It’s finals week, and I have papers and journals a-plenty to grade in the days to come. I’ve learned that if I really want to make progress, I need to go to a coffeeshop (away from campus, the computer, and students knocking on the door) and plough through the stacks of papers and notebooks.
I can’t complain about yesterday’s Rock n’ Roll Marathon. I did run my slowest time ever on a paved surface: 3:54:36.  That’s a twenty-five minute drop from my “average” time of just a couple of years ago (forty-one minutes behind my PR), and in that sense, it’s disappointing. I felt fine for most of the race, just sluggish, as if I couldn’t get my legs to turn over any faster. That, I suppose, is what I get for all the weight I’ve gained and all the speedwork I haven’t done! (Oh, how I wish all of those 800 meter-repeats I did back in 1999 still counted for something!) This summer, Lord willing, I’ll drop some weight, do some speed workouts, and run some shorter races.  I’ve got tentative plans to do the Long Beach Marathon in mid-October, and if I take these steps, I think I can run that a bit faster than I did San Diego yesterday.
I did want to point out that women constituted a majority of the finishers of yesterday’s race; according to the website, 8044 men and 9069 women finished within the alotted seven-hour time period. I’m told that this has become the case at a number of large urban marathons, and that’s a fascinating development. (Men are still a clear majority at the smaller, more trail-oriented distance events that I usually prefer.)  The number of young women running is heartening as well: in a sport often dominated (numerically, at least), by folks old enough to remember Watergate, significantly more women in their twenties finished the race than their forty-something counterparts. The same was not true for men. Here’s some quick number-crunching from the Rock n’ Roll website:
Male finishers, 18-29: 1634
Male finishers, 40-49: 1947.Â
Female finishers, 18-29: 3246
Female finishers, 40-49: 1688
I mean, wow. That tells me something about the future of the sport I love! Of runners in their forties, more men finished than women, despite the fact that there were more female runners than male runners in the overall race. But among runners under thirty, women outnumbered men almost two to one!
I lack the will to visit every other marathon website and see if what we saw in San Diego yesterday is reflective of a pattern across the nation. But I see no reason to see the San Diego race as remarkably anomalous. It leaves me wondering several things, however. Where are all the young men? Why are there more men in their forties running than guys in their twenties, when the opposite is true for women? What will this mean for marathoning and other endurance activities in future generations?
Obviously, “older” women had cultural and social obstacles to running that younger women don’t. A gal in her twenties cannot remember a time when women weren’t running marathons; anyone over forty is old enough to remember that the women’s marathon only became an Olympic event in 1984. (The winner of that race, Joan Benoit Samuelson, gave us all a pep talk before yesterday’s run.) The increased emphasis on women’s sports in recent years has paid tremendous dividends for women under thirty, apparently, in ways that may not have been true for those two decades older. Some women in their late forties would not have seen Title IX implemented until after they had left high school; younger women today may take access to athletics for granted.
But while this may explain why so many young women are doing what their older sisters and mothers didn’t, it doesn’t explain why there are so many fewer young American men marathoning. Is it the discipline involved? Marathoning doesn’t offer a quick pay-off; there is no equivalent here of a touchdown, a slam-dunk, a cool skateboading trick. There is pain and sacrifice for months and months, culminating in an event that tests the will as much as anything else. Does that seem strikingly unappealing to a generation that would rather play Grand Theft Auto?Â
Off to grade, rest my sore muscles, and contemplate a summer of high-intensity training.
The Grand Theft Auto crack was uncalled for, I think.
My guess is that the difference is due to athletic culture in the U.S., and the varying reasons people participate in sports. I don’t have any stats to back this up, but it would seem to me that younger men are the demographic least likely to have physical fitness as their primary reason for participation (they have few major health concerns yet, and don’t face body-image issues to the same degree as women their age). Other factors that might affect it are the availability of other sports (young men having more “culturally acceptable” options available) and differing senses of empowerment from completing a marathon.
Athletic events have become a trend amongst women my age to regain or establish self-esteem. I have a number of friends who run triathalons and things like that and mostly they explain that it’s a way of overcoming internalized sexism that tells them that women can’t set goals and make them. After you accomplish that, then you believe that you can do things for yourself instead of relying on men to do them for you.
Me? I dunno–maybe I feel ahead of the curve, having done for myself for a longer time now.
Do you have any guess as to what fraction of the runners were doing Team in Training or similar groups? My sense is that there’s a very female-oriented social scene of training for and running marathons at relatively slow paces (say 5-7 hours) that doesn’t appeal to many men.
It will be interesting to see what the breakdown by gender and age looks like in 10 or 20 years. I ran 3 marathons in my 20s, but haven’t run one since — because I’ve had two babies. And even setting aside the physical issues of running while pregnant, I just can’t justify the time that training for a marathon would take.
Jeff, I think that we are seeing a rise in male body image anxiety; the research (I’ve blogged it before, need to find the link) suggests that men are worried more at younger ages than in earlier generations. Still, you may be right…
Elizabeth, I did see many Team in Training folks; it looked like there were several thousand of them. A few of them were quite fast, finishing well ahead of me, but most were back-of-the-packers, as you suggest; they did appear to be disproportionately female. I don’t know if there were enough of them to skew all of the demographics, however.
I do a lot of my best grading in coffee shops, for exactly the same reasons. Good luck, Hugo!
