<p>You're right, but it <em>is</em> the place to talk about whether Smith, and women's colleges in general, provide adequate attention to the physical, social, legal, and psychological needs of women.]]</p>
<p>I agree wholeheartedly. You misconstrued my point, probably b/c I didnt explain it very well. I was trying to relay the fact religion is a very personal issue and discussing it here will cause more strife than be beneficial. </p>
<p>]]Guys simply do not have to think about safety the way we do]]</p>
<p>How true. Case in point; when my wife travels, she refuses to stay on a ground floor if there are sliding glass doors allowing exit/entrance from the room, as well as the <em>normal</em> door. I would never in million years be concerned someone could enter my room via courtyard/patio doors.
Or in my daughters case, she cant accept a Coke from someone, even someone she knows casually, unless she pours it herself or saw the bartender fill the glass and then have it handed directly to her.</p>
<p>All men should be required to have to think, act and put themselves in a woman's shoes for a week. I know I look good in heels :)</p>
<p>I'm not saying people aren't expecting educational institutions to play a much larger role in youth's upbringing than they used to, I was just pointing out that even when parents were stricter and knew more about their childs' lives, there was generally not good sexuality education.</p>
<p>"Parenting is so much weaker in these days of gangs, drug use, weapons, fights, road rage, single-parent families, etc."</p>
<p>I'd just like to point out that don't forget you are talking about primarily middle and upper middle class, white American people here. Lower classes and many minorities have always had to work outside the home, have always had to deal with violence and less than the "ideal" nuclear family structure. My mother's father was a Catholic immigrant. He drank heavily and had 7 children, and none of them got intensive parenting.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'd just like to point out that don't forget you are talking about primarily middle and upper middle class, white American people here. Lower classes and many minorities have always had to work outside the home, have always had to deal with violence and less than the "ideal" nuclear family structure.
[/quote]
Now who's being a bit trite, and even a bit condescending to some? The kettle calling the pot black? Please do not try to put words into my mouth, and attempt to tell me who I am talking about for the sake of your argument. The ideal nuclear family hardly exists anymore for various reasons, regardless of race or income levels. Even families making extraordinary amounts of money together are rarely home because of their work ethic and commitment to making the deal. Kids of all income levels have suffered when "mom" left for work, that is a fact. I'm not being sexist; because any sociologist worth her salt can tell you that society has plummeted when income from two parents became the necessary evil to survive. Homes are not the same as when I was growing up; for better or worse. I am not an expert in this area, but I can tell you that there is much more than a difference in income or status affecting all of us.</p>
<p>When you were growing up, not all homes were the same. I think you missed my point. My point was that in many times, places, and socioeconomic statuses, two parent families where the mom stayed at home weren't the rule. Heck, a lot of anthropologists will argue the nuclear family structure was never as conducive to raising children as the extended family structure, which began to die out with industrialization. My point is that nuclear families with the mom staying at home existed just in very specific times and places, and even still, I do not think that ever had much to do with effective sexuality education in our culture.</p>
<p>I would like to think that my frankness with my d. about sexuality (and learned from my mother, BTW) combined with sex ed in school will at least give her the courage to seek answers to her remaining questions. A parent cannot possibly tell which questions have been adequately answered and which have not, and so the responsibility ultimately falls on the young adult, male or female, to get the correct information. That's when a strong, nonjudgmental support system needs to be in place - whether parental (in the case of minors) or in the health system (young adult and beyond). Because of the special conditions of a residential college, the institution MUST assume responsibility for providing care/support to its young adult students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Because of the special conditions of a residential college, the institution MUST assume responsibility for providing care/support to its young adult students.
