I learned today (h/t Feministing) of the National Student Genderblind Campaign. Founded by students at Guildford College and Clark University, the NSGC:
The National Student Genderblind Campaign is a student-initiated, grass-roots organization working to achieve gender-neutral collegiate policies. By engaging students from colleges and universities across the nation, the National Student Genderblind Campaign strives to serve as a comprehensive source of information for those who wish to implement gender-neutral policy of their own.
Currently, as an emerging grass-roots organization, the NSGC focuses, primarily, on dorm room policy, and secondly, on bathrooms.
That last sentence makes me happy. Don’t ask why. The NSGC opines:
Gender-neutral housing policies provide options for transgender students, students in the process of discovering their gender identity, gay or bisexual students who feel uncomfortable with rooming with members of the same sex, intersex students who do not wish to be identified by any sex, and students who feel that they would cooperate better with a roommate of the opposite sex. The NSGC believes that current policies, without gender-neutral options, reflect a time of institutionalized heterosexism that marginalizes countless students today.
My first thought, writing as someone nearly two-decades removed from undergraduate life, is that we’ve really come a long way; if the most salient form of oppression that young feminists and their allies can find is the absence of gender-neutral bathroom policy, then we have much for which to be thankful. My second reaction is to wince at the earnestness of these young folks, particularly because I know how easily their ingenuousness will be handled by the conservative media.
For those folks who are intersexed or transgendered, having gender-neutral bathrooms does make life easier. I know from my “trans” friends that rude treatment in public restrooms is all too common. But it seems that the NSGC isn’t just interested in protecting intersexed folks; they’re interested in protecting the rights of those who feel that they would cooperate better with a roommate of the opposite sex. That’s the part that grabbed me.
Part of being a young feminist woman or pro-feminist man is learning to live at odds with cultural expectations for femininity and masculinity. While feminism doesn’t have a mandatory dress code, or a stated policy on hair removal, or a blanket prohibition on loving NASCAR or football, there’s little question that in order to live as a feminist, one has to reject certain aspects of a profoundly sexist culture. To a very great extent, particularly for young collegians, most of whom are just finishing adolescence, embracing feminism or pro-feminism is a dramatic rejection of broader cultural norms. To be a pro-feminist man is to choose to “not be one of the guys”; to be a feminist woman is to choose to be publicly and privately critical of sexist expectations for the “fairer sex.” And that kind of rebelliousness means encountering a lot of hostility from one’s own gender.
Anecdotally, I hear the same thing from young feminists of both genders: “It’s easier to get along with the opposite sex.” Many of the young folks I work with have spent years being ostracized and judged for failing to adequately live up to the standards for their gender; their same-sex peers have humiliated and hurt them deeply. In their woundedness, it’s not surprising that many of them find other-sex friendships (which presumably are less competitive and judgmental) to be much easier to find and maintain. And the students at NSGC seem to be arguing that students like this should be able to live together as opposite-sex roommates — an attractive option to many young feminists/pro-feminists in particular.
I have no moral objection to opposite-sex roommates or coed bathrooms. (My freshman year at Cal, I had an off-campus apartment of my own, but basically lived with my friends in a coed dorm. Sharing a bathroom discomfited only a few, and only for the first few weeks. Using a urinal with women walking past became comfortable very quickly.) But I do think that there is much to recommend same-sex roommate policies.
As I’ve written before, I struggled for years to develop friendships with other men. I wrote a few years ago:
Until I was in my 30s, I had very few close male friends. I was raised surrounded by women, and as I went into adolescence and early adulthood, I tried to make certain that women were always around me. It wasn’t just romantic or sexual relationships that I was seeking; it was emotional support. Through high school, college, and graduate school, I prided myself on the large number of women who were close to me, with whom I had mutually supportive, generally non-physical relationships. Of course, the real truth was that I was absolutely terrified of intimacy with men. Men were colleagues and rivals, but never friends. I made all sorts of excuses as to why I didn’t have more male friends; the most frequent one was that “most American men are sexist pigs, and I can’t relate to that.”
The few good male friends I had were the roommates I had in college. My freshman year I lived off-campus by myself; my senior year I had a single room in a co-op; my sophomore and junior years, I lived in a triple with other guys. If I had had my druthers, I would surely have felt “safer” living with platonic female friends. I did fear being judged, and I did worry about what these guys would think of me. But I had no choice but to live with two other guys (actually, over the course of two years, about five other guys). My brother and I had not shared a room growing up, so those two years of my life were the only two years I’ve had sharing a room with other men. And though we had our share of roommate squabbles over radios and open windows and girlfriend sleepovers, we bonded tightly. I learned that I could live as a man with other men and be respected by them. I learned how to practice non-sexual intimacy with other guys, and push myself through my fear of whether they would declare me to be “insufficiently masculine.” Tim, Dave, John, Patrick, and Danny played a vital role in helping me to grow more comfortable with my own maleness. I am damned grateful they were there for me.