I was a fairly serious distance runner in my teens and twenties, although I tended to run 3 – 10 mile races rather than marathons. A big attraction of the sport for me was that it didn’t require any hand-eye coordination; I think that reason has a direct correlation to my gender (female) since hand-eye coordination is a learned skill that many women were not encouraged to develop as children.
Another big attraction for me in distance running is that it is a sport in which I could regularly defeat men, even young relatively athletic men. I remember once coming in ahead of a group of very young, very strong, very buff Marines in a 5 mile road race when I was just a 110 pound teenage girl; they weren’t very happy but I thought it was great.
CMC, I’m with you on the hand-eye thing.
Ugh. My firm wants me to take some clients out golfing — a sure way to convince said clients that I am completely incompetent as a human being!
Hugo and Elizabeth, you have all my respect for running marathons; I could never have that kind of patience!
I wonder if it relates to the way athletic training is done now at younger ages. My dad loved running marathons (his arthritis pretty much limits him to five miles now), and he learned this love of of long, slow distances from his training in boxing and football as a kid. Now, interval training is recognized as being more efficient, and distance running isn’t used very often (if at all) for cross-training or stamina buildup.
I used to go to a lot of marathons and ultras with my dad, and ride my bike along with him. Most of the guys it seemed, came out of a running background, or another sports background but discovered that they really enjoyed the running more. Most of the women it seemed, came to running as adults from a non-sporting background and started running for weight-loss, health, or mental discipline, and then kept it up because they liked it and were good at it (‘cuz let’s face it, no one runs marathons strictly for weight loss! You have to have a love for hours of running.).
Coming late to this thread because I haven’t read your blog for a while…
Firstly, even if your time was slow for you I’m still dead impressed because it’s way faster than I’ll ever be (assuming I actually ever run a marathon, which I’m thinking of doing next year).
Secondly, this ties into something that I keep meaning to blog about and being too lazy to do so: most of the runners I know are women. A few weeks ago I took part in the biggest 10k women-only road race in Britain, the Glasgow Women’s 10k. Yet you try finding running clothing, shoes and equipment for women in any kind of mainstream sports shop, even in Glasgow. I know of only one generic sports shop in Glasgow that sells such things, and none in the Stoke-on-Trent area, where I’m currently living. Admittedly, most “sports” shops in Britain sell clothing that’s only any good for (rather tacky) fashion – you certainly wouldn’t want to do sports in it. Yet most do sell some “real” sporting equipment in their (extensive) men’s section. JJB Sports in Glasgow actually has a “running” section – containing only men’s clothing! The women’s section of the shop – as in all sports shops I know – is perhaps a sixth of the area of the shop floor, and predominantly pink.
Clearly, women don’t really run…
Hugo,
What I would be more interested in is normalized data, specifically, what percentage of male vs. female runners who started the race actually finished. For me, the difference in raw numbers between men and women finishers is uninteresting because it may simply reflect of the proportion of men and women who entered the race in the first place. Yawn.
Relevant to the “Grand Theft Auto” crack, you might have a point: Those young men who are more interested in playing GTA than running tedious, boring marathons (I can relate because I used to be a competetive distance swimmer) are probably the same ones who figure out how to beat it by hacking or otherwise reprogramming the game, and then go on to be software engineers who could buy and sell the typical college professor 100 times over with just a bachelor’s degree (if that). And they’d probably laugh all the way to the bank after watching you sweat it out in the hot sun.
Well, Mr. Bad, I neither run nor teach for profit. I run for joy, because, in all my time on this earth, I have never known anything quite like running long distance.
The numbers I quote above are of course of finishers only. IF you go to the link I include, it gives the number of registrants versus finishers. I know of no evidence that suggests that women DNF marathons at a higher rate than men.
Birdwoman, have you considered using the internet for ordering shoes and kit? It’s often the best option, though not being able to try things on is frustrating.
Birdwoman,
That’s related, in an indirect way, to a frustration I have. I would *love* to find something that’s actually MODEST to wear when ref’ing soccer. The shorts they include in ref uniforms are definitely meant for men and are not modest when worn by women. And since I wear mostly dresses/skirts, it would be nice to find at least a skort to wear when ref’ing. The closest I can find are tennis skirts, which, again, are NOT modest. Not by the farthest stretch of the imagination.
Well Hugo, I suspect that those young men playing Grand Theft Auto are like you, i.e., not playing the game “for profit,” but instead doing so for their own personal “joy,” so what was your point with that comment? As far as I can tell, the whole point of this thread is to provide a vehicle for you and your (predominantly feminist) audience to indulge in the kind of hackneyed female chauvanism we’ve come to expect.
Do you offer any proof that your tacit assumption that training for marathons somehow takes more “discipline,” “pain and sacrifice for months and months,” or that developing the skill to successfully execute a “touchdown, a slam-dunk, a cool skateboading trick” somehow takes less dedication, effort, conditioning, etc., than training for marathons? No. You simply expect us to go along with you on this. I say bullshit.
What I think is happening is that those young men who might run the marathon are instead playing sports that are simply more interesting to them like basketball, football, soccer, rugby, hockey, etc., etc. But don’t worry, by the time they get to your status of middle-age they probably will give up the more stressful (and IMO likely demanding) sports they’ve played and joined the more sedate, senior ranks of marathon runners. I think that could explain the age distribution of finishers as much as your hypothesis, and I’ve offered as much evidence for my theory as you have.
