When Women Become Men at Wellesley College (NY Times article)

Parents Forum
121

<p>Here is this year’s convocation address, which I think is perfectly appropriate, which “engendered” (ha! no pun intended!) controversy. I’ve omitted parts that aren’t relevant, but wanted you all to see the scope and how thoroughly the language of being a woman’s college, for women, is integral here.</p>

<hr>

<p>2014 Convocation Address: Being a Women’s College in the 21st Century
Wellesley President H. Kim Bottomly
<a href=“Greetings,%20welcome%20to%20new%20students,%20faculty,%20staff,%20etc.”>i</a>*<br>
Today, I want to talk to you about another aspect of Wellesley that is critical to our identity and to our impact, and that is the importance of being a women’s college.
Let me begin with a statistic: Our surveys show that 14 percent—just 14 percent—of entering students choose Wellesley specifically because it is a women’s college. The surveys show that students choose it because of the great classrooms, the exceptional faculty, the amazing fellow students. They choose it because of the inspiring conversations they had with an alum. They choose it because of our generous financial aid policies and our commitment to ensuring that those who belong here can come here. They choose it for all these reasons, and not because it is a women’s college. Mostly, they don’t mind that Wellesley is a women’s college, but that is not why they choose it.
Yet, what is striking to me is that while only 14 percent of entering students indicate that they selected Wellesley because it is a women’s college, nearly all of the alums I meet tell me that being a women’s college explains the special power and lasting impact of Wellesley on their lives. Many of them also tell me they didn’t realize that until after they graduated. Our senior survey shows that a majority of our students already feel this way by the time they graduate.
What happens at a women’s college, and specifically here at Wellesley to explain that enormous shift in thinking?<br>
Here is what we know.
Graduates of women’s colleges are almost twice as likely to complete a graduate degree compared to women who go to coed institutions. * Similar statistics cited. Then various alums are called out as being the first woman X in their specific field - e.g., first women president of Trinity College, first woman finance minister in Romanian, first woman dean of engineering at Stanford, etc. *
Is part of the explanation for the accomplishment of Wellesley alums that we only admit very smart women who have demonstrated great potential? Of course that is part of the explanation. But there are smart women with great potential at good coeducational schools. So what does account for our success?
Two things matter. (snip)
Being a women’s college matters.
Let me quote another Wellesley alum, Nan Keohane, class of 1961, who is not only a well-known scholar, but was also president of Wellesley College and then went on to become president of Duke University (in fact, she was the first woman to lead that college).
While president of Duke and talking about Duke, she said: “What would a truly coeducational institution look like? We call ourselves coeducational, but the experiences of men and women are not equal, and the differences too often translate into disadvantages for women.”
In other words, based on her directly relevant experience, being at a women’s college matters for women. Being at a women’s college is an advantage for students. (snip) Classrooms at Wellesley are of women and for women. They are also by women—more than 50 percent of our faculty members are women—important role models and mentors. Our classrooms are one of the many ways that Wellesley invests specifically in women.
But the classroom is only one part of our story. The second part is what I like to call the Wellesley ortgeist, the spirit and culture of the place.
It creates a strong sense of belonging, a feeling of genuine attachment to a unique place, and to the unique group that has emerged from that place over the years.
The Wellesley ortgeist reflects our history, and is in large part a result of our history. Our founders, Henry and Pauline Durant, were clear in their belief in the importance of women’s education. In 1875, Henry Durant declared, “The higher education of women is one of the great world battle cries for freedom, for right against might.”<br>
That conviction—and certainly, the act of establishing a college for women equal to the education available only to men at that time—was a bold and radical notion in the 19th century. And it began the development of our group identity.</p>

<p>**** More in next post **********</p>

122

<p>“Being a transman is part of the panoply of female experience…”</p>

<p>This eloquently summarizes my opinion. And, if true, the transmen of Wellesley are members of the panoply for whom the school is intended. Let them run for elections and assume leadership roles if elected. Politely decline to alter pronoun usage and school doctrine in response to their personal preferences.</p>