Do I think coed bathrooms are a good idea? Well, it’s not high on my list of priorities to fight for, but I’ve got no objection to ‘em. Do I think roommates of the opposite sex are a good idea? No, at least not for first-year students living away from home for the first time. Learning to practice same-gender intimacy is an important skill. For young feminists and other aspiring “gender outlaws”, learning to overcome one’s fears about competition and judgment is vitally important. Let the older students pick their roommates across gender lines, but require the frosh to live with their own sex for a year. It may well work wonders.
So what about people who went to single-sex high schools and are very comfortable with people of their sex, and not with the other sex? Or even people who are generally more comfortable having friends of their own sex, just because — maybe they should be forced to live with the opposite sex for a year?
You might know lots of people who find it easier to get along with their own sex, but there are lots of people who don’t know how to deal with the other sex (and, if they’re straight, without making it into more than a friendship).
Hugo said: “Anecdotally, I hear the same thing from young feminists of both genders: “It’s easier to get along with the opposite sex.” Many of the young folks I work with have spent years being ostracized and judged for failing to adequately live up to the standards for their gender; their same-sex peers have humiliated and hurt them deeply.”
I wonder if maybe - perhaps, just maybe - the reason that post-Third Wave feminists and so-called “pro-feminist” men get are ostracized by us regular folks is because you-all have embraced an ideology that is shamelessly sexist? Gee, do you think that people in the 21st century just might be smart enough to recognize blatant sexism when they see it?
It’s a radical concept, but perhaps one that’s worth examining. After all Hugo, you seem to be all about vigorous self-examination and holding each other to account for sexism, racism, and other bigotry. Or is that only for people who don’t fall in lockstep with feminist orthodoxy?
Mr. Bad, that’s thread drift at its most shameless. Cool it.
Ok Hugo, how about this: Under your scenario the first time some woman is PO-ed at one of her male floor- or roomates - for any reason whatsoever - she can easily file a sexual harassment/assault charge on him based on the simple fact that he was in the same bathroom at the same time as she was. I’ve sat on disciplinary boards where men were convicted and expelled on grounds under less objectionable conditions and with less substantiation than that (despite my vigorous objections), so I know for a fact that it happens. With alarming frequency and with the most tenuous and unbelievable ‘evidence’ imaginable.
Therefore, not only are such arrangements impossible (at least for men) in the Uber-PC world that is contemporary American academia. But further, any man who would agree to live under such conditions would be nothing short of insane and therefore should not be on campus in the first place.
IMO in order to protect innocent men we should be moving towards more strict sex segregation on campus, not the direction you seem to be advocating here.
Heh. My spouse had co-ed bathrooms when he was an at Ivy League college in the 1970s. This is not exactly a radical or scary notion. And having lived in a co-ed dorm, let me say that nothing takes the forbidden out of gender relations like seeing what that hot girl/guy looks like at 7 a.m. on the way to brush his/her teeth.
I’m with Myth here, Mr. Bad. I’ve lived in coed environments many a time, spent years in the co-ops, and saw one sexual harassment complaint — which ended up being dropped for lack of evidence.
Coed bathrooms are a big plus. The roommate issue, for the reasons I’ve given here, is a bit different.
And I’ve lived in co-ed environments since I left home as an undergrad in college, so we share the same experiences on that score, with the caveat that I have 20 more years on you. However, you only know of the complaints that you saw which from my multi-year experience on our campus’ student disciplinary board for violations of non-academic code of conduct shows that sexual harassment allegations are the most commonly filed and most commonly false and abused charges made. Further, because of the Uber-PC nature of American academia, false allegations are never reported so of course you’ve only seen very few such charge since the majority of them are indeed false. However, it’s telling that the one instance you did know of turned out to be unsubstantiated; it must have slipped through the lace curtain of the campus media.
It doesn’t surprise me that you support these kinds of arrangements, but from years of experience on my part I still maintain that any man who volunteered to live in a co-ed dorm where there are unisex bathrooms would have to be insane. I gurantee that false allegations of sexual harassment/abuse/rape/whatever filed by women against men for the most trivial, untenable and outright silly reasons would be common. therefore, if you truly were interested in advising men vis-a-vis responsible behavior you wouldn’t be advocating for unisex bathrooms. It seems that you’re more interested in pandering to the feminist/gay/lesbian/trans lobby than having an honest and sincere interest in advising young men re. responsible behavior.
And so it goes. Same old same old.