Now, I couldn’t get the site to do the kind of search I wanted (i.e., percentage of starters who finished), but it does give the top finishers in various classes, and in all cases, men beat women hands-down.
For example, of the top ten times, all are men. The best woman(Gete Wami, age 30, from Ethiopia, time = 2:30:55) comes in a whopping 12 minutes behind the tenth place man (Michael Rotich, age 22, from Kenya, time = 2:18:03), yet she get $20 grand and a vehicle and he only gets $1K. To me, what this says is that all Title IX has done is get us to celebrate mediocrity just because the people are women. Yawn. Just like the WNBA. Double yawn. Zzzzzzz.
I like Title IX, but I think that it should be enforced according to its original intent, that being addressing equality of BOTH women AND men in all aspects of education, not just sports. Maybe then we wouldn’t have the gender gap in education that currently has women outpacing men in almost every category except sports.
Mr. Bad, I’m not going to respond to the absurd assertion that men and women ought to compete against each other in marathons. I’ll be the first to acknowledge that biological differences mean that men and women will have different abilities in many sports. (Not all: auto racing, archery, and equestrian events have men and women compete against each other at high levels.) I celebrate women’s sports and men’s sports alike.
I love women’s softball — I have the game on in the background right now, as UCLA goes for another title. It’s such a different game from men’s baseball that it isn’t worth comparing the two. (I like the way pitching dominates softball, however.) The doctrine of separate but equal may be lousy for race, but it works just fine for sports.
I love that you think running a marathon (for time, mind you) is sedate. When you’ve got a 3:13 marathon under your belt, talk to me about “sedate.” I seriously doubt you’ve ever run a marathon for time.
But I suspect you’re baiting me, and have succeeded. I remain perplexed why, however, you enjoy trolling my blog. Surely the musings of the middle-aged and disillusional have little interest for you?
Hi Hugo,
So you agree that men and women are different and that there are some things that men are better at than women? Well, that’s a start. Perhaps now we can someday address some of the foolishness that goes on the workplace, e.g., ‘dumbing-down’ firefighter, police, military, etc., tests so that women can pass them and get a job? For the record, I don’t advocate eliminating separate categories for men’s and women’s sports, it’s people like Anika Sorenstam, et al. who do. Question: Why does it seem that only women are allowed to challenge only men’s sports teams? Why shouldn’t men be allowed to compete directly against women in, e.g., volleyball? Or softball?
As far as marathoning is concerned, frankly, compared to, e.g., soccer, rugby, and basketball (all sports that involved runnning) it is sedate. Sorry if you don’t like it, but there it is. And you’re correct, I have never run marathons, but as I mentioned before, I used to swim competetively, and I would never compare the 1000 meter freestyle to a game of water polo; the same applies to a marathon vs. basketball or soccer. Plus, with the latter two one has the added factor of teamwork, which despite insulting characterizations from some femininsts, men are quite good at.
Finally, the reason I “troll” your blog is because it’s my way of fighting back against the unfair, unjust and insulting misinformation promulgated by modern Third Wave (and newer) feminists, and you are a particularly dangerous and problematic type, a college professor who has the ability to use the classroom to proselytize to and indoctrinate young people (you have admitted this in other threads, e.g., the one where you stated that your goal was to create the next generation of feminists). An example of the kind of insulting, unfair stereotypes you use to accomplish this are found in this thread: You slammed the kid who plays “Grand Theft Auto” for fun, failing to see that playing that game might have any intrinsic value at all, and instead using it to simultaneously stroke your ego vis-a-vis marathons and perpetuate a negative stereotype of young men. I pointed out that such activities are often the stimulus for a lifetime of learning and success, in that case learning computer code in order to master a bit of software. I know several very successful software engineers who started out as archtypical “geeks” in their momma’s basement playing video games, all the while learning the intricacies and nuances of computer code. On the other hand, you only see such boys as vehicles for advancing personal and political objectives. I find that kind of exploitation reprehensible and therefore vigorously advocate for the complete elimination of women’s studies departments at public colleges and universities. But in the meantime, I fight such things by trolling your website and others until you feminists either become decent, civilized human beings or disappear from our society altogether. The outcome is up to you and your fellow feminists.
Well, that’s a start. Perhaps now we can someday address some of the foolishness that goes on the workplace, e.g., ‘dumbing-down’ firefighter, police, military, etc., tests so that women can pass them and get a job?
Are you kidding? On the fire dept I was on, the women were the ones scoring higher on any test. The guys on the dept were too “macho” to pay attention in classes… or to follow directions on scene on occasion.
Of course, it’s a volunteer dept. And the women involved needed to hurry up and get done so we could get home to our kids. So we listened to what Wink told us, followed his instructions, and got to go home.
You slammed the kid who plays “Grand Theft Auto” for fun, failing to see that playing that game might have any intrinsic value at all, and instead using it to simultaneously stroke your ego vis-a-vis marathons and perpetuate a negative stereotype of young men. I pointed out that such activities are often the stimulus for a lifetime of learning and success, in that case learning computer code in order to master a bit of software.
Would you like to know my former-Marine/Linux guru/Mennonite/cowboy/farmer husband’s opinion of games like Grand Theft Auto, and of learning to crack software instead of learning to hack good code? These things add to current society’s predelection for cheating, for stealing, for taking advantage of others, for doing as one wishes without concern for the consequences to others. I could go on, but he’s not here at the moment to rant about it while I type.
