“On the hand, many women’s colleges are safe spaces for a lot of people that fall out of that cis-het norm spectrum”
Got it. Is the mission / identity of a women’s college to be a safe space for anyone who doesn’t fully identify as a cis-gender male?
Or is it the mission / identity of a women’s college to educate those who are willing to “throw their lot” in with the identity of being a woman (whether that happened organically at birth, or as the result of a male-to-female transition)?
I’m fully supportive of trans students doing what they need / have to do to form the identity that is best for them individually, and wish them nothing but the best. I just think it’s more than a little ironic that they want other entities to waver on identity, too. I’m VERY glad Wellesley said “we will use the language of sisterhood.” I’m fine that they said “Yep, if you’re a serious trans women, we will consider you” as well as “if you’re a trans man, you’re welcome to stay, but we’re still going to refer to you all collectively as women.”
I just think that at one point, you have to let an institution have an identity, and “anything but strictly cis-gender male” isn’t it.
Pizzagirl, I completely get your point, which is why I said I see both sides. I think MHC is making that part of their mission and Wellesley is not, and its a decision each institution has to make on their own.
I think this may be the case with someone I know who entered MHC as a woman and left a man. It may be asking a lot of a 17 year old, especially one who’s been in a high school environment where gender fluidity is not well received, to be clear enough on their gender identity to “pick a side and stick with it.”
I agree with you, Sue22, but I also agree with Pizzagirl. I think that it is basically unethical for a 17 yr old who knows they don’t identify as a woman–even if they haven’t been able to do anything about it yet–to enter a women’s college. I would also wonder why someone who is on the edge would do so. Because you feel safer there? Not a good enough reason. You would be equally safe at Haverford, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, Carleton, Oberlin, Pomona and various other quality coed LACs. I’m sure there are also kids who know something is different about themselves, but they haven’t even begun to realize exactly what, just as I have known a couple of gay man who didn’t even allow themselves to think that perhaps they were gay until after they were married–young–and had a couple of kids. It just wasn’t a possibility within their world at that age. On the other hand, I think that things are very different now, and such cases are probably becoming rarer and rarer.
As I’ve said above, I think that gender fluidity is a natural human thing. But W is in fact an affirmatively women’s college, not an un-men college. So if you aren’t or don’t want to be identified as a woman, you should not apply, transfer to a friendly co-ed school, or accept that the college is not going to alter its mission and language to accommodate you.
If we are talking about women who don’t want to be women I’m also having trouble understanding why they would be attending a womens college If we are talking about men who would like to be women I get why they might want to attend but they are not women, yet. Picking a side and sticking with it for four years is too much to ask? Really?
The question that occurs to me is this: how long will young women, however defined, continue to believe that there is a separate mission appropriate for a women’s college? I’m not sure that my daughter really believes this, for example.
I have a question: are there never men enrolled in classes at Wellesley? Is every classroom made up only of women students? I know that isn’t the case at women’s colleges like BMC or MHC or Smith, which are all in a consortium with other coed schools. I think Columbia students can take classes at Barnard–so I’m assuming there are some men in classes at Barnard. (To make it clear, by the term “men” I’m talking about someone who is born male and identifies as male.)
As another alum I am very pleased with this decision. The Wellesley sisterhood is so much a part of the school experience that I couldn’t imagine it any other way. Yes, there were a few “coeds” in my dorm one year (can’t remember if it was freshman or sophomore spring). They were exchange students who were actually from MIT if I remember correctly. And there scattered guys in classes either from the 12 college exchange or more commonly those just taking classes from MIT or Babson. But whenever I hear or sing “America the Beautiful” the word in my mind is always “sisterhood” and not “brotherhood”! And hearing the whole chapel filled with alumnae singing “sisterhood” is always one of my favorite parts of reunions.
“The question that occurs to me is this: how long will young women, however defined, continue to believe that there is a separate mission appropriate for a women’s college? I’m not sure that my daughter really believes this, for example.”
I think that’s a great question, and to some extent it might have been more important to me (conceptually) than to my daughter - insofar as I remember a world in which “men become doctors, women become nurses” and so forth, whereas she doesn’t.
I’ll have to ask, but I don’t think D has had any guys in her classes - if so, vanishingly few. Again, I think Wellesley is a little coy about just how easy it is to get to and from there from other campuses. It’s nowhere near as easy as BMC / Haverford.
Well, duh. There are precious few women’s colleges as close to another college as Bryn Mawr and Haverford, i.e., an easy stroll. Barnard and Columbia, obviously. Spelman and Morehouse. Scripps and the rest of the Claremont Colleges. St. Mary’s and Notre Dame. (Hmmm. That’s actually a bunch more than I thought when I started writing this . . . )
Re#70, Even in a world where more vocations are open to both sexes, there are no doubt issues that women uniquely or mostly still face, or are more important to them as a group. During the time D2 attended a women’s college, my impression was her school conducted programs and lectures relating to some of these issues.
When given a choice most women prefer coed schools, for the obvious reason. That does not mean that a single-sex environment does not offer them some advantages, notwithstanding the one obvious disadvantage. Meryl Streep (a Vassar alum) spoke eloquently ( and wittily) about this in her commencement address at Barnard a few years ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-a8QXUAe2g
(suggest listen, it’s a great commencement speech)
While there may not be a “separate” mission, an education most closely tailored to one’s personal needs is not a bad thing.IMO. Their alums certainly seem to think so.
"would also wonder why someone who is on the edge would do so. Because you feel safer there? Not a good enough reason. You would be equally safe at Haverford, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, Carleton, Oberlin, Pomona and various other quality coed LACs. "
Which is why I suspect there is a little bit of grandstanding. You won’t compromise Swat’s identity if you are born biologically female and decide / realize you really are male. You will compromise Wellesley’s. So why again did you choose there?
“I’m not so sure I’d bet on the women’s colleges being around 50 years from now, though.”
Don’t know about that prediction, either way. But here’s my prediction :if you’re right, then 50 years from now Wellesley will be the #1 “ranked” LAC, with the lowest acceptance rates.
First, women’s college acceptance rates will always be higher than corresponding-quality co-ed colleges, because the applicant pool is smaller (cut in half) and already self selected (willing to consider all women). I don’t see how that would change.
Moreover, acceptance rates only count for 1.5% of the ranking on USNWR. It’s a popular canard that “a college can lower its acceptance and hence move up the chain.”