<p>"Coming from a mediocre public school in Colorado Springs, I thought getting into Barnard meant I was smart, but suddenly my social life was defined by the perception that my peers and I had substandard brains and hyperactive sex lives."</p>
<p>How persistent is this stereotype at your own women's college? As a Scripps student, I feel the Claremont consortium does in some ways perpetuate the notion that Scrippsies are less intelligent and easier to bed (balanced of course by the equally prevalent prudish daddy's girl and lesbian feminazi stereotypes). While this stereotype persists, I've rarely seen it lead to confrontation or marginalization... and it has certainly never played out as viciously as in the recent Columbia/Barnard viral incident.</p>
<p>Does this stereotype rear its ugly head at your school? If so, how?</p>
<p>Never underestimate the bile directed at women who choose to be independent of men, by both men and other women who wish to curry favor with them. Never underestimate the threat that women’s sexuality poses to some men and some women who wish to curry favor with them. Just look at what is currently going on in this nation’s politics regarding women’s reproductive rights. See the recent remarks by HRC regarding the desire to control women. </p>
<p>I’ve seen comments in this forum by female Harvard and MIT students about Wellesley women that make me sick. It is as if years of modern feminism are erased, and they view other women simply as competitors for “their” men. </p>
<p>Some girls–and I use the term advisedly–try to portray students at women’s colleges as being “afraid” of competing with men. I think the truth is that THEY are the ones who are afraid: afraid of defining themselves in some context other than in relationship to a man. (I’m NOT saying that this applies to all females who choose a coed environment by any means. I’m saying that it applies to those who engage in denigration of other women for making a different choice.)</p>
<p>Way back when, a study revealed that women who graduated from the Seven Sisters that were NOT affiliated with a male college (MHC, Smith, Wellesley, Bryn Mawr, Vassar) had outperformed the others (Radcliffe, Barnard) in professional life. I recall it being cited by the then-president of Radcliffe, Mattina Horner, in the early 70s. Apparently there was, and still is, a degree of toxicity in too close a relationship between a women’s college and a male-dominated, and now coed, institution.</p>
<p>BTW, the “X to bed, Y to wed” BS has been used to denigrate women in so many contexts. In a similar vein, I recall when Pine Manor Junior College was called “Pine Mattress.” I think it represents the fantasy of certain inadequate males. They should be so lucky. :)</p>
<p>Grown-up, confident men and women do not need to engage in such stuff. Unfortunately, it sometimes appears as if we have a shortage of grownups.</p>
<p>As the parent of a Barnard alum, I’d note that the blog comments are not reflective of the dominant reality on the ground. It’s easy for one or two posters to stir up a lot of trouble online – especially on a board that does not require registration, so a single poster can also post repeatedly under different names or personas. </p>
<p>That’s not to say that the attitude doesn’t exist – just that it’s not something that the students are encountering on a daily basis.</p>
<p>Thinking about it, I also realized that the Columbia/Barnard situation is unique, because in general Columbia students voice a great deal of dissatisfaction with their school’s administration, the poor quality of advising, and the lack of coherent sense of community. Barnard students seem to love their administration, they form close relationships with their deans & faculty, the advising system is wonderful, and while Barnard also suffers from an urban culture that tends to encourage students to focus their social lives off campus, it exudes more of a sense of community than Columbia. So I can see Columbia students feeling a level of envy - especially women who chose Columbia over Barnard because of perceived prestige, and then realize that their “Ivy League” education isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be. Basically, the Barnard women are getting more bang for their tuition dollars, as they have the opportunity to take whatever courses they desire at Columbia, but also get the more personalized attention typical of a liberal arts college.</p>
<p>On top of that, Columbia College has a policy of only selecting Class Day speakers who are themselves Columbia alums or have close ties to Columbia… whereas Barnard tends to get amazing speakers year after year. So a lot of Columbia students got the idea that Obama, a Columbia grad, belonged to them – I doubt that any one even conceived of the possibility that Obama would come to their campus but choose to speak to the Barnard class. (Given that Obama was a transfer student who did not appear to form close bonds with the campus community, and his younger sister is a Barnard alum – that dichotomy between the levels of warmth at the respective campuses may have actually played into his decision.) In any case, the Obama announcement provoked more than the usual amount of envy.</p>
<p>i have but one word on the article: hogwash</p>
<p>I go to a women’s college and I have a cousin at an Ivy. Her mother, much to her chagrin, admits that my school is better for most women than her daughter’s is. Every. Single. Resource is devoted to women, and the outcomes of graduates speaks to that. We are far from second class.</p>