There are better ways to learn code than by becoming a neophyte cracker. There are people out there who can teach actual GOOD code, rather than all the scrip-kiddie mess that he has to try to read on a daily basis so that he can fix it and turn it into neat, orderly, GOOD, functional code.
I fight such things by trolling your website and others until you feminists either become decent, civilized human beings or disappear from our society altogether
At least you’re finally admitting to being a troll.
Word, Caitriona. I used to love winning bets about whether or not I could cut 500kcmil with a non-ratcheting “rabbit gun”. Eventually, they got tired of buying me lunch. In those few instances where “lower standards” exist, I’m about fully convinced they’re there for the benefit of that select group of small-minded men who can’t stand to admit that a smaller female can accomplish the same work they can. In my city, all firefighters pass the same test, regardless of gender.
What I really love, is the “but you’re not a real woman” defense. It is to laugh for.
In those few instances where “lower standards” exist, I’m about fully convinced they’re there for the benefit of that select group of small-minded men who can’t stand to admit that a smaller female can accomplish the same work they can. In my city, all firefighters pass the same test, regardless of gender.
Not in my neck of the woods. Here, in both volunteer and city fire departments, and police departments as well, men and women must pass different physical tests to be eligible for “hire.” The physical standards, just as in many sports, are lower for women. Written tests? Sure.. same test for everyone.
Having different physical requirments implies different levels of ability in certain types of physical tasks. In general, the average woman simply cannot perform the same level of work at these tasks (which we must assume pay the same)anymore than women are expected to compete on the same playing field in marathons or football. Of course you might be built like Arnold Schwarzenegger in drag and have no problem at all at either one.
Comparing these jobs against your job is like comparing apples and oranges. Working out of the hall, there are no physical requirements for apprentices or journeymen. I can’t think of too many electrical construction tasks that cannot be performed by someone of either sex with moderate physical strength. If there was one, your foreman probably would not assign it to you, or more likely, assign an apprentice or two to help you with it. Lifting tools are by contract, provided. That applies whether you are male or female… No contractor wants to see you or anyone else hurt on the job because his foreman gave you a job beyond your physical ability to execute it.
Caitriona wrote: “There are better ways to learn code than by becoming a neophyte cracker. There are people out there who can teach actual GOOD code, rather than all the scrip-kiddie mess that he has to try to read on a daily basis so that he can fix it and turn it into neat, orderly, GOOD, functional code.”
Settle down Caitriona. What I said was (directly quoting) “that such activities are often the stimulus for a lifetime of learning and success, in that case learning computer code in order to master a bit of software.” I was clear that this was not a substitute for good, solid, formal education. The software engineers I mentioned all went to top-notch Research I universities, so your husband would hopefully approve. And who knows – maybe some of them have had to fix code that came from your husband’s keyboard? As I’m sure he would agree, no code is perfect, and most can always benefit from regular review and revision.
As for the kind of testing I was referring to above, Michael has covered that issue nicely. And like his experience, mine is that physical standards are lower for women, and because of this they are not assigned the same tasks (thank goodness!) that stronger men are. However, they are paid the same as the men who have to abide by the higher standards. Go figure.
I loved this one: Hugo said “The doctrine of separate but equal may be lousy for race, but it works just fine for sports.”
“Separate but equal” – that’s right out of the Jim Crow south. I’ve always suspected that much of what feminists are into these days is creating and enforcing a system of gender Jim Crow – or what I like to term “Jane Crow” – and now at least a (relatively) prominent feminist has admitted it. Jane Crow – cool!
What next, separate drinking fountains, restuarants, schools (oops, in the U.S. we already have many all-women schools but none left for men)?
Michael: Believe it or not, I’m not built like Arnold Schwartzenegger in drag, but I can still lift a whole helluva lot of weight—a lot more than what appearances would tend to indicate.
I knew when I entered the trade that unless I stepped up to the plate and proved my strength, that I wouldn’t get respect nor would I be given the same opportunities for a well-rounded apprenticeship education. It doesn’t serve a female apprentice if she never learns how to run 4″ rigid, because later on when she’s a journeyman, that can limit her employment.
I have no problem with the idea that people should have to meet bona-fide job requirements in order to have a job, even if that results in fewer women being hired for that job. What I have a problem with is the assumption that a woman can’t perform a particular assignment because she’s a woman, or the old “gee, my wife couldn’t do that, therefore all women can’t do that” line of argument. I also have a problem with non-bona-fide job requirements…like, remember the old height requirements of police and fire departments? That wasn’t to keep women out, but to keep males of certain ethnicities out.
You’re right; you don’t need to be King Kong to work in the trades. But that trope is still trotted out every so often, which intimidates a lot of young women from thinking about entering the trades. And frankly, it’s not a stereotype I’m hearing much of from brothers on the job, but from desk-jockeys who seem to be more threatened by women being in nontradtional work environments. Most brothers on the job (barring a minority of knuckle-draggers) take the attitude of “if she can do the work, more power to her.” Unfortunately, that attitude doesn’t extend to the superintendents who haven’t even seen hand tools in over twenty years….
Sigh. I know I could pass the firefighters test, but I’m too damn old to test, now. When I was younger, it was “boom time”, so I never even thought about it (and even if I had, the fire department wasn’t taking applications then, anyway). Now the Boomers are retiring.
Thing is, a lot more women have the potential to do this type of work than is assumed, but societal stereotypes keep women, particularly younger women, from thinking about doing so. Think about your “Arnold Schwartzenegger” crack. A lot of women won’t weight-train for fear of looking “musclebound” or “looking like a guy”, when that’s simply not going to happen.