Hmmm… I really want to comment, as I am a little reluctant to embrace the idea. I had a similar debate with my boyfriend (years ago) regarding high school locker rooms. I’ll have to think this through a little more.
Please clarify this: does being in a co-ed dorm mean that you would share an actual room with the opposite sex? I know that sounds like a dumb question, but I don’t know these things since I have yet to experience dorm life.
Mermade, what this group wants to do is give students the option to have opposite-sex roommates. Coed dorms are the norm now across the USA, often with shared bathrooms (certainly true at most UC campuses). But the rooms themselves are generally still single-sex.
Hello Hugo,
While I have been involved in gender issues for a few years, when it comes to co-ed bathrooms or guys and girls living together, I take more of an agnostic approach towards.
However, one can safely say that there are pros and cons to the argument. There can be false allegations that surface from this arrangement, but then again, there can also be actual allegations that can also come from this. But then, how would this be any different from the real world? However, on average, I do not believe a transgression will transpire on either side.
So, maybe this arrangement would be good to show that men and women would have to live with each other and communicate with each other in a way that would loosen the alienation that both genders often feel? In this way, it could be a good step in the right direction.
Sometimes the only way you can really get to know a person (or a gender) is to live with them. In this way, I agree with the idea of a man and a woman living together. While this will help men, I also believe it will help women understand the men in their lives to an even greater extent. From observable evidence, I feel that there is a general confusion presented to the opposite sex by our own society.
I’m not sure I agree though with the statement that if a man is pro-feminist, he would be ostracized by his own gender. I think it depends on how you draw the line and how you convey your views. How do you define a man who is a feminist? Is it a man who is for only women’s rights or is it a collective mixture of women’s rights and responsibilities that are also on par with men? I guess the best term that would be to describe this arrangement would be an egalitarian. I think most men adhere to the latter more than the former (not addressing the situation as a zero-sum game, such as if it helps women then it HURTS men, but looking at it in such a way that if it helps women, it helps men and if it helps men, then it also helps women.)
Even though I greatly sympathise with the men’s rights movement and what they have to say, I take more of an egalitarian approach on how to implement these sort of issues, and I try to keep more of an open mind. In my two or so years of reading up on these sorts of issues, I have read and both discussed/debated individuals who are in the feminist movement and individuals who are in the men’s movement-both male feminists and the men’s rights movement. Actually, come the spring semester on my college, I will be working with a male feminist professor who is on my campus.
However, there is something that is interesting to note, even though it is only based on my observations. It is said that men will be ostracized for taking a male feminist approach. Maybe this is true. However, I have also observed men who greatly criticized other men who have taken a pro-male approach to gender issues as well. I think there are stereotypes on both sides. Do you believe that this is true?
While I am somewhat agnostic about the actual-roommate policy (at college and in grad school co-ops I shared bathrooms but not rooms with women, at least officially), I must admit that I am rubbed the wrong way by the prescriptiveness about young men whose closest friends in college might be women. If the experience of these young men has been oppressive vis-a-vis other young men, particularly in the high school bullying pressure cooker, might they not be allowed a year or two to depressurize? I actually agree with you that they should eventually find themselves able to form bonds with other young men — but they should be the ones who judge the timing of this, based on their own experiences and needs.
I notice, Hugo, that you are often uncompassionate toward your own younger self — which is fine, except that one doesn’t want to be equally uncompassionate toward young men who might be like your young self in some way. Often people do what they do because that is what they happen to need to do at a particular time.
This is not about my youth in a literal sense by the way. I probably had more women close friends than men at that age, but I always had at least one close male friend. But these things happened as they happened. And I would have resented the dickens out of anyone who presumed to prescribe who should be my friend, or what sort of friends I should be developing at some stage of life.
I’m with Myth here, Mr. Bad. I’ve lived in coed environments many a time, spent years in the co-ops, and saw one sexual harassment complaint — which ended up being dropped for lack of evidence.
He he he - so what about the 1 in 4 stat Hugo? You know the one - isn’t it the case that 1 in 4 female college students will be raped, or be a victim of attempted rape, while a student? If this is a myth, ok - that’s not news. However, what about all the rape hysteria that college campuses are famous for (New Hampshire etc)?
Personally I’ll give you credit here Hugo; I think you basically admitted that the rape hysteria on college campuses is blown way out of proportion.
(p.s I’ve posted under ‘Andrew’ before but I’m not the one above, hence name change)
I am absolutely fine with co-ed bathrooms. However, I am somewhat wary of giving students the option of sharing a dorm with a member of the opposite sex. Much rape, sadly, occurs on college campuses and I think sharing a room with the opposite sex is just asking for more trouble. I also know that once you give students that option, you can never take it away again. Since the issue of co-ed dorm rooms is rather gray, it’s hard to see whether or not it would ultimately work for or against gender inequality.