123

<p>Remaining relevant pieces:</p>

<hr>

<p>Our revolutionary beginnings led to the development of traditions—traditions that still today foster strong bonds among our students and alums. Our revolutionary beginnings also led to our attracting uniquely dedicated and capable faculty throughout our history. The spirit of our founding lives on and strengthens our group identity.
This spirit of Wellesley is continually refreshed and reinforced by two things: our residential life, and our Wellesley network, which combine to produce a life-long feeling of belonging to a large and significant group.
Studies suggest that friendships developed at women’s colleges persist longer than others.
(snip)</p>

<p>Being a women’s college explains why our alumnae consistently look back on their years here as the intellectual and spiritual crucible of their lives. Our bonds are stronger because we are a women’s college. That, combined with our academics, our faculty, our staff, our students, and the specific spirit of our campus, all contribute to help explain why our alumnae do well and also why they care so much about Wellesley.</p>

<hr>

<p>Now, of course, a lot of this speech is the typical boilerplate “welcome back, we’re awesome and we’re glad you’re part of our awesome” that any decent president with any decent speechwriting capability should be serving up, esp to the freshies. </p>

<p>But I offer this to show an example of what I personally believe to be an entirely appropriate type of address to the student body, that references the unique qualities of a women’s college, that became (in the eyes of the few but vocal) “marginalizing” because it referred repeatedly to women throughout. I don’t know how you delete women’s college from here without making it something that any one of a few thousand colleges could say. </p>

124

<p>For me, what I meant (and what I think Wellesley, Mills, and lots of others mean), is that being a biological female living as a male – a transman – is part of the panoply of female experience, as of course is being a biological female who likes to screw around with male/female signifiers without becoming A Man. </p>

<p>I am less certain what I think about being a biological male living as a female or screwing around with male/female signifiers . . . but for sure that’s because I am hopelessly trapped in this binary gender construct. Either M-to-? type has something to do with the panoply of female experience, but that’s not quite satisfactory. As I understand the Mills policy and the Smith position, biological men who are living entirely as women will be given consideration for admission, but don’t hold your breath, bro. </p>

<p>This issue isn’t going to vanish, though. There has been a lot of publicity recently about kids (boys) asking to transition to girls before they undergo puberty, and when some of those kids who have been girls for all social purposes since first grade start applying to college, I suspect it will be hard for women’s colleges to tell them no. The only transwomen I have known personally didn’t transition until some time considerably after they finished medical school. </p>

125

<p>Okay, thanks for the clarification. </p>

126

<p>“And, if true, the transmen of Wellesley are members of the panoply for whom the school is intended. Let them run for elections and assume leadership roles if elected.”</p>

<p>FWIW, D tells me that the controversy over electing Timothy Boatwright (mentioned in the article) to a diversity leadership position wasn’t so much that he was a he, but that he was a white he, and therefore a white student would not be a good choice for a diversity leadership position. </p>

127

<p>

</p>

<p>One issue which may factor into this controversy at W is that for many transgender people, feminism as a movement has historically been just as hostile and oppressive to them. Early feminists like Mary Daly have contributed to this by being openly hostile to transgender people in their writings and public pronouncements. This is something which has been discussed in many activist circles among friends and acquaintances. </p>

<p>This is a reason why many transgender folks are actually as skeptical of feminism as some non-White lower SES women who prefer to refer to themselves as “womanists” rather than feminists because they perceive feminism as centered on the experiences of upper/upper-middle class White women. </p>

<p>It’s likely the vocal minority at W calling for more inclusive pronoun usage are viewing the issues from this feminism-skeptical perspective. </p>

128

<p>Earlier upthread, a few people said that they couldn’t understand why a girl who was having serious gender identity issues and was considering whether to transition to male would choose to apply to and attend a women’s college. I completely understand why such a girl would choose a school like Wellesley and in fact if she were my daughter I would encourage her to do so. Consolation’s post above explains why. If I had a daughter who thought that she was perhaps transgendered, the primary question in my mind would be whether her feelings were truly being driven by internal factors or whether she had internalized external societal notions about what it means to be a woman. I would want to make sure that she understood just how broad and flexible the boundaries of gender are and I’d want to make sure that she spent meaningful time in a place where rigid gender roles are less likely to be imposed, consciously or unconsciously. From my limited understanding – and based on what Consolation says above – Wellesley seems like a perfect place to explore that issue. This view has nothing to do with Wellesley being a “safe” place to transition to being a man, but instead its being a great place to explore whether one could thrive as a woman. </p>