Self magazine ran an article several years ago (I thought I saved it, but I haven’t been able to find it!) about a study the military did on the feasibility of bringing women up to the level where they could perform the heaviest-duty jobs. And what they found was, they could. They basically found that they needed to alter the training program for women to include more weight-training and weight-bearing exercises (less aerobic training), and more protein (fewer starches) in the diet. They also accelerated the progression of heavier weights and higher-intensity training than they did for men (because women tend to be not-as-fit to begin with, so they make faster gains). This study surprised a lot of people, but it probably didn’t surprise too many people in a gym or a dojo; they’ve seen the same dynamic happen IRL too often!
I don’t have time to look right now, Mr. Bad, but this site has a list of single-sex schools in the US.
Hi Caitriona,
Thanks for that link. What that site shows is that there are a few (less than ten, I believe) private single sex schools, and those accomodate both boys and girls, and no public single-sex schools that accomodate boys. All of the public single-sex schools are girls-only. I personally think that private schools should be able to do what they want, but that public schools should be compelled to abide by the Civil Rights Act and Title IX, and thus, be forced to provide equal opportunity and facilities for boys; either that or eliminate all of the girls-only public schools.
Also, in my previous post I was thinking in terms of colleges and universities, and I think that you’ll find that there are no men-only schools of that type. The last one (The Citadel) was forced to go co-ed about 10 years ago. However, there are still many women-only colleges and universities, but since they’re private I suppose I don’t have a problem with them as long as they don’t recieve any Federal grant or other monies. If they do, they should be compelled to abide by The Civil Rights Act and Title IX and thus either go co-ed or be eliminated.
It’s only fair.
Thing is, a lot more women have the potential to do this type of work than is assumed, but societal stereotypes keep women, particularly younger women, from thinking about doing so. Think about your “Arnold Schwartzenegger” crack. A lot of women won’t weight-train for fear of looking “musclebound” or “looking like a guy”, when that’s simply not going to happen.
When my daughter was an apprentice, one of her biggest problems was her boyfriend. He hated the idea that she was doing the blue collar thing. She’d come home in the evenings with her dirty jeans, carhart jacket and tool belt over her shoulder and it drove him crazy. Said it made her look like a man…
Probably the biggest factor in her not getting her ticket..
It was a factor in my divorce, too. The determining factor was that I didn’t want to live with his alcoholism or abuse any longer, but he consistently denigrated my occupation (this, even as he lived off the proceeds), and I could always count on him starting an argument while I was studying—especially before a test. He would completely lose it—I mean, frothing at the mouth lose it—when he saw me hit the books. He would hurl textbooks across the room, rip up my paperwork, everything. It wasn’t just the physical factor of the dirt/”man’s work”; but the mental factor of the math/visual-spatial stuff, which he had no aptitude for. He lost it before I entered the apprenticeship too, when I was studying (doh! I never realized studying could present a problem—hell, we met in college, fercryinoutloud!), but that trend amplified when I entered the Local.
I’ve met several women in the trades who had the similar problems (though few had the extreme version I was dealt!). The most successful relationships I’ve seen women in the trades have, is when their husband is also in in the trades. I don’t think that’s a coincidence.
I can remember my mother’s 2nd husband becoming abusive when she decided to go into nursing, rather than continue doing factory work, as he was doing. He kept telling her that she was trying to “raise herself above her raising.” Actually, she was raising herself above *HIS* raising, not her own. He was too insecure with his own lack of education (and acted proud of the fact that he barely graduated high school due to slacking off) to deal well with her going on to college. Needless to say, that marriage didn’t work out.
LaLubu and Caitriona,
Wow, your stories re. past husbands are shocking. Personally, I can’t imagine why any man – or person for matter – would be so opposed to their partner (female or male) improving themselves through education. It boggles this mind.
I’m glad to hear that you got out of those relationships and persevered. Good show!
Mr. Bad,
I keep trying to tell you, you live in a totally different world than I do. The subculture in which I live now is slightly different than the one in which I grew up, but it’s still different than the one about which you write.
Also, in my previous post I was thinking in terms of colleges and universities, and I think that you’ll find that there are no men-only schools of that type.
Mr. Bad, you’ve got your facts wrong again. Look up Wabash College in Indiana (for a fairly conventional example) and Deep Springs (for an unconventional one). I think there are a couple of others, but I can’t remember their names.
Thanks for that djw,
Wabash college is indeed “one of the few remaining liberal arts colleges for men.” Still, men have far fewer choices for single-sex colleges than do women, and I think that’s the main issue (because Title IX and The Civil Rights Act both address issues of equal opportunity).
What also concerns me greatly is whether or not the all-male colleges receive public financial support, and if so, if it is comparable to what all-female colleges receive. From the looks of it, I’m doubtful.
And finally, when perusing the websites of Wabash and (moreso) Deep Springs, I sense a resemblance to Military Academies (not DOD schools, but schools for deliinquent young men). If they are such schools, then I don’t think that they would be comparable to, say, Smith or Radcliffe, so I would not be inclined to count them as ‘equal’ to those two.