[/quote]
Agreed! As parents, we assume that these services are in place. If not, then good for folks like ecape at al who made sure they are. The counseling component is an essential piece of the pie that appears to have been missing; at least directly.</p>
<p>"I would like to think that my frankness with my d. about sexuality (and learned from my mother, BTW) combined with sex ed in school will at least give her the courage to seek answers to her remaining questions."</p>
<p>I don't want to overly-nitpick, since I think you've got good intentions and I know I can't appreciate all the difficulties of parenting, myself. Plus my other ideas on this issue are a bit more radical. However, part of the problem here IMO is that there is not much two-way dialogue about these issues beyond the facts, especially between generations. I imagine if there was as much dialogue between parents and children as there is sometimes between friends, parents would have a good idea about what their children did and didn't know and there'd be better understanding all around. One of the cool things about Smith to me is that a lot of students talk very openly about sex and sexuality as being a normal part of life, they talk on a personal level AND they are accurately informed. I feel like the fact that peers can often be so open with each other, but parents and children cannot be very open with each other is sort of particuliar to our culture. It's very easy for children to seek out answers from peers or the media that are wrong. Our culture has the ideas that this is a "private matter" and that sexuality is appropriate in particular instances and with particular emotions. A (perhaps amusing) anecdote: I was watching "Meet the Falkers" with my mom and aunt. There's this scene where the male character's mother asks him if he's pleasing his fianc</p>
<p>And yeah, so, women's colleges are generally good about empowering women psychologically b/c of the students they attract. I think the institutions themselves could be better, but they are trying to balance tradition and what most of the alums perceive as respectability with the new. The populations of the all-women's colleges have changed a great deal over the years.</p>
<p>"However, part of the problem here IMO is that there is not much two-way dialogue about these issues beyond the facts, especially between generations."</p>
<p>That's not something you can judge. You aren't privvy to the conversations between specific parents and children, and can only report on your own experiences. Some might have incredibly open communication, and some might not speak of sex at all.</p>
<p>"That's not something you can judge. You aren't privvy to the conversations between specific parents and children, and can only report on your own experiences. Some might have incredibly open communication, and some might not speak of sex at all."</p>
<p>I absolutely agree. I was speaking in broad generalities about what I believe to be /typical/. I know some girls at Smith who grew up with throw-back hippie parents who were as liberal about these issues as can be.</p>
<p>The reason to attend a women's school isn't usually because they are all women, in my opinion. Men usually sneak in and take a few classes anyways. The best reason to attend is because, in the case of Wellesley and Smith, they are among the best colleges in the country - with huge endowments and great professors. They also have beautiful campuses. </p>
<p>At the undergraduate level, I'd rank Wellesley among the top ten undergraduate schools in the United States overall, along with Caltech, Yale, Harvard, MIT, Amherst, Williams, Princeton, Dartmouth and Swarthmore.</p>
<p>[[I was speaking in broad generalities about what I believe to be /typical/]]</p>
<p>I hesitate to speak for MWFN, heaven knows shes more than capable of doing that herself, but I think you missed her point. Read your sentence board generalities what I believe No offense, but when discussing issues as important as those at hand you need more facts. You cant play fast and loose with /your perception/ of reality. This also pertains to undocumented comments you make such as the one regarding an assault being too much trouble to prosecute. When I questioned the accusation you said I believe she was told that by the Hampshire District Attorney, but I could be wrong<br>
If you could be wrong about such a serious accusation, better to check the facts before posting.</p>
<p>Ecape, youre bringing up many great points, and I hope you continue your work on campus, whether it be at Smith or Bowdoin. But you dont want to lose credibility by haphazardly making statements without any basis in fact or research.</p>
<p>[[I know some girls at Smith who grew up with throw-back hippie parents who were as liberal about these issues as can be.]]</p>
<p>If youd like two great reads I suggest, David Brooks, Bobos In Paradise and The New Upper Class And How They Got There</p>
<p>In the book, Bobos, I believe youll be extremely amused to see where the hippies et al of yesteryears are today and how they have contributed to our culture. More importantly will be the discussion of the transition from the 50s WASP society to todays forms of elitism, materialism and morality, etc.</p>
<p>Sneak in? You make it sound like men arent welcomed at Smith in order to take advantage of the exchange program between the other 4 colleges that are part of the 5 college consortium. Ok, I'll admit there are some on campus who would rather never see a man in class, but they are few.</p>
<p>I hope when my daughter is taking a class at Amherst College next year the students dont view her as someone who <em>snuck</em> in a class. :)</p>