<p>My unscientific, purely anecdotal sense is that many more women with gender identity questions ultimately find ways to continue to live as women than men with similar issues. A place like Wellesley could be wonderfully helpful to help a young girl come to that realization.</p>

<p>I have nothing against people who do decide to transition but it is a long arduous medically difficult process. </p>

129

<p>I love the Pres’ speech, and every bit of it is true. </p>

<p>Notelling, in #127, yes. You get it. And it the individual decides to be a man, then he needs to appreciate what W gave him and not try to destroy its very essence.</p>

<p>I find it very interesting that people seem to think that both transmen and transwomen are some kind of woman and should be accepted by women’s colleges as such. I see no corresponding sentiment that both are some kind of MAN. Why is that?</p>

<p>This whole thing smacks to me of women being expected to give way and be the nice girls, yet again. Which raises my hackles. :)</p>

130

<p>“This view has nothing to do with Wellesley being a “safe” place to transition to being a man, but instead its being a great place to explore whether one could thrive as a woman.”</p>

<p>Very interesting. It begs a question where I’m not sure there is an answer -
Is a women’s college a “better” place for a woman to explore what it means to be a woman, than a place where both genders are represented? I mean, Wellesley is socially liberal, but so is nearly every other top school in the country – so from the perspective of safety, I think this young person is likely safe at a lot of places.
Wellesley and similar colleges are unique environment in which to explore that because of the predominance of women, but it is not necessarily evocative of the full scale of womanhood-to-manhood (if you were to put those two on a continuum) the way a co-ed college would be. I’m just thinking out loud here. </p>

<p>“I’d want to make sure that she spent meaningful time in a place where rigid gender roles are less likely to be imposed, consciously or unconsciously.”</p>

<p>In my mind, It’s not that I think W is less likely to impose rigid gender roles compared to a similar-caliber co-ed school (I mean, I don’t know any of them that are telling women they need to get back in the kitchen or that a woman’s place isn’t in science lab) … It’s that I think the college’s IDENTITY is predicating on explicitly supporting women. This gets back to the speech, in which it’s clear that Pres B believes that the shared identity of being a woman’s college is what generates the terrific results they have. IOW, their success isn’t merely “we don’t trap you in rigid gender roles” but “we have a shared identity of explicitly being a college of-by-for-women.” That may seem like a fine distinction, but I think it’s an important one as they wrestle with their heritage and definition of community.</p>

<p>Riddle me this: W has always had female presidents, from the get-go, and it’s a point of pride vs some of the other historically Seven Sister colleges. If the president’s office were to be vacant, would / could / should a qualified transman apply? What if the president transitioned to male when in office? I know this sounds silly, but it’s in playing with these hypotheticals that one tests the boundaries. </p>

131

<p>

</p>

<p>this is what I thought JHS was saying earlier, but it wasn’t.</p>

<p>I think the thinking on this is very challenging. I can’t even imagine how challenging it must be for kids in the middle of it. </p>

<p>It’s probably most accurate to say that anyone in a transgender situation is having both a male and female gender experience. But, given the binary nature of gender experience, probably everyone is having some variety of experience of both genders. Those who are transitioning are having a really different kind of experience, and I wonder if it is even possible for us to really “get” what it is. </p>

132

<p>Pizzagirl, in a coed environment women all too often define themselves in relation to men. Their womanliness is judged by whether it appeals to men. At W, everyone can claim their womanhood as their own, not something that depends on whether the boys like you, or whether the male professor calls on you in class or downgrades you for expressing an opinion in a way that labels you not as confident and intellectually strong but as a “■■■■■,” and male students disparage you and your opinions because they don’t want to have sex with you because you are too fat or too ugly, or don’t wear makeup or don’t dress to please them or don’t kowtow to them. There is no issue about whether your demeanor or personal presentation is “acceptable” for a woman.</p>