Mr. Bad, Deep Springs is a really unique place (I have a friend who went there), but it is anything but a school for ‘delinquents’. Because of the tiny, tiny size of the student body, and the reputation for placing students in the best colleges in the world after they graduate (it’s a two-year school), and the fact that all students who are admitted are granted a full tuition/room/board scholarship, it is among the most selective and competitive schools in the country. Only those students with exceptional grades and test scores, as well as a strong leadership profile have any chance of getting in. I can see why you’d think that, though, as the communal atmosphere, emphasis on physical labor and discipline and so on.
IIRC, the students at DS have an extraordinary amount of decision making power, and they have the ability to end the men-only policy. Apparently it’s a hotly debated issue most years, with prominent alums weighing in on both sides, and they’ve come close to switching to co-ed on a number of occasions, but have never quite got the votes.
I’m sure your larger point–that there are more sex-segregated college opportunities for women than men in the US–is surely correct, although I’m equally sure we disagree on the importance or significance of this fact. I strongly suspect there is a pretty big gap in demand, but I’m not in a position to demonstrate this beyond anecdotal observations so I won’t pursue this point. (Besides, while I concede a number of points to the feminist case for women’s-only colleges, at the end of the day I think the drawbacks outweigh the benefits so this isn’t my fight anyway.)
As the son of a mother who graduated from Vassar when it was single-sex, and as a teacher who has sent countless bright young women off to the likes of Smith, Mills, Scripps, and so forth, I am a passionate defender of single-sex education. A post will eventually have to appear on the subject!
I should mention that I don’t think Smith/Wabash type places are a serious problem for justice and I wouldn’t support any sort of policy to withhold federal funds. I just wouldn’t recommend them to my promising students or friends. This is probably about 40% my views on the ideal purposes of the college experience and my particular views on feminism, and 60% on what I’ve heard from those who attended women’s only schools. And I say this as a keen observer of male privilege in the deliberative context of the classroom. I’ll shut up now and wait for your post.
I too defend single-sex education and wish that young men had the same opportunity to persue it that women do. That’s the crux of my complaint about the current state of affairs: There is no equal opportunity, and IMO this is in violation of Title IX and The Civil Rights Act. I only hope that the Dept. of Education learns to enforce Title IX in the way it was originally intended, mandating equal opportunity for women and men in all aspects of education, not just sports.
Mr. bad, Radcliffe hasn’t existed as a women’s college for decades, not to impugn your credibility or anything…
Mr. Bad–what do you think should be done? I’m curious here. Should the government set up a dozen or so male-only liberal arts colleges? Or demand that 80% or so of the women’s colleges go co-ed so it’s equal? Or provide incentives for the creation of new men’s colleges? Give Wabash and other men’s colleges a bunch of money to for scholarships, better faculty, etc. to make closer in quality to Smith and Mt. Holyoke? What if my hunch is correct and there is just a lot more demand for women’s colleges than men’s? After all, according to their grade/SAT stats, Wabash isn’t terribly selective, and they maintain a pretty small size. If there was a huge unmet demand for men’s colleges, you’d think there’d be a lot more competition for those 250 slots.
For what it’s worth, I’ve never transferred a student to Wabash. I’ve never had one express interest, and I’ve mentioned it in my men and masculinity classes.
We do have some all-male Catholic high schools here in LA that are well-regarded, and their alumni seem happy with the experience they had. (I’ve taught several, particularly from St Francis in La Canada). None showed any desire for an all-male environment. Now, if there were all-male schools located closer than Indiana, they might have been more interested — but I doubt it. I’ll try and post on this next week.
I doubt anyone disputes the fact that the best men will always outdo the best women in certain physical activities. Nonetheless, I strongly suspect that many of the differences in the physical fitness requirements for men and women in police and fire departments are completely unnecessary. I reviewed the fitness standards for my state’s police academy recently, and I believe that any reasonably fit woman who trains for the test a little bit should be able to hit the meet the men’s fitness requirements; I am sure I could and I am no superjock.
I remember thinking the same thing about the Presidential Physical Fitness Test when I was a kid; I found the lower standards for girls grossly exaggerated and positively demeaning. There is a book called The Frailty Myth that addresses this issue.
Mr. Bad–what do you think should be done? I’m curious here. Should the government set up a dozen or so male-only liberal arts colleges? Or demand that 80% or so of the women’s colleges go co-ed so it’s equal? Or provide incentives for the creation of new men’s colleges?
Actually there have been many male only academies in the last two centuries. Most of them met their demise at the hands of activists (in the last 70 years) that felt that the exclusion of women was unfair.
I don’t think there is a stampede of guys trying to gain admittance (Justice Department style) to all women colleges. There has never been any serious outcry or debate about it that I can recall..
A few years ago, a black activist here in my town thought it would be a great idea to open a male only private academy in the 4th Ward, a predominantly poor black urban area, in the hopes of mentoring these youth and giving them a leg up going to college. It was felt that the male only “prep” school would foster a learning environment that would help these kids concentrate and excel.
The outcry was immediate and hostile. All of it surrounding the issue of admissions based on sex. The school never opened…
The solution would be, as in women’s colleges, for society to accept the fact that single sex schools and colleges can be a beneficial thing for both sexes and to stop going rabid at the thought of an all male establishment..
I actually think the best question is not “are all-male institutions ok” or “are single-sex institutions ok,” but “in which cases do single-sex institutions foster healthy growth and break down inequality, and in which cases do they hinder healthy growth or uphold inequality.” It’s kind of silly to act as if Harvard or UVA being all-male is the same as setting up an all-male academy in the inner city.
