outlining how women's colleges manage to turn out well-educated, well-rounded individuals who go on to professional and further academic success.
I'm a graduate of a women's college, and it's never impaired my ability to get a job or get into graduate school.
I read the article, in fact I specifically mentioned the arguments made in the article when I made my argument. Considering this, your statement seems rather disingenuous.
In my experience attending Smith, there's just a huge disconnect between the culture within the college and the outside perception of it--the outside perception might be accurate, but it's coming from a completely different frame of reference. Just the statement "Women's colleges are full of feminists and lesbians," for example: the outside perception presupposes a huge, vocal, angry fixation on feminism and queer activism. But within the college things are actually incredibly low-key. When a third of the people in your dorm are queer it just ceases to be significant; when it's assumed that everyone is familiar with Feminism 101, it removes the need to be talking about those things constantly. So the people who do feel the need to discuss more advanced concepts and get involved in activism can join the women's studies department or various organizations, and everyone else is left scratching their heads at the popular perception of Smith and going "Well, of course we're full of feminists and lesbians, now excuse me I have a Doctor Who marathon to watch while I should be studying organic chemistry."
I can't speak for other women's colleges, but Smith isn't so much an orgy of patriarchy-smashing as a little oasis where being a queer feminist (or a straight feminist, or whatever else you happen to be) isn't a big deal. It's not the real world, but it does help you get a handle on your identity in a relatively drama-free environment and realize that it only has to be a big deal when other people kick up a fuss about it.
You know what would be nice? If the queer-friendly, feminist environment of (most) women's colleges were PROMOTED as a good thing. I would love to see some advertisements from women's colleges that said something to the extent of "yes, we love gay/bi/trans women and feminists of all sexual orientations. This is WHY you should come to our college!"
I hate how articles like this Forbes one trash the feminist, queer-friendly environment of women's colleges as a negative. Some of us actually WANT(or need) it!
I don't know if I have commented about this before but as someone who applied to a BUNCH of women's colleges and ONLY applied to women's colleges I had a phone conversation several months ago with a student worker that went something like this.
Student Worker: "Hello do you have any questions about X college"
Me:" Yes, what is the lesbian/bisexual scene at X college like."
Student Worker: "Oh, yes we have a few lesbians, but only a few. There really arn't that many here and if you don't bother them they won't hit on you and stuff. So don't worry, lesbians here really arn't a big deal..."
Me: *hangs up phone*
Women's colleges should be PROUD to have (LBT and feminists of all sexual orientations) and the fact that they often do a WONDERFUL job of supporting (LBT and feminists of all sexual orientations) and have for the past hundred years or so.
What I don't understand, is why women's colleges are "sensible and empowering", and men's colleges are "places to be struck down and forced to admit women".
I'm really not sure what you're quoting with "places to be struck down..." It certainly isn't sourced from my post, as "sensible and empowering" is, and if it is taken from the article, please enlighten me as to where.
First of all, it's not a sentiment I agree with. Gendered colleges--for men and women--can offer specific advantages and disadvantages to those who choose that college experience. So long as ample choice is available otherwise, gendered colleges can be very good things. From a feminist perspective, the values of women's colleges are most noteworthy because they provide an environment that somewhat circumvents traditional patriarchal power structures, which can be empowering. But this doesn't mean that male-only colleges are counter-feminist.
But I think I may understand the source of contention. When men's colleges in general, especially those with the most influence, denied entry to women, it was a widespread sexist practice that directly hindered gender equality by creating a far-reaching double standard in educational access. Therefore, efforts to make some men's schools coeducational were very prominent, as public schools were legally bound to make the change, many of them resisted, such as the Virginia Military Institute last decade. It is pretty natural to accept that the state should not be footing the bill for separate but equal education, because of the inherent inequalities in the system (exemplified by VMI).
But private schools serve a different goal. They augment the state educational system, offering separate, non-dominant paths. Neither Sweetbriar nor Hampden-Sydney can be said to be promoting an overarching educational double standard because neither school wields the power or influence to establish external educational norms that would further limit the opportunities of students they deny entrance to on basis of gender or sex.
this was intended as a reply to multipass.