133

<p>^There aren’t male professors at Wellesley?</p>

134

<p>Yes, there are male professors at Wellesley. I actually don’t know if there are any males in leadership administrative positions; all the ones I’ve ever seen were female.</p>

135

<p>"This whole thing smacks to me of women being expected to give way and be the nice girls, yet again. Which raises my hackles. "</p>

<p>Yes, that’s the thing. Do you change the identity of W because a few men happen to be present? It’s still a women’s college even though there are male professors, and even though there are a handful of male exchange students. And it will still be even with a handful of transmen students running around. It seems to me that in order for W to form the strong community within, it has to exclude those without - that the boundary line gets drawn somewhere. </p>

136

<p>Oh for doG’s sake, yes of course there are. That is not the point. The point is that a male professor who is going to favor men over women, or dislikes women who speak up in class or women who disagree with them, is not likely to last long. And believe me, there are PLENTY of professors like that out there.</p>

<p>Let me give you some figures. W generally has about 53% or so female professors. When I went to graduate school at the U of C, two years later, there was ONE female professor in the entire English department. The master’s class was roughly 60 students, roughly half male/half female. When they accepted students into the PhD program, it was 5, count them 5, females, and about 25 males. The females in question were those who rarely spoke in class OR who flirted with the professors. (One of them had come to the U of C from another university where she had an affair with the head of the department. That kid of person.) Now, this was not because the women were less intelligent or less talented than the men. WE had precisely one assessment that was graded anonymously: the Master’s Exam. When the results came out, what do you know, women who had been systematically weeded out by being given B+s on their papers got As, and many of the fair-haired boys of the class got Bs. The sexism was shocking.</p>

<p>BTW, I had great male professors at W, including Robert Pinsky and David Ferry, both of whom are notable poets and scholars. More celebrated than my profs at the U of C, a top ten grad program.</p>

137

<p>

</p>

<p>As with discussions on other once “difficult” topics ranging from interracial relationships, gender roles, and GBLTQ…especially transgender issues, what I’ve observed is that as with computer technology…younger folks on average tend to have a much more open-minded and easier time discussing these issues than older generations due to greater open discussions and less stigmatization compared with even a decade ago. </p>

<p>Heck, just within the last 15 years, there has been a sea change in the mainstream attitudes towards gay and lesbian marriage/relationships and a substantial portion of it is driven by attitudes of younger generations, especially millennials. </p>

138

<p>@consolation. I’m a little jealous you studied with Pinsky. So great!</p>

<p>carry on.</p>

139

<p>He was absolutely wonderful. A great teacher and a great guy, in addition to his other virtues! :)</p>

<p>Cobrat, I belong to the cohort of people who is at least as comfortable with such individuals and such issues as anyone who is 40 years younger. I will refrain from citing my “credentials” in that area, but trust me, comfort with a broad definition of gender and sexuality was not invented in the last 15 years.</p>

140

<p>I have read the whole thread to catch up. I had come across the article myself. IMO, I think that women who want to transition to men probably should not be excluded from a women’s college, but that the presence of women who want to transition to men does dilute the experience of what it means to go to a women’s college for women who are biological women and claim their gender identity as women. I did not go to a women’s college, but I have over the years thought that it would have been a better place for me. Many of the things I did in my life were based on childhood lessons of what girls (and therefore women) could not do or did not need to do. I reacted against these lessons and wanted to be in areas where there were few women. It would have been nice to have had more women role models. I went to a pretty liberal university, and there were women professors, but not so many as the men.<br>
I think the idea of women together so that they can learn and develop leadership roles is necessary. Women are still discriminated against in many aspects of life. I am sure that women who transition to men will suffer discrimination, but an over focus on this aspect of gender certainly will detract from what bio and gender identified women want to focus on. </p>

<p>As an aside, on anonymous grading, at my law school everyone got a test number for the round of exams, and the professors did not know whose paper they were grading. I thought this was a great system, and I wish it would have been used more in general.</p>