I actually think the best question is not “are all-male institutions ok” or “are single-sex institutions ok,” but “in which cases do single-sex institutions foster healthy growth and break down inequality, and in which cases do they hinder healthy growth or uphold inequality.”
Ah yes.. good point. The “foster’s healthy growth” is probably pretty easy. But breaking down inequality or upholding inequality are in the eye of the beholder.
Whether deserving or not, all male academies seem to automatically bring to mind the upholding inequality, while women’s colleges seem to default to the breaking down… at least with feminists..
I doubt either are entirely true in this day and age..
I just find it difficult to understand the duality of thought in that feminists see the value of women’s colleges as such bastions of freedom and equality, while simultaneously seeing all male institutions as inherently sexist and eliteist.
I assure you I have no problem, from a pro-feminist perspective, with all-male PRIVATE institutions (Wabash). I have a big problem with those that serve a public function (like VMI), and fought hard against admitting women.
“Nonetheless, I strongly suspect that many of the differences in the physical fitness requirements for men and women in police and fire departments are completely unnecessary”
now if i was a criminal, i’d probably have notions that no 120# woman/man was going to stand in my way. and if my 275# mass were dead weight in a burning building i’d be pretty sore if a similar 120# woman/man were my only option of being saved (perhaps if the case were only in the nick of time, but shit happens). don’t get me wrong, if a 120# woman/man were to save or protect my ass i would be just greatful regardless their sex. but if it takes an approx. 200# person to fulfill needs of safety and rescue, a man more then likely meets that need. i don’t see where a women can run a mile as quick or do as many pull-ups, sit-ups, and pushups as a man meets the “need” (how many 200# women are fit?). so i guess i agree with you CMC.
Interesting. Maybe it’s just because I knew a fair number of guys who went to pretty brutal, nasty all-male Catholic schools, but I’m just as concerned about the “fostering healthy growth” bit with all-male schools. I did part of my education at an all-girls school, and while I have mixed feelings about the experience, there wasn’t anything like the relentless tormenting of non-conformists that went on at our “brother” school.
I’m not sure that I think the distinction is really between public and private institutions. I think it was a problem when the most elite private universities in America were all-male, although in some ways it was a less galling problem than all-male public schools. (And I actually meant UVA, not VMI. My mom graduated from high school in 1961 and wasn’t able to attend UVA, her state’s flagship university, because it didn’t admit women undergrads until 1970. It wasn’t the crime of the century, especially given all the other exclusions in Virginia’s education system, but it still kind of pisses her off.) And I would be open to the possibility of single-sex public schools, especially considering the specific educational disadvantages that inner-city boys seem to face. I guess that my problem with single-sex public schools is that they sometimes seem to base their pedagogy on a lot of sketchy, essentialist ideas about how boys and girls learn.
joe, I can just about guarantee that in a fire, if you were a 275-pound injured person, there’d be more than one firefighter hauling you out of there, even if theoretically one XXL firefighter could carry you!
See, there is such a thing as bona-fide job requirements. Here, I know the “dummy” for the test is 150 pounds. In a fire rescue, the person you are most likely to have to save isn’t a 275-pound injured adult (even though, yes, we do make ‘em big out here in the midwest!), but a child. The test dummy is weighted to represent the average-sized adult. And keep in mind that fire tends to weaken the building structure, which can put heavier firefighters at risk.
In the U.S., we tend to think “bigger is better”, and that isn’t necessarily the case. A crucial task for firefighters is the ability to go up and down stairs quickly. This is more easily accomplished by an average-sized person than by a size extra-large person, even if both are fit.
The question shouldn’t be “who can lift the most weight” but “who can perform the tasks necessary to the job”. The real tasks necessary to the job, not the Hollywood imagery. In the meantime, I’ll take the word of what actual firefighters say is necessary for their job.
Interesting replies above.
Re. the issue of relative interest of men in all-male schools, the same argument has been re. women in science and engineering, i.e., that they’re not as interested such things as they are, e.g., social sciences. But I find the feminist (and establishment, which IMO is feminist these days) responses to both issues (all-male schools vs. women in science and engineering) duplicitous and inconsistent, which exemplify the biases they hold. For women, there is concern and actions, but for men, dismissal and excuses to keep the status quo.
Finally, joe raises excellent points and I have to agree with him. Regardless of whether or not the most common scenario requires carrying a kid, there are many cases where it’s required to carry adult victims, so I think the strength requirement is appropriate.
Oh, I agree that there ought to be a strength requirement. I just think that the strength requirement ought to represent the average scenario, rather than the extreme one. The 150-pound test dummy seems about right. (I think the one the city uses for linemen’s climbing school is 165 pounds—they may use the same dummy for the firefighter’s test. I just know that it’s at least 150 pounds).
I assure you I have no problem, from a pro-feminist perspective, with all-male PRIVATE institutions (Wabash). I have a big problem with those that serve a public function (like VMI), and fought hard against admitting women.
And why is that?
The only difference here was that VMI was state supported. VMI is an example of a [previously] all male academy that was doing good work in training young men in military academics. The all male nature of it was a tradition since the 1800’s and was an intrinsic part of the nature of the education it was providing.
If you see the value in single sex schools in the private sector, how can you deny the value of it in the public sector as well? Would you have the same reservations about a public supported women’s academy? Yes, I realize that pretty much all the public women’s colleges are coed these days, but is that necessarily a good thing?
The only difference here was that VMI was state supported.
