It seems so illogical. In order to have the all-female schools you desire, it follows that the boys will have to go to a school of their own. Your outrage makes no sense.
2007-12-14 17:14:07 · 13 answers · asked by JD 4 in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
It is a thing with the feminista. It wants to have an 'in' on all men's things. But will fight tooth and claw to keep men out of women's things.
In Britain there are women-only library sessions, swimming sessions in public swimming baths and women-only gyms. Feminits do not protest against any of these women-only spaces, but they have campaigned to remove men-only spaces such as gentlemen's clubs in london, and working men's clubs elsewhere in Britain.
Feminits have also campaigned to allow women join sports clubs that were previously men-only such as golf clubs and golf tournaments (but not to allow men into the equivalent female-only clubs).
2007-12-15 12:54:37 · answer #1 · answered by celtish 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I've never "railed" about any such thing. I don't really have a formal opinion on the subject. I don't see anything wrong with Girl Scouts, or Boy Scouts, and other types of clubs that are gender exclusive, as long as the agenda and curriculum do not include viewing the opposite sex as inferior, and as long as equal opportunities exist for both genders. If there is, for example, an all-male school that teaches and trains men for a certain job, great...but also should exist a women's school that does the same thing for women. It would be ideal if both sexes could be educated and trained together. But I don't oppose all-male schools or all-female schools as long as there is an equivalent offered to the other gender, as well.
2007-12-14 17:29:44 · answer #2 · answered by It's Ms. Fusion if you're Nasty! 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
I agree. Although research indicates that girls in all female schools do better in many ways, academically / leadership experiences / less suicide / etc., I abhor all male or all female academic settings. I know I may not be right in this matter, from the perspective of researched outcomes, but there's just something abnormal about sexual segregation. No matter how boys affect girls or how girls affect boys in school, they need to be together, learning how to get along so that they aren't abstractions to each other and so that they can begin to understand and appreciate each other. It's just weird to segregate children during the years that they are SUPPOSED to be together in courtship / role learning. And, it's like affirmative action in a way, which I believe is a mistake and is social engineering, because even if girls do better in all girls schools, which may give them a slight advantage in getting into better college programs, they are missing out on REALITY, on learning how to function and be tough in the real world where . . .GASP . . .there are MEN to compete with and teamwork with.
2007-12-14 17:28:46 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
No battery, no assault, should be ignored, regardless of the gender of the perpetrator. Yes, women are violent, in their own way, but with respect to all domestic violence, women sustain serious injuries a lot more than men. That's why the cops typically take the man away. And guys, if you think this is some kind of victory for the women that men are arrested more for dv, or that women have almost all the dv shelters and assistance, put yourself in their shoes -- an entire gender is generally bigger than they are and more likely to inflict serious injuries. (That's not to say women shouldn't be punished for their less physically damaging batteries.)
2016-05-24 01:04:14 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I can think of only one school where feminists "rallied against it being all male." West Point. And with good reason. A person can't advance very high in the Army ranks without going to West Point.
But for the ordinary all-male schools---ones where they aren't training people for something very specific that you can't get anywhere else---you'd better provide some links if you want anyone to buy what you're saying. But frankly, I believe it's YOUR outrage that makes no sense because I don't think you can back up your claim.
2007-12-14 17:49:00 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
I don't care what kind of schools parents choose to send their children to. If they send their sons to all-boy schools, that's fine. If they send their daughters to all-girl schools, I'm also fine with it. Some parents feel a single-sex education is beneficial to their children and that's their choice.
2007-12-14 17:23:05 · answer #6 · answered by RoVale 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I don't believe in one-gender schools. I think boys and girls should interact with each other early. But in my city, our female private school has a male counterpart.
2007-12-14 17:18:21 · answer #7 · answered by Rio Madeira 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
I am against same-sex schools, both all-male and all-female.
2007-12-15 06:49:53 · answer #8 · answered by jimbell 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
And you can't provide so much as a single example???
Why, that's outrageous!
EDIT; Patois
The poster is suggesting that there are ONLY schools for girls and NONE for boys. We of course know this is untrue, as evidenced by the fact that he can't provide a single example of this supposed 'imbalance'.
I DO agree with you re: sex-segregated schools in general though.
2007-12-14 17:26:16 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
Ehh?? Interactive social skills will prevail in reality.....I am feminist. Hear me barf.
Children interact to learn. There is no other way. Soo...pooh pooh on your theory.
2007-12-14 17:31:41 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