• If I go out on a date, I don’t have to pay if I can’t afford it.
• People are likely to hold the door for me.
• If I go out to a bar, it is likely that drinks will be offered to me for free.
• If there is a war which requires a draft, I will not get drafted.
• If I enlist, I will not likely see the front lines.
• If I see the front lines it is unlikely to be in a combat role.
• I am not measured by my ability to inflict physical harm upon others.
• If I report an act of violence against me by a person of the opposite sex, it is more likely that I will be offered protection than be laughed at.
• If I am the victim of sexual violence, there are resources available to me.
• If I am in school, those resources are likely available to me on campus.
• If I am not in school, those resources are still likely nearby and free.
• If I am the victim of sexual or domestic violence, there are public events for me to take back the feelings of safety that I lost.
• If I attend those public events, I will not be told that people of my sex are not welcome.
• I am not assumed to be a potential sexual predator because of my sex.
• If I rape someone of the opposite sex, my victim is unlikely to realize that it was rape.
• If my victim does realize that it was rape, that victim is unlikely to report it.
• If the victim does report it, charges will not likely be filed.
• If charges are brought up against me, I am likely to be found not-guilty.
• If I am found guilty, it will reflect on me, not on my sex.
• If I abuse my spouse, it is unlikely to be reported, and even less likely to be prosecuted.
• If I go to jail, I am not likely to be raped.
• If i get raped in prison it will not be seen as part of the punishment.
• If my partner and I have a physical confrontation which results with police intervention, I will likely go home at the end of the night, instead of spending time in jail.
• If I am scared to walk through the streets alone at night, I will not be ridiculed for it.
• I can wear clothing designed for the opposite sex without it being viewed as odd.
• If I use sex toys I will be viewed as liberated and/or sexually adventurous, but not perverse.
• There are readily available resources for people of my sex involved with an unwanted pregnancy.
• If my partner and I get pregnant, I can choose to halt the pregnancy.
• If I have a baby, my right to take time off of work in a salaried position is nearly guaranteed.
• If I have a family, my primary responsibility to that family is spending time with my family.
• I am not considered less of a person if my partner supports me financially.
• There are safe spaces for people of my sex.
• The support groups for my sex help me deal with trauma that has occurred in my life.
• The support groups for my sex are not focused around how not to be a victimizer.
• There are several prestigious schools that serve only my sex.
• There are many scholarships available only to my sex.
• I am unlikely to be told that I am unfairly afforded special privileges because of my sex.
• If I take advantage of opportunities expressly available to people of my sex, and do not speak up against the sex-based discrimination, I will not get accused of supporting the gender status-quo.
• If I cry in public, nobody will think less of me.
• I can have close, emotional friendships with people of the same gender without being persecuted.
• I can be physically close to someone of the same sex (i.e. holding hands, hugging) in public without being persecuted.
• If I put myself in an environment dominated by the opposite sex, nobody will question my motives.
• If I study gender in an academic context, nobody will accuse me of trying to hijack the discussion if my view differs from the prevailing one.
• I can speak out against sexism that affects me negatively without anyone telling me that my concerns are invalid because someone has it worse.
• I can be involved with discussions about gender without feeling as though I am being blamed for society’s ills.
• I can be involved in gender politics without being accused of sexism by my would-be allies.

from: http://www.gazettenet.com/2009/05/23/time-women039s-colleges-go-coed

It makes me feel less alone in my fight for equality when I see that people around me have written things that I wish I’d written!

Have you seen any articles that I should see?  Let me know by emailing me.

Before I started reading these unintentionally defamatory articles, I’d only shared my concerns about Smith with the closest of friends, fearing that I’d be painted as an anti-feminist—but I cannot rightly call myself a feminist if I do not stand up for gender equality.  I wouldn’t go so far as to say that men’s colleges have been invaded by women.  Men are better off for it, though it is worth noting that many more of the traditionally men’s schools now accept women than the traditionally women’s school accept men, which limits the options available to men relative to the options available to women.