I also question this:
“Gender-neutral housing policies provide options for transgender students, students in the process of discovering their gender identity, gay or bisexual students who feel uncomfortable with rooming with members of the same sex, intersex students who do not wish to be identified by any sex…”
Now, I understand the argument for gay students. However, it gets a little trickier with bisexual students. I have more to say about this but I’ll just stop there.
While I have yet to live in a dorm, I personally would never want to live with a guy I knew nothing about. But that’s just me. I can’t see any potential harm with keeping the same-sex dorm room policy. The same thing can’t be said for the opposite scenario.
Andrew wrote: “So, maybe this arrangement would be good to show that men and women would have to live with each other and communicate with each other in a way that would loosen the alienation that both genders often feel? In this way, it could be a good step in the right direction
I’m all for increased tolerance and understanding, but this is unlikely to occur in the typical university environment given the mix of 1) power imbalance vis-a-vis women having the support and full-force of the administration to make false allegations against men, 2) feminists on campus fomenting a misandrist environment which encourages such allegations, and 3) adminstrators eager to exploit this situation. If the men and women in the scenario presennted above by Andrew had equal respect for each other and equal power and protections, then it might work. But as it is now with the environment of contempt for and suspicion of men and healthy, normal masculinity on campus, IMO it’s just too dangerous for men to put them in this situation, and it’s irresponsible to advocate doing so.
It’s true that sexual assault is quite rare on campus, and rape is statistically insignificant. However, this doesn’t mean that hysteria over such events doesn’t exist, because it does, sadly, all to frequently.
Oh for the love of… Mr. Bad, you need to find a different story to push. *rolls eyes* No one on this website is more sexist than you, with your “women always lie about this, that and the other thing” you are constantly pushing here. What’s worse, you haven’t brought up a single shred of evidence for your allegation other than your (very suspect) personal anecdotes.
As for the co-ed situation, there is one (well, two) other things that people are missing here: the price of rooming. I don’t know what other campuses do, but here at lovely UND the dorm rooms cost different amounts per semester than other. And becuase it is such a heavy male campus, it normally comes down in favor of guys. For instance, the cheapest apartments on campus are sleeper rooms for $125: but, since they share a bathroom, they are men-only rooms. There is no equivelent sleeper room for women.
Swanson has much nicer door rooms, but you must have a same-sex roommate or you cannot live there. This makes it difficult for women, who end up on the short end of the stick when it comes to
This, of course, is compounded by the fact that I live in the most backwater state in the US and they still have active blue laws and cohabitation laws. The university CANNOT have opposite-sex roommates or shared bathrooms because the state does not legally allow it.
As I see it, the problem with coed rooms is going to be that people will choose to move in with their lovers, and then when they break up, a lot of room-switching will need to occur. Do dorm advisors really want to deal with that crap all the time?
My dorm in college (at Rice in the 90’s) was coed but still had single-sex bathrooms. One dorm (oddly, I can’t remember if this was mine or the neighboring one) had a couple of adjacent floors with only one bathroom each, and a vote was taken every year over whether these bathrooms would be coed, or whether each floor’s would be for one gender. IIRC it only took one “no” vote to make the bathrooms same-sex-only, but for the years I was there, they were always coed.
Oh for the love of… Mr. Bad, you need to find a different story to push. *rolls eyes* No one on this website is more sexist than you, with your “women always lie about this, that and the other thing” you are constantly pushing here.
Mr Bad isn’t saying all women. He’s just saying that it happens (false accusations). It’s a reality. Men have to deal with it and be wise - and try to avoid getting themselves into a sticky situation. This is sound advice without labelling all women as false accusers. It’s the exact same kind of advice given out to women to try to help them avoid situations that may make them vulnerable to rape or attack. That kind of advice doesn’t label all men as rapists - it’s just saying that some men are, and by putting yourself in a vulnerable situation, one of those men may take advantage of your vulnerability. Same goes for what Mr Bad is advising for men.
If I tell my young son not to talk to strangers, it doesn’t make me a misanthrope. If Mr Bad is wary of some women, or the potential for harm to come to him (or other men) from some women, it doesn’t make him a sexist.
At risk of a major thread drift, the “Advice” they give women to avoid rape is equally sexist, Andrew M. It makes women restrict their freedoms for stuff that doesn’t actually prevent rape at all.
And I have never seen Mr. Bad give a rape victim the benefit of the doubt, ever.
Tam, you already have that with lesbian and gay lovers, but no one seems to care about that. Heck, there’s plenty of room-swapping already without emotional entanglements, I don’t think that it’s really going to be that much of a shift.
Just so everyone knows, I changed my name from ‘Andrew’ to ‘Andrew B’ (I am the first Andrew that posted here.)
Mr. Bad said: “I’m all for increased tolerance and understanding, but this is unlikely to occur in the typical university environment given the mix of…”
I agree and understand your concern on the matter, Mr. Bad. I think if we are going to implement this policy, it will be foolish to think that this sort of arrangement is going to be taken lightly. We will have to review the current school’s policy and come to understand that men have pertinent concerns that cannot be ignored. Like I say, it isn’t a zero-sum game and if one gender is only being looked at (their dangers and their benefits), then the policy will be doomed from the start.
I find this post confusing and alienating on several levels - I suppose the first is that my understanding of feminism was about choice, and here is an organization which is not trying to change the ENTIRE campus but offer choice for groups of vulnerable people and here is Hugo responding that the appropriate and best solution for men and women, is to TAKE THE CHOICE AWAY. Okay, this must be the new patronizing feminism I forgot to sign up for where I get to determine what is best for another generation.
Second is that the group lists four groups of people who are possibly vulnerable: 1) Transgender students, 2) LGB students, 3) Intersex Students (and 4) students who feel they would be more comfortable with the opposite sex) - the group is set up because of the need for options for the points of view which are not heterocentric - yet, the focus of this blog post IS heterocentric - The point of changing campus policy is to put available options out there for small and vulnerable minorities - and having a gay guy and a lesbian decide to room together rather than face the sexual tension of rooming with a straight same sex roommate is more about making university a time in which ALL students can choose where to place thier energies and focus rather than some mandatory same-sex bonding.
The third point is either by misunderstanding or sloppy writing which links transgendered with intersex - these are two different conditions; with two different needs and viewpoints. Neither of which is particularly represented here, nor does there appear to be any understanding of the need behind such gender choice housing as the writer leaps into the assumption of why straight men and women will be attracted to these choices and why they SHOULD be stopped. Which I feel misses the whole point of the housing - there are many reasons, dealt with individually - which is why such options should be available - what about someone coming to university who has suffered years of same-sex sibling incest - should they be forced into the same situation from which they are trying to escape? Yes, it is a singular and extreme example, but one which occurs, which is why this group is looking for housing options, not imposed on EVERY student but to make the campus a safe space for EVERY student.
Well, Ms. McClung, I would say that rooming with someone of the opposite gender WOULD be a choice. It is not something for everyone and neither should it be forced onto anyone.
Well Antigone, Andrew_B summed up what I would have said nicely, so I’ll refer you to his comments.
However, re. your statement “And I have never seen Mr. Bad give a rape victim the benefit of the doubt, ever.” that is false. I have nothing but empathy and support for a true rape victim, however, I acknowledge based on my personal, direct experience with these matters, that more often than not allegations of rape are false. Therefore, I don’t not in any way subscribe to the ‘women never lie’ fallacy that many - if not most - feminists do. If that makes me a sexist, then so be it.
You don’t like me presenting my personal experiences - fine, I know that. But how do you feel about all the other people here who present their personal experiences? I have never seen you challenge or otherwise react similarly to stories with themes that you agree with, so I conclude that you don’t object to anecdote per se, you just object to anecdote and ideas that you disagree with. I can only assume that you find them somehow threatening vis-a-vis challenging your deep-seated personal beliefs, biases and predjudices. De rigeur for feminists and leftist types in general. And so it goes.
Can we stay narrowly on topic here, please? Rape is not the topic, neither is feminism.
Andrew B - I am not sure where we differ - the group NSGC is not about enforcing mixed gender rooms but helping universities develop policies so that there are choices in housing - not just enforced same sex housing - some universities have designed a single dorm for those in the four catagories covered above - I think we agree - it is about choice and for most people the choice is traditional university same sex accomadation - what NSGC is trying to make people aware of is that by only having that choice, it puts some students in emotional to phsyical risk and does not promote and equal learning environment.
My issue was that the conclusion of this piece was that “for thier own good” people should be denied choice (or simply ignoring that such choices are needed in the first place).
I support choice in living accomodations. I don’t think first year students should be forced into a living arrangement they’re uncomfortable with. As a student, I’m choosing to rent and share a house with friends to avoid living with a floor full of strangers. For people living in a place they don’t know in an expensive city, this may not be a pragmatic option - campuses should create a range of residence options to meet students’ needs.
I know a lot of people whose experience with their first-year roomate negatively affected many aspects of their life, including their academic success. I’m not convinced that gender had much to do with it - personality conflicts, and the simple fact of two people being crammed into a postage-stamp sized space will drive anyone up the wall.
I do think having some gender-neutral bathrooms on campus is important. Most campuses have enough that some could be converted and still leave enough for people who want same-gender bathrooms to be able to conveniently access them (I’ve heard that the University of Alberta is exploring this option). Being able to go to the bathroom safely and with dignity isn’t a small issue for most trans folks - it’s something most people do more than once a day and people shouldn’t have to feel threatened doing it.
Can we stay narrowly on topic here, please? Rape is not the topic, neither is feminism.
Hugo, sadly you can’t extract feminism completely from the issue of sharing dorms. We’re talking college campuses, we’re talking about an obvious gender-related issue. How soon was it before mermade said:-
Much rape, sadly, occurs on college campuses and I think sharing a room with the opposite sex is just asking for more trouble.
Almost immediately a feminist issue was raised. Nobody questioned it because it was an ‘on-side’ statement, even though you’d only heard of one sexual harrassment case which was later dropped for lack of evidence.
How do you reconcile rape hysteria with mixed dorms?
Whoever brought it up, rape is not the topic here and future posts that attempt to bring it in will be deleted without notice.
Ok Hugo, fine. Rape? Whatever. I’m with you - I wish people would shut up about it too.
However, to say that feminism isn’t, mustn’t - can’t! - be on the table when discussing the topic of co-ed dorms, bathrooms, etc., is truly weird considering that this is at least supposed to be a feminist website. I think that the environment on campus vis-a-vis relations between the sexes is crucial to thinking about whether or not arrangements like you’re suggesting could work, and feminism plays a key role in the environment between the sexes, on campus and in society in general. But hey, if critical examination of feminism is off-limits here, at a feminist site, then I can live by the rules.
Just like I can remove my hat and keep my mouth shut during a church service.
-by making sure people who are uncomfortable about living with the opposite sex (whether because they’re worried about rape or false accusations of rape, I don’t think it matters whether these reasons are valid) don’t have to
-by making sure that if someone in a mixed dorm feels uncomfortable there’s somewhere else they can go.
Mr. Bad - Feminist ideas can be on the table, but making the argument that “Feminism is bad therefore the feminist interpretation of this situation is also bad” is neither a strong argument nor a useful look at the situation. We can use feminism in discussion about the issue without having the same tired argument about whether as a movement and an ideology it’s valid.
Regardless, you’re not talking about a critical examination of feminism (and there’s plenty of threads here where you’ve been allowed to do what you think is critical examination uncensored - so don’t get all huffy that you’re being censored, you’re not). You’re making lame, ad hominem attacks and dodging the issue that people are actually talking about.
You made one point which maybe is valid - that some men might fear false sexual harassment complaints in a mixed sex environment. We could argue for awhile about whether or not this fear is reasonable, but I think it can be resolved by agreeing that men concerned about this should be able to choose a same-gender living situation.
labyrus, nice try but you missed the mark.
First, show me where I made an “ad hominem attack” in this thread; seems to me you’re the one doing so here. Further, I’m not making the argument that “Feminism is bad therefore the feminist interpretation of this situation is also bad” that’s simply you erecting a Strawman. Finally, I’m not “all huffy”, I’m responding to Hugo’s requirement that “Rape is not the topic, neither is feminism” by noting that it’s a weird restriction for a feminist blog. I suppose if I was singing the praises of feminism then the matter would be quite different.
Feminism in all its incarnations and varieties has been the major contributor to the hostile environment for heterosexual men on campus vis-a-vis rape hysteria. This is especially true of the people who populate women’s studies departments. To forbid examination and discussion of that important factor in the formula is akin to forbidding the inclusion of Christianity in a discussion of creationism.
But as I said, critical examination of the effects of the negative aspects of feminism to the topic of discussion, any discussion, seems to be forbidden here. It makes one question the validity of the rntire movement if it will not - indeed, can not - allow critical examination and self-evaluation. Very much like the atmosphere of a fundamentalist religous organization, feminism seems to demand unquestioning and unwavering devotion to the tenets and dogma of the ideaology. And so it goes.
I have seen and been to plenty of co-ed washroom in afterhours places in montreal. They seem to be welcomed by both guys and girls especially since it makes the selling of drugs in the batroom easier (one person can cater to both clients). The good things that could come out of co-ed bathroom is that it could mean the end of the stupid reason for having women only facilities while prohibithing man only facilities. By that I mean things like woman only gym which is usully justified by saying that women feel unconfortable around men that migh ogle at them. Well, if we are expected to accept co-ed washroom and are expected to see no issues there, why should there be issues with co-ed gym.
Well, no, it’s more like forbidding the inclusion of christianity in a discussion of whether you should build a dinosaur museum when there’s creationists objecting to it. It’s related, but if you turn the discussion into a debate about the divinity of Christ you’re missing the point.
(I’d also like to say that as a heterosexual man on a University Campus I don’t feel like there’s any hostility towards me at all. Amd I’m in the social sciences, which is increasingly a majority-female environment.)
labyrus, what do you think of gender ‘agitators’ like on-campus feminists who hold ‘take back the night’ vigils and focus all their energies on issues like rape and sexual harrassment? Do you think their focus is entirely disproportional to reality (which everyone seems to be in agreement here), and that they are in effect placing distrust between men and women (the distrust and fear we talk of in this thread)?
As I said before, I cannot reconcile this kind of agitation with co-ed environments. Even if these messages aren’t directly being given out on-campus, feminist messages are ubiquitous in modern western society.
labyrus said: “Well, no, it’s more like forbidding the inclusion of christianity in a discussion of whether you should build a dinosaur museum when there’s creationists objecting to it. It’s related, but if you turn the discussion into a debate about the divinity of Christ you’re missing the point.”
I see where you’re going here, but in your example there is only one facility, i.e., the m museum, and since Hugo’s advocating changing the whole system your example doesn’t capture the extent of change we’re talking about here. Perhaps there is no good analogy primarily because feminism is fairly unique; IMO it’s a secular religion that our society has been duped into embracing without actually understanding the underlying philosophy and goals of the movement.
Still, because feminism pervades academia - especially faculty and administrations - we can’t understand the male/female dynamic on campus without understanding the influence feminism exerts on it.
It may have worked wonders for you, but extrapolating from that doesn’t work. Some people may need to live with or learn to befriend someone of their own sex; some may need the opposite sex; some may need neither (or both). Same-sex dorm policies pretty much *do* assume that everyone is straight, and the reasons you put forward could makes sense if indeed everyone were straight. Many many college students are not.
An interesting side effect: gay, bi, and lesbian students often get to room with their romantic partners while their straight peers cannot. I have a friend who’s in college now who has been living with her girlfriend, in the dorms, for the past year and a half (freshman year, half of sophomore year). What’s the effect of making this option available to some students and not others?
An interesting side effect: gay, bi, and lesbian students often get to room with their romantic partners while their straight peers cannot. I have a friend who’s in college now who has been living with her girlfriend, in the dorms, for the past year and a half (freshman year, half of sophomore year). What’s the effect of making this option available to some students and not others?
Preferential treatment of recognised victim groups is nothing new. You try making an official complaint about it and then see yourself labelled a ‘homophobe’ simply because you dare question the double standard.
Andrew M, you misunderstand what the “1 in 4″ statistic refers to. I don’t want to derail the thread by discussing it further here, but you can email me if you want to know more.
Hugo wrote:
Hugo, just because some young feminists are working on this issue doesn’t mean that they think bathroom policies are “the most salient form of oppression.” There are many reasons that particular issues end up being worked on at particular times; salience is only one of the relevant factors.
Ideologically, I agree with the idea of gender-blind housing being available, even to froshes. But I worry about practical problems.
There’s a real problem with what happens when young lovers live together in college housing. Of course, this already happens with same-sex relationships; but it would happen on a much larger scale if the heterosexual majority were permitted to move in with their lovers. Are college housing authorities really prepared to deal with a huge increase in the number of students who have an urgent need for room reassignments due to a relationship having broken up, for example?
(When I was in college, heterosexual lovers often did, in practice, live with each other; one would move into the other’s room, leaving their own room more-or-less unused. But this unofficial system did mean that everyone - or, at least, everyone heterosexual - maintained their own residence which they could return to in case of breakup).
Mr. Bad wrote:
In my experience, this reverses the direction of causality. I was rejected by you “regular folks” for being insufficiently masculine many years before I became a feminist.
When I was in college, heterosexual lovers often did, in practice, live with each other; one would move into the other’s room, leaving their own room more-or-less unused. But this unofficial system did mean that everyone - or, at least, everyone heterosexual - maintained their own residence which they could return to in case of breakup
That remains true today. Complementarily, students often temporarily or semi-permanently move into friends’ dorm rooms when they’re having trouble with their roommate, often without bothering to ask for reassingment. I know at least one current student who recently did this for exactly the reason you describe: trouble in a relationship (and sharing a dorm room with partner).
Ampersand wrote: “In my experience, this reverses the direction of causality. I was rejected by you “regular folks” for being insufficiently masculine many years before I became a feminist.”
I suspect that this is mostly based on the historical reality that feminists have been exploiting minorities - especially racial and sexual minorities - for years in order to advance their system of special privileges for women. Feminists have been piggy-backing their causes (petty and otherwise) on the back of real injustice for many decades and you certainly would not be the first to be suckered into to supporting them; been there, done that. Further, my experience is that women - particularly feminist women - are the quickest to throw the slur of “fag,” “gay,” “girlie-man,” etc., if/when men don’t succumb to women’s advances and other exploitation when women try and use their sexual currency to manipulate men. I haven’t heard regular homophobic slurs from men in decades; on the other hand, I hear such things from women at least weekly. IMHO men who are “insufficiently masculine” are deeply threatening to women vis-a-vis their sex-based power and currency, while for het men such guys are at most annoying.
Thus, from my experience it is women, especially feminist women, who are most prone to not only sexism, but homophobia as well. Obviously our personal experiences are quite different.
I wonder why nobody has brought up the obvious question yet. Why doesn’t every student get their own little dorm room? That would take care of most issues.
Andrew M, you misunderstand what the “1 in 4″ statistic refers to. I don’t want to derail the thread by discussing it further here, but you can email me if you want to know more.
Amp, just send a link here - I’ll have a look. I won’t discuss it any further in this thread for the sake of this thread :)
Caltech has had coed housing since practically as soon as they allowed women (I think this was in the ’70s). Three of the six roommates I’ve had here have been male, and only one of those was my boyfriend. I’ve never heard of any trouble about this — people just rearrange if they break up. It makes lots of sense particularly here, since there’s an unequal sex ratio and it’d be much less convenient especially for women if you had to live with someone of the same sex.
Then again, we tend to be pretty relaxed about the housing arrangements. Lots of people don’t live where they say they live. I didn’t realise it was as unusual, though, as the other comments here seem to suggest.
I’m pretty supportive of anti-violence and anti-rape work, but I’m often a bit uneasy about the direction “Take Back The Night” rhetoric takes, since a lot of the time the image of a stranger in the night as a rapist is brought up, and in reality most rapes are commited by someone the victim knows, and women can be in as much danger in their own homes as when they go out at night.
I have never seen men feel victimised or ostracized by take back the night events. Sometimes people are a bit upset to be excluded, but I think viewing this kind of agitation as threating to men is just plain senseless. The on-campus feminist club at my school are a quite friendly group of people and I’ve never seen them engage in any kind of blanket statement negative stereotyping about men.
I don’t think focusing on rape as a serious problem is ever “disproportionate to reality”. One rape happening on a university campus is too many. I think people can often take precautions against it too far, but it’s up to them to decide how much they want to protect their safety.
If there is a gendered “distrust and fear” on campuses, I haven’t seen it. My social group at university includes men and women, people of many orientations, and we don’t have any distrust and fear that I’m aware of.
Mind you, I don’t live in residence, so maybe there’s a part of that experience I’m just not exposed to, but I think the idea of campuses as powderkegs of gendered aggression doesn’t reflect reality. For the most part, men and women have classes together, hang out together, talk to eachother, and seem to get along a lot better than they do in many sectors of society.
labyrus said: “I have never seen men feel victimised or ostracized by take back the night events. Sometimes people are a bit upset to be excluded, but I think viewing this kind of agitation as threating to men is just plain senseless. The on-campus feminist club at my school are a quite friendly group of people and I’ve never seen them engage in any kind of blanket statement negative stereotyping about men.
Heh. On the campus where I did my masters and doctoral work (a major Tier 1 research university) the Take Back the Night chicks wouldn’t let men march with them, and even violently opposed men when they tried to so. Those ‘tolerant’ and ‘diversity-loving’ women even got violent when a MTF transexual who wanted to march; not only did those ‘promoters of peace’ actively oppose the person based on their male genetic sex, but they beat the you-know-what out of them when he/she/they tried to participate in the march. It caused a real scandal which was mostly swept under the rug by the administration and campus news media, but not before the GLBT community ‘outed’ the feminists for their intolerance and violence on a local radio show.
Misandry and intolerance from feminists is very real, even if you insist on taking a head-in-the-sand approach to the issue. Those of us who are not in denial see it regularly.
labyrus said: “If there is a gendered “distrust and fear” on campuses, I haven’t seen it. My social group at university includes men and women, people of many orientations, and we don’t have any distrust and fear that I’m aware of.
I don’t think focusing on rape as a serious problem is ever “disproportionate to reality.”
The only necessary response to that statement is “Duke LaCrosse.”
labyrus said: “Mind you, I don’t live in residence, so maybe there’s a part of that experience I’m just not exposed to, but I think the idea of campuses as powderkegs of gendered aggression doesn’t reflect reality. For the most part, men and women have classes together, hang out together, talk to eachother, and seem to get along a lot better than they do in many sectors of society. “
I agree with the above. Rape on campus is extremely rare, on the order of one or two incidents a year (and many times they are so-called “date rape,” which much of the time isn’t even real rape because the woman doesn’t even consider it rape; it’s usually some professional third-party sexual assault busybody), so IMO the issue of rape on campus is far, far overblown.
But then, YMMV.