And VMI could have preserved its traditions by refusing state support. To do otherwise is like a teenager who says “Dad, I hate you! By the way, can I have a bigger allowance?”
Yes, I realize that pretty much all the public women’s colleges are coed these days, but is that necessarily a good thing?
Yes. Of course, I’m pretty unconvinced of the benefit of single-sex schools, given the utter inability of their proponents to separate out the effects of economic and social class on the results.
Unlike mythago, I am convinced of the benefit of single-sex schools, just as I am convinced of the benefits of evangelical Christian faith. I see no reason, however, why either should be subsidized by the state.
Unlike mythago, I am convinced of the benefit of single-sex schools, just as I am convinced of the benefits of evangelical Christian faith. I see no reason, however, why either should be subsidized by the state.
Because, like coed colleges and universities, single sex schools educate the public which is of benefit to society (and corporate interests). The same benefits society gets from say, funding your employer…
In this context, I fail to see the connection between a branch of religious faith and an institution of higher learning..
just as I am convinced of the benefits of evangelical Christian faith
Religion is a fine area in which to rely on faith and personal feeling. Statistics about education, and what kinds of education are successful, is not an area where faith is all you need.
And VMI could have preserved its traditions by refusing state support. To do otherwise is like a teenager who says “Dad, I hate you! By the way, can I have a bigger allowance?”
More like “Dad, I’m Gay! By the way, can I have a bigger allowance?”
I must admit, single sex education, while it might be good for some people, for me would be a non-starter. I like all that distraction you women provide
I suspect we women aren’t quite as distracting when we’re in class with you day in and day out, as opposed to being mythical creatures who are only seen on rare occasions and then only for dates.
More like “Dad, I’m Gay! By the way, can I have a bigger allowance?”
How so? VMI’s position was that its traditions should exempt it from the government’s rules against sex discrimination, yet it should still receive government funding. Perhaps the better teenager analogy is “No, I didn’t take out the garbage. I hate taking out the garbage and I’ll never do it again. You should give me my allowance anyway.”
How so? VMI’s position was that its traditions should exempt it from the government’s rules against sex discrimination, yet it should still receive government funding.
I take exception to the analogy that VMI ‘hated Dad’ part. VMI wasn’t showing disdain for the government. They may have been trying to stick with a tradition that might have been anathema to dear old Dad, or in this case, not within keeping of the strings placed on the public money by government policy.
Rebeling against one’s parents’ ideals doesn’t mean you hate them. Following the analogy, desiring to continue the long standing single sex tradition, one that was working well by most accounts, doesn’t mean you hate the government, or even that you hate women….
Of course, ‘Dad’ ended up sending VMI to ‘Love in Action’ to get them straightened out..
VMI wasn’t showing disdain for the government.
It’s surely true that disagreeing with the government doesn’t mean you hate the government, but I rather think VMI showed disdain for the government–or at least, for its insistence that if you take the money, you have to play fair with it. Certainly its supporters showed something more than ‘disdain.’
I’m curious as to how you think enforcing rules against sex-based discrimination is analogous to a forced re-education camp. Did the FBI send the directors of VMI to Gitmo?
I’m curious as to how you think enforcing rules against sex-based discrimination is analogous to a forced re-education camp.
And you think in VMI’s case it was not ‘forced re-education’?
VMI’s directors had their own ideas how the school should be run. The government showed them the error of their ways, in the way the government usually discourages actions they [we] find undesirable. They threatened them with both legal action and the withholding of public funds, which pretty much would have shut the doors of the institute.
Isn’t that pretty much the way forced re-education works? Coercion and Threats?
And you think in VMI’s case it was not ‘forced re-education’?
No, it was not. VMI had the choice of relying on private money. You were probably one of those teens who called your dad a Fascist when he made you take out the garbage, right?
No, it was not. VMI had the choice of relying on private money. You were probably one of those teens who called your dad a Fascist when he made you take out the garbage, right?
Are you implying that threats to withhold financial support or threatening legal action is not coercion?
Are you one of those women that blame the victims of DV for going back to their abusive spouses because they have children and are financially dependent on their partners? She should have just been brave and lived on the street with her children right? Or she could just accept the occasional recreational beating and gone on about her business, secure and happy.
The choice for VMI was to kiss government ass, or fold up shop. Now that *is* fascist..
she could just accept the occasional recreational beating and gone on about her business, secure and happy.
OK, NOT going to run off on this tangent, but OI!!!
Double OI!!
I sure hope you were being facetious. If not, then it would be blatantly apparent that you’ve never had to live/deal with abuse issues.
I sure hope you were being facetious. If not, then it would be blatantly apparent that you’ve never had to live/deal with abuse issues.
Actually, yes I have had to live/deal with abuse issues and am well aware of dynamics of it. When I was a kid, my kid brother and I used to watch my Mom beat up on my Dad (who was too much of a gentleman to fight back), and then call the cops called on him for DV. But that is a long and unpleasant story unrelated to this thread. Let’s just say I have a different perspective based on my experiences, than is espoused on many a pro-feminist blog..
The ‘facetiousness’ of this example, was used to illustrate the VMI story where the institute was either given the option to comply or be destroyed (not driven to private money, which would not have been adequate to support the existing programs at the time). Yet, Mythago seems to want to blame the victim, VMI, for being threatened and bullied with closure. Sure.. they could have, and eventually did, knuckle under and take both the money, and the strings attached to it (the beatings).
Oh, and also, I never called my Dad a fascist.