Contrary to the study which Ms. Doherty failed to site, other studies have shown that all students are better in a co-ed environment (“Separated by Sex,” AAUW, 1998).  Note that AAUW is the American Association for University Women.  It is as far as one can get from anti-feminist.  If a woman finds men so distracting that she has trouble studying, perhaps it is not because of the presence of men, but an issue of her own which needs to be addressed.  I had trouble studying in a public school environment, and it turned out that I had learning disabilities.  It is unfair and inaccurate to blame it on the men, and I don’t think it is right to discriminate against men for the fact that they were born male.  By all means, study with a group of all girls if you find that helpful.  But it is not the fault of men that they can be distracting, and men should not be collectively punished for the immaturity of a minority.

Similarly with the discomfort in “mixed-gender situations,” the problem is NOT the men.  Ms. Doherty validly asserted that the primary reason men get so much attention is because they are so scarce.  I guarantee that keeping Smith’s admission policy discriminatory is not going to help with that issue (see post in response to Doherty’s September opinion piece regarding the prospect for Smith to become co-ed).

While I will never defend egregious use of such cheap perfumes as “Axe body spray”, I’ll say this: you’re not going to make men more likely to attend your parties if you keep railing against them in your editorials, and you’re not going to learn to deal with the presence of men by maligning that half of the human population in one diatribe after another.

Before I say anything else, I want to clarify that I’m a man, a feminist, and an advocate for equality and justice. I know Smith well, as I live nearby. It pains me deeply that I’m not an eligible candidate for admission to the college.

I realize that Smith’s environment is a unique one, an environment which is wonderful for women; it is worth pointing out that men can already take classes at Smith through the 5-colleges exchange. I would love to attend Smith, but cannot. But I do not believe that allowing men to enroll in Smith would drastically alter the social dynamic (though it might help to balance the discourse, and might create a dialogue regarding those somewhat offensive bumper-stickers—the ones that imply that men are immature); it would be a very specific sort of man who would want to apply to Smith, and men surely would remain a minority. The only real change would be that men could call themselves Smithies, and could live on Smith’s campus.

Because Smith does not allow men to enroll, and also takes federal money (for financial aid as well as through grants) it is technically in violation of Title IX, which states, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance…”

Of course, Title IX was passed to help bridge the same gap which Smith seeks to close. It is of note that, recently, women have pulled ahead not only in enrollment in institutions of higher learning, but also in academic success at the colleges. In short, women are on top in undergraduate academia, and are on their way to the top in the professional world as a result. Anything that prevents a woman from equal opportunity (at least in New England) today is a matter of socially programmed prejudice, not a matter of systematic oppression. Because of that, I’m not sure that gender-based exclusion in undergraduate admissions can do anything positive in the quest for equality.

According to the college’s website, “Smith College does not discriminate in its educational and employment policies on the bases of race, color, creed, religion, national/ethnic origin, sex, sexual orientation, age, or with regard to the bases outlined in the Veterans Readjustment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.” But there is also a section on the website about why Smith thinks it is important to offer services to women exclusively. It certainly seems as though Smith is trying to have it both ways.

I think that it is not a stretch to call Smith’s admissions policies “discriminatory,” for the fact that, no matter how kind a person a man is, and no matter how good a student a man is, and no matter whether he afford it or not, a man is unable to attend classes at Smith as a matriculated student. As I’m sure you are aware, Smith is host to a plethora of world-class academic programs, with intensive student-faculty interaction, the likes of which are unavailable anywhere else (like the school for social work, the global studies center, or the Picker engineering program). Additionally, every one of the tier-1 traditionally men’s schools are now co-ed, but there remain several tier-1 women’s colleges, the largest of which is Smith.

Does inequality help to solve inequality? To paraphrase Justice Roberts (with whom I agree for once), “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of sex is to stop discriminating on the basis of sex.” By providing women with opportunities not available to men, Smith College creates another generation of female leaders, but it also creates a relatively disadvantaged generation of men. I do not mean to belittle the plight of women. I realize that inequalities do still exist. I do not believe that 40 years after most men’s universities opened their doors to female students Smith College may, with right conscience, keep its doors closed to men.

By all means, keep the dorms gendered if you must. Keep men in Smith’s minority if it so pleases you. But please, do not try to justify discrimination by calling it a path to equality. And please, at least